Loading...
CEB Minutes 02/25/2016 February 25, 2016 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, February 25, 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 Ron Doino Gerald J. Lefebvre James Lavinski Lionel L'Esperance Tony Marino (Excused) Sue Curley (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Tamara Lynne Nicola, Attorney to the Board Jeffrey Letourneau Code Enforcement Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA AGENDA Date: February 25, 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 Ronald Doino, Gerald Lefebvre,Vice Chair James Lavinski Lionel L' Esperance Robert Ashton Tony Marino Sue Curley,Alternate 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. January 25,2016 Hearing 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. Motions Motion for Continuance Motion for Extension of Time B. Stipulations 1 C. Hearings 1. CASE NO: CEVR20150021469 OWNER: U.S.BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,AS TRUSTEE,FOR RASC 2006-EMX3 OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHAELLE CROWLEY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 3.05.08(C) PRESENCE OF PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION,INCLUDING,BUT NOT LIMITED TO, BRAZILIAN PEPPER,UPON A PROPERTY DEVELOPED AFTER 1991,FOR WHICH THERE IS A REQUIREMENT TO KEEP THE PROPERTY FREE OF EXOTIC VEGETATION IN PERPETUITY. FOLIO NO: 66262006624 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 205 SKIPPING STONE LANE,NAPLES 2. CASE NO: CESD20150017917 OWNER: RAFFAELE FABRIZIO&JANICE FABRIZIO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR VIRGINIE GIGUERE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 10,02.06 (B)(1)(A).POOL PERMIT PRBD20140514906 EXPIRED LEAVING POOL WITH NO PERMANENT SAFETY BARRIER CREATING A HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARD FOLIO NO: 69770005842 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3158 SAGINAW BAY OR,NAPLES 3. CASE NO: CESD20150007420 OWNER: NWFP HOLDINGS CORP OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A).ALTERATIONS TO STRUCTURE WITHOUT APPLICABLE COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 62150200002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 11163 TAMIAMI TRL E,NAPLES 4. CASE NO: CESD2 01.5.0D 1 3777 OWNER; FRANKIE SANCHEZ&GABRIELA SANCHEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A).AN ADDITION(INCREASED SQUARE FOOTAGE)ATTACHED TO A PERMITTED WOOD STORAGE SHED TO INCLUDE A KITCHEN AND A THREE FIXTURE BATHROOM BUILT WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PERMIT(S), INSPECTIONS,AND CERTIFICATE(S)OF OCCUPANCY. FOLIO NO: 30683000002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1407 TANGERINE ST,IMMOKALEE 5. CASE NO: CESD20150002399 OWNER: EVA M.SILVA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (BX I XA).A MOBILE HOME PLACED AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS/STRUCTURES,WITH ELECTRIC AND WATER,BUILT WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PERMITS,INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY AND COMPLETIONS. FOLIO NO: 60180400007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 220 N 4TH ST,IMMOKALEE 2 6. CASE NO: CESD20150018562 OWNER: ROBERT J DOUGLAS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A).DOCK AND BOAT LIFT INSTALLED ON IMPROVED OCCUPIED WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE REQUIRED PERMIT(S), INSPECTIONS,CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY/COMPLETION. FOLIO NO: 46420920009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 631 PALM AVE,GOODLAND 7. CASE NO: CEAU20150020251 OWNER: WILLIAM ROBERT ANDREWS JR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: 2014 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE,CHAPTER 1, SECTION 105.A FENCE INSTALLED ON IMPROVED CONSERVATION PROPERTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE REQUIRED PERMITS,INSPECTIONS,AND CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION. FOLIO NO: 374240004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1516 PANTHER RD,COLLIER COUNTY 8. CASE NO: CESD20150021350 OWNER: WILLIAM ROBERT ANDREWS JR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A).OBSERVED SEVERAL PERMITTING VIOLATIONS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: LARGE SOLAR PANELS,TWO STORAGE SHEDS,DETACHED GARAGE,A LARGE COMMUNICATION TOWER/ANTENNA,A SCREENED WOOD DECK ATTACHED TO THE DWELLING,AND TWO POLE BARNS ON IMPROVED CONSERVATION PROPERTY ALL WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE REQUIRED PERMIT(S),INSPECTIONS,AND OF CERTIFICATE OCCUPANCY/COMPLETION. FOLIO NO: 374240004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1516 PANTHER RD,COLLIER COUNTY 9. CASE NO: CEPM20150024335 OWNER: DAVIS CROSSINGS VIII LLC ET AL OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEPHEN ATHEY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 22,ARTICLE VI,SECTION 22-236.DANGEROUS BUILDING. FOLIO NO: 34690080008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 8770 DAVIS BLVD,NAPLES B. Motion for Reduction of Fines/Lien. 3 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. CASE NO: CENA20150008263 OWNER: 333 INVESTMENTS LAND TRUST OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHAELLE CROWLEY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 54,ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54-185(D).PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION,INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO EARLEAF ACACIA AND BRAZILIAN PEPPER,LOCATED UPON UNIMPROVED PROPERTY WITHIN 200-FOOT RADIUS OF IMPROVED RESIDENTIALLY PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 288040002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1450 WHIPPOORWILL LANE,NAPLES 2. CASE NO: CESD20I40004266 OWNER: CARMEN B CINTRON EST OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JUAN SERNA HERRERA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A).FOUR STRUCTURES ERECTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 63858720003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 908 GLADES ST,IMMOKALEE 3. CASE NO: CESD20140004241 OWNER: NKY ACQUISITIONS LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JON HOAGBOON VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,ORDINANCE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(E).MAJOR RE-MODELING TO INTERIOR OF STRUCTURE INCLUDING FRAMING,PLUMBING,ELECTRICAL RENOVATION AND/OR REPLACEMENT WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 62760840001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 795 102ND AVE N,NAPLES 4. CASE NO: CEROW20140012496 OWNER: MARIA PADILLA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 110,ARTICLE II,DIVISION 1,SECTION 110-31(A).ENCLOSED SWALE IN RIGHT OF WAY WITHOUT APPLICABLE COLLIER COUNTY PERMIT(S). FOLIO NO: 62254520002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5341 MITCHELL ST,NAPLES 5. CASE NO: CESD20130003491 OWNER: OASIS AT NAPLES,THE A CONDOMINIUM OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A)&2007 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE,CHAPTER 1,SECTION 110.4. 12 EXPIRED BUILDING PERMITS ON PROPERTY AS LISTED PRBD20120101429, 201201 01430,20120101431,20120101432,20120101 433,2012010 1434,20120101435,20120101436, 201 20101 437,20120101438,20120101439,2012010145. FOLIO NO: 238446009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: ARBOUR WALK CIR,NAPLES 4 6. CASE NO: CEVR20140018858 OWNER: MICHAEL T JOHNSON& LORI R JOHNSON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHAELLE CROWLEY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 3.05.01(B); AND COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 22,ARTICLE IV, SECTION 22-108. REMOVAL OF NATIVE AND NON-NATIVE VEGETATION BY HEAVY MACHINERY WITHOUT REQUIRED COUNTY PERMIT;PLACEMENT OF LIME-ROCK FILL AND MULCH/CHIPPED MATERIAL ON CLEARED SITE WITHOUT REQUIRED COUNTY PERMIT OR AUTHORIZATION,EXCAVATION OF EXISTING GROUND MATERIAL TO A DEPTH GREATER THAN 3 FEET OVER A LARGE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY,THEN REPLACEMENT OF THE REMOVED MATERIAL WITH FILL BROUGHT IN FROM OUTSIDE WITHOUT REQUIRED COUNTY PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 00341440002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: NO SITE ADDRESS,NAPLES 7. CASE NO: CESD20130008321 OWNER: ANTONIO LOUISSAINT OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOSEPH MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).AN UNPERMITTED ADDITION BEING USED AS LIVING SPACE WITH A THREE FIXTURE BATHROOM TO INCLUDE ELECTRIC AND PLUMBING.ALSO INSTALLED NEW WINDOWS AND DOORS ALL CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PERMIT(S),INSPECTION(S)AND CERTIFICATE(S)OF OCCUPANCY AS REQUIRED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING CODE. FOLIO NO: 00134120005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 610 S 5TH ST,IMMOKALEE B. Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order C. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order 7. NEW BUSINESS 8. CONSENT AGENDA A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. 9. REPORTS 10. COMMENTS 11. NEXT MEETING DATE- March 24,2016 12. ADJOURN 5 February 25, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, everybody. I think now is a perfect opportunity to -- I delayed it long enough till Gerald got here -- the perfect opportunity to turn off your cell phones, if you have one. Notice: That the respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation unless additional time is granted by the Board. Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes unless the time is adjusted by the Chairman. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Robert 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. If we'll all stand, and -- Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Let's start out with the roll call, if you will. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Robert Kaufman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Ronald Doino? MR. DOINO: Present. Page 2 February 25, 2016 MS. ADAMS: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKI: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Robert Ashton? MR. ASHTON: Here. MS. ADAMS: And Mr. Tony Marino has an excused absence, and Ms. Sue Curley is absent. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have some changes to the agenda. MS. ADAMS: No. 5, public hearings/motions, Letter A, motions, motion for continuance: We have one addition. It's from imposition of fines, No. 3, Tab 12, Case CESD20140004241, NKY Acquisitions, LLC. Motion for extension of time; we have one addition. It's from imposition of fines, No. 2, Tab 11, Case CESD20140004266, Carmen B. Cintron Estate. Letter B, stipulations; we have five additions. The first is No. 7 from hearings, Tab 7, Case CEAU20150020251, William Robert Andrews, Jr. The second is No. 8 from hearings, Tab 8, Case CESD20150021350, William Robert Andrews, Jr. The third is No. 6 from hearings, Tab 6, Case CESD20150018562, Robert J. Douglas. The fourth is No. 4 from hearings, Tab 4, Case CESD20150013777, Frankie Sanchez and Gabriela Sanchez. The fifth is No. 5 from hearings, Tab 5, Case CESD20150002399, Eva M. Silva; Letter C, hearings, Number 1, Tab 1, Case CEVR20150021469, U.S. Bank National Association as trustee for RASC 2006-EMX3, has been withdrawn. Number 4, Tab 4, the case number is incorrect. The correct case number should be CESD20150013777. Page 3 February 25, 2016 Number 6, old business, Letter A, motion for imposition of fines/liens: Number 6, Tab 15, Case CEVR20140018858, Michael T. Johnson and Lori R. Johnson, has been withdrawn, and that's all the changes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve the agenda. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to approve the agenda as modified. All those in favor? MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. We have at our positions some paperwork that you may want to take a couple of minutes to look through at some point, maybe look through it when the case comes before us. Having said that, why don't we begin. Oh, the minutes. We need a motion to accept the minutes. MR. ASHTON: Motion to accept the minutes. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any changes that anybody has on the minutes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. DOINO: Aye. Page 4 February 25, 2016 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. MS. ADAMS: Okay. The first motion for continuance, imposition of fines, No. 3, Tab 12, Case CESD20140004241, NKY Acquisitions, LLC. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. If the Board would take a minute or two and read what is at their position. It's a letter from the law office of Richard Cimino. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. Question from Mr. Lefebvre. MR. LEFEBVRE: What is the relationship of Mr. DeFrank with NKY? MR. HOAGBOON: Okay. For the record, Jon Hoagboon, Collier County Code Enforcement. He's going to be acquiring the new title, that is the hope, once it goes to auction. MR. LEFEBVRE: But what's the relationship now? Is he the -- did he finance this property? I mean, what's -- MR. HOAGBOON: Lienholder. MR. LEFEBVRE: He's the mortgage holder? MR. HOAGBOON: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't we just begin with, Page 5 February 25, 2016 we have a letter from Mr. Cimino saying that he represents Mr. DeFrank in connection with the foreclosure, then I'm going to come to you to explain what I'm reading. That's being foreclosed on the 10th of March. MR. HOAGBOON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And it looks like he will be the high bidder on this. MR. HOAGBOON: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And he would like a continuance to apply for the proper permits, demolish the buildings, et cetera. MR. HOAGBOON: Yes, sir, that's correct. Basically, he wants to acquire the property in order to demo it. He's an investor. NKY, they held on to that property for a very, very long time. I guess, basically, they were shopping for investors. They finally found one. He's going to, more than likely, you know, get the auction and invest in that permit. It's prime real estate. That's what he wants to do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand that. Is Mr. Cimino here? MR. HOAGBOON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: My question on this is, there's a $42,000 amount that was on -- that was authorized by the Board. And what they're asking to do now is to postpone implementing that so that somebody can apply for the permits and -- I'm not naive -- ask for the fines to be abated at that time. MR. HOAGBOON: Yes, sir. I believe that was the hope before it got to this point. They were hoping to find an investor before it got to this date, and it took a little longer than they expected. Page 6 February 25, 2016 THE COURT: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Some discussion from the Board? MR. LEFEBVRE: So he's not the current lienholder; is that correct? MR. HOAGBOON: Correct. Final judgment of foreclosure was heard and put into the court system on the 8th of February, so... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the bank -- the bank currently owns the property? MR. HOAGBOON: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: No. MR. SANTAFEMIA: No. For the record, John Santafemia, Collier County Code Enforcement. Mr. DeFrank is the current lienholder on this property for the mortgage. He's put this foreclosure action against NKY to basically foreclose on that property against them. His attorney is representing him in that letter that -- where he's requesting for the continuance. While the auction is set for March 10th, I believe -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. SANTAFEMIA: -- obviously there is no guarantee that he's going to get the property. None of that is a guarantee. That's -- the Board needs to -- we would like the Board to consider that -- you know, the age of this case. It has been continued before -- for the imposition already once before, so -- but that's -- he's basically the current lienholder, the mortgage holder foreclosing on NKY. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: So if he foreclosures on it and we impose the fine, then that fine, obviously, would have to be paid at some Page 7 February 25, 2016 point, or would it be wiped out in the foreclosure? MR. SANTAFEMIA: I don't -- MS. NICOLA: I don't do foreclosure law, so I have no idea. I don't think it's wiped out if they're not included, if the Board's not included, but I don't know. That would be something I have to look at. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, typically, on the foreclosures, let's say a bank has $100,000 mortgage on a property and it sold on the courthouse steps. The bank shows up, bids $100 (sic). If nobody else bids, they wind up with the property. They can bid it all the way up to that $100,000 without it costing them any money at all. This is a different situation where the $42,000 probably would need to be satisfied, I'm guessing, in order for the title to transfer, or maybe I'm wrong. MS. NICOLA: I have no idea. I mean, you guys are talking about imposing a lien between the time of a foreclosure judgment being entered and a sale on the courthouse steps. I don't know the answer to that, and I would be a little concerned about what happens in between, then you get a -- if this person doesn't buy this property, the guy that we're talking about, and then we have a buyer who buys it on the courthouse steps, is that person going to have sufficient notice of the fact that the liens have been imposed between now and then, and then we have a new guy coming in here with the same issues? And then the other thing is, is if the Board imposes the liens today, this $42,000 -- I mean, I'm just thinking practically. We might have a person who seriously intends on cleaning up this property, and they're going to say, well, the Board just imposed $42,000 on this property. Now it's not worth my while to follow through with my intentions which are to demo it and make it, you know, up to code, so... Page 8 February 25, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, the $42,000 is part of the record for anybody who wants to bid on the property, so they're not going in it with a blindfold. They know that there's $42,000, and they would adjust their bid accordingly, just like they would go in and find out that a bank has a mortgage on a property that's being foreclosed for $100,000. So this is not an unknown number whether the Board imposes that fine or not. MS. NICOLA: Well, No. But the difficulty is, when is it going to sale? MR. SANTAFEMIA: March 10. MS. NICOLA: So it's going to sale March 10th, and we're meeting today. And by the time we get the orders entered and signed and recorded, is that going to be sufficient notice for somebody who's going to purchase at a foreclosure sale on March 10th? I think it's a little close. MR. SANTAFEMIA: And I'm not sure the actual number, the $42,000 number. The order -- the Board's order would obviously come up with the records showing that there is a code case and that there are fines that are accruing. But until they're actually imposed, then there's nothing recorded as to that 42,000, the number specific. You can do the math on your own, obviously, but, you know, there's a lot to consider because the March 10 day, you know, they don't always go. They don't always go on that same date. I've seen them postponed numerous times doing foreclosure stuff. So there's no guarantee, I don't think, either way on this except the fact that, you know, if this gentleman is foreclosing on this property, he is well aware that there's a code case. That's why Page 9 February 25, 2016 he had his attorney write this letter. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And I would assume -- and we've seen this before also -- that when someone buys this property, knowing that the $42,000, or whatever the actual amount is, is sitting out there, they would be able to purchase this property by a large discount because of the lien that will be imposed, if we impose it now or in the future. So typically -- MR. SANTAFEMIA: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- that's what happens. MR. SANTAFEMIA: Mr. DeFrank is actually the lienholder, so whether somebody comes in and underbids him, you know, or outbids him, I should say, and takes the property away from him, you know, that's -- those are unknowns. You know, there's no way for us to know that. I know some of you have had experience in this area, so there's no guarantees either way. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah. My question is, is this lien superior to the foreclosure action, or is it behind? So is it wiped out? Like, a first mortgage and a second mortgage, first lienholder foreclosures, the second gets -- MR. SANTAFEMIA: I don't think our -- Kerry, are our liens -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Our liens are generally ahead of even a mortgage. MR. LEFEBVRE: I know Jeff, when -- MR. SANTAFEMIA: They call them super liens or something? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: I remember with Jeff there was a question of that regarding our liens, so... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Should we grant an extension Page 10 February 25, 2016 or continuance, if you will -- that way the fines would continue to accrue. If we were to grant that to the next meeting, could we have some expertise at that time as to what the different options are? I'm assuming that should he purchase this property, he will be before us at that time requesting something. MR. LEFEBVRE: This is a catch-22. MR. SANTAFEMIA: He's obviously not going to request anything until he gets that property into compliance. The Board won't even entertain his request at that point. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's why I'm surprised that he's not here right now. MR. SANTAFEMIA: And, again, it's all an unknown, because you could postpone this for a month, and they could postpone the courthouse sale for a month. We could be right back where we started a month from now, but I certainly -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The only different is the fines would be higher. MR. SANTAFEMIA: Correct. And I can certainly look into options as to, you know, where our lien or whatever would sit. But a lot of that, too, until after the 10th of March, until we find out whether this property's actually gone anywhere -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, if that's a motion, I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hold on a second. MR. LEFEBVRE: Hold on before we make a motion. Could we table this for maybe an hour and see if we can get the county attorney to give us an answer on that and then come back and -- I think that might be -- MR. LETOURNEAU: I'll call the county attorney and find out, if you'd like to do that. MR. LEFEBVRE: I would like to do that, because that way Page 11 February 25, 2016 we would have a clearer picture on where we stand for our lien and what our options are. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you want to table this till the end of our agenda? MR. LEFEBVRE: Or until we have a -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Or if a -- we don't have anybody here that's testifying. We're not holding anybody over -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- so it shouldn't be a problem. MR. LEFEBVRE: If that's -- I'd like to make a motion that we table this until -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Till the end of the agenda item (sic) or sooner. Lionel, do you have any problem with that? MR. L'ESPERANCE: I will second that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second to table this to later in the meeting. All those in favor? MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks. MS. ADAMS: Next case, motion for extension of time from imposition of fines, No. 2, Tab 11, Case CESD20140004266, Carmen B. Cintron Estate. Page 12 February 25, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This is another letter that we have at our position. You may want to take a minute or two to read it. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning. MR. CINTRON: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Your name, for the record, for the microphone. MR. CINTRON: Luis Alberto Cintron. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I have your letter of request here. Why don't you give us a little background; we can go from there. MR. CINTRON: What I'm trying to do is trying -- you know, I'm working. I'm having this -- you know, because my mom had passed away. My sister and my brother passed away. I'm trying to get everything under my name. I'm trying to be in compliance with the Board, Code Enforcement and everything. I'm trying to do everything that I can, you know, just to have it, you know, to be in compliance. So I just need a little time. I mean, it's not easy for me to get a permit because it's not under my name. So I'm trying to do everything that is possible, which I got a permit. And I did meet my deadlines of knocking down the buildings. I mean, there's some little debris, you know, that I have to clean up still. But, like I say, I work every day. I'm trying to, you know, clean up. And that's all I need, you know. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And how much time do you think you need to get everything cleaned up and in compliance? MR. CINTRON: Well, I want you-all to give me a little bit Page 13 February 25, 2016 of time, six months or a year, so I can -- because I work every day. My -- you know, the dump is closed when I come. I mean, I moved all -- you know, most of the debris, you know, I just -- you know, most of the stuff that's out there is my personal items, you know, like, that I had in the shed, and I just need to move them. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What needs to be torn down? I'm -- MR. CINTRON: Everything's already torn down. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. CINTRON: Everything -- I'm in compliance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Now the debris -- the debris from tearing everything down is what needs to be removed? MR. CINTRON: Just some of it, just some of it, because most of it's already gone. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you think that's going to take you six months to do? MR. CINTRON: Or at least -- three months at least. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Joe? MR. MUCHA: For the record, Joe Mucha with Code Enforcement. I did make a site visit to the property yesterday. He is correct, all the structures have been demolished. I mean, there is a decent amount of debris that's left. I did inform Mr. Cintron that the county's having a free cleanup in Immokalee on March 5th, Saturday, that he would be able to utilize to bring his stuff for free. I mean, he's just got to maybe just set aside that day and just do it, get some help, and he could probably knock it out in one day, I bet, if he had some helpers and -- you know, I don't know if you have a truck or not, but -- Page 14 February 25, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you're familiar with the cleanup day? MR. CINTRON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you think you can get it all done on that day? MR. MUCHA: A good chunk of it, at least. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Maybe we could get some volunteers from here to help you. I'm tied up myself, but -- MR. CINTRON: I'm trying to do everything that's possible, and I'm trying to get my brother and sister's -- trying, you know, to get the house under my name so I can get permits when I need them. And it's not -- it's not easy, you know. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't we consider a continuance on this for, say, 60 days or so. MR. DOINO: Sounds good. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And then we'll see how much progress is being made. If there's progress that's being made and it's not quite done, that's a good thing, or maybe it's all done, and MR. CINTRON: Hopefully it will be. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Would somebody like to make a motion to that effect? MR. LAVINSKI: I'll make a -- go ahead. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Ashton? MR. ASHTON: Make a motion for a 60-day extension. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second for a 60-day continuance. MR. ASHTON: Continuance, continuance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any discussion on the Page 15 February 25, 2016 motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Sixty days. If it's not all done in 60 days you'll come back, and we'll talk at that time. MR. CINTRON: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hopefully it will be all done. MR. CINTRON: Thank you. MR. MUCHA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The first stipulation is No. 7 from hearings, Tab 7, Case CEAU20150020251, William Robert Andrews, Jr. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Steve, you look like you're the only one in town on this one. Why don't you read the stipulation into the record. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Sure. Good morning. For the record, Steven Lopez-Silvero, Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Pay operational costs in the amount of 64.59 incurred in the Page 16 February 25, 2016 prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Number 2, abate all violations by applying for and obtaining all permits, inspections, and certificate of completion and/or -- excuse me -- or must remove said structure and/or improvements, including materials from the property and restore to a permitted state within 180 days of this hearing, or a fine of$100 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Number 3, respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; and, Number 4, that the respondent, if-- correction -- 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. I have one question. This is to a -- to get a permit for a fence? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Six months seems like a long time to me. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: This is a rural area of Collier County out in Ochopee. The property's approximately five acres in size. The property owner has completed a survey, and he's in the process of obtaining the permit; the fence permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Says it's on a conservation. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: That's correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is a fence allowed on a conservation land? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: We've checked the zoning or the Page 17 February 25, 2016 zoning districts or zoning regulations; they are permitted. MR. LEFEBVRE: They are permitted, okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Joe, you have something to say? (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. MUCHA: For the record, Joe Mucha with Code Enforcement. Since we have two cases -- the other case involves a lot more permitting issues -- I just figured six months on each just to kind of keep it -- I understand it won't take six month to get a fence permit done, but I just figured six months for each so it's kind of continuity with the two cases; same owner, same property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MUCHA: That's just the reasoning behind the six months. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So I'm not going to hear the other case until this one is done, but just basically looking ahead: Large solar panels, two storage sheds -- detached -- a bunch of stuff that's on the property. MR. MUCHA: The second one is very involved, with a lot of structures and, yeah, solar panels, antennas, et cetera. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We did hear one that was way out in the rural area years ago, and they were very limited on what could be put on those sites. I know that's why Mr. Lefebvre asked that question. MR. MUCHA: That's why maybe the six months will give them time to figure out maybe, okay, I might have to take this fence out, too, you know, and give them six months on everything. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the Page 18 February 25, 2016 Board on -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Motion to approve the stipulated agreement. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and second to approve the stip. Any discussion on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. ADAMS: The next stipulation is No. 8 from hearings, Tab 8, Case CESD20150021350, William Robert Andrews, Jr. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Before you read the stipulation, this is the -- I just wanted to read what the violation was into the record so that we know what we're dealing with. There were several permitting violations including, but not limited to, large solar panels, two storage sheds, a detached garage, a large communications tower/antenna, a screened wooden deck attached to the dwelling, two pole barns on the improved property, conservation property, all without first obtaining required permits, Page 19 February 25, 2016 inspections, certificates of occupancy. Now we go back to Mr. Lefebvre's question. Is this permitted on that property based on zoning or not? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: I have a determination from the building official for all those improvements. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: And what was stated is if there's no ag exemption, permits will be required for all improvements. And I did do the research; there's no ag exemption for that property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So it's not an agricultural property. But all the other things, solar panels, storage sheds, all that was put up without permits? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: The question is, in that zoning can these items be permitted? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And what I keep on reading is the same word over and over again, the conversation -- conservation property. MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: As I said, we have heard cases in the past where these things were not permitted to be put in at all, but why don't you read the stipulation, and let's discuss it. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Sure. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Number 1, pay operational costs in the amount of 65.01 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Page 20 February 25, 2016 Number 2, abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits and/or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion and/or occupancy within 180 days of this hearing, or a fine of$250 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Number 3, respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; and, Number 4, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I would hate to be back here six months from now and nothing be done. Is there any way that we -- and I know ifs -- the stipulation is the stipulation, and the respondent is not here so we can't modify it. But I wonder if there's any way that we can have somebody take a look and see if there's any progress being made between now and six months. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Well, the property owner does seem adamant and is cooperating. He has shown efforts. He's showed me his completed survey, and he's now in the process of -- he's hired an architect to come up with the engineer drawings and engineers and all that stuff. He should be obtaining or at least applying for the permit shortly. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Did he buy this property in this condition? Can you tell if these improvements were prior to 2014 when he bought it? Page 21 February 25, 2016 MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: They were. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. So he bought the property in its current state without probably knowing. It's kind of hard to -- we either have to agree to the stipulated agreement or go to a hearing and come up with our version. I mean, it would be nice if there's a way to come in, at least give us an update maybe every two months or so, but I don't think we can require them unless we -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Not on the stipulation. MR. LETOURNEAU: You could just ask Code Enforcement to come in, and we'd gladly do it. As long as Kerry could remember to have that on the agenda for our report, and that doesn't have to be, really, part of the stipulation. It's just something that we could do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So before we vote on the stipulation, with the nods from the Board, I'd like to see them at least touch base two or three months from now, three months, put it on the agenda, come back and say, he's started working; something is happening on this. That shouldn't be a big deal. If-- agreement from the Board on that? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. MR. LEFEBVRE: The other worry is, he's not local. He's from Miami, so -- nothing against people from Miami, but he's not local, so I just want to make sure that he's on top of it. But it sounds like he's already taken steps to get this corrected, so... MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: That's correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. I make a motion to accept the stipulated agreement. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Page 22 February 25, 2016 Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks, Steve. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Chairman, the case -- the first motion for continuance is ready to be called back, if you wanted to do that now, or if you want to wait till the end; it's up to the Board. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't we wait till the end, because we have people waiting now. MS. ADAMS: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We'll just delay the Code Enforcement people from going back to their activities. MS. ADAMS: Okay. No problem. And the next stipulation is No. 6 from hearings, Tab 6, Case CESD20150018562, Robert J. Douglas. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You look familiar. Okay. Why don't you read the stipulation. This was a dock and a lift without a permit. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: That's correct. Page 23 February 25, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Pay operational costs in the amount of 64.59 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Number 2, abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits and/or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of$200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Number 3, respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the inspector -- correction -- the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; and, Number 4, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any discussion on this stipulation? MR. LEFEBVRE: To receive this -- to get this fully permitted, does it need any -- does this boat dock require any state or federal permitting? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: No, just with the county. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just the county, okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No Corps of Engineers, army engineers? Yeah, because then he'd need years. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Page 24 February 25, 2016 MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second; Bob Ashton. Any discussion on it? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks, Steve. MS. ADAMS: The next stipulation is No. 4 from hearings, Tab 4, Case CESD20150013777, Frankie Sanchez and Gabriela Sanchez. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This looks like it was an addition to a shed; is that correct? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That included a kitchen, bathroom fixtures, et cetera? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't you read the stipulation, and we'll go from there. Page 25 February 25, 2016 MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Pay operational costs in the amount of 65.01 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Number 2, abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits and/or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion and/or occupancy within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of$200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Number 3, respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; and, Number 4, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you know whether he's going to do this by affidavit or just going to start pulling the building permits and pulling the inspections, et cetera? The reason I ask is because of the timing on it. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Well, the property owner has hired a contractor, H&L Bennett, and they have recently, as of the 23rd of February, applied for the permit for the shed. Now, they've removed the kitchen and the bathroom, so it's back to its original permitted state, which was just a storage shed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Nobody's living there? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: No, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Okay. Discussion from the Board? Page 26 February 25, 2016 MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept as written. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to approve the stipulation. Any discussion on that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. ADAMS: The next stipulation is No. 5 from hearings, Tab 5, Case CESD20150002399, Eva M. Silva. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This was a mobile home that was put on the property without a permit? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You've been in touch with them, and they intend to either remove the mobile home or get it permitted? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: The mobile home has since been removed, and it's all -- the mobile -- or the initial complaint was a mobile home and other structures. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the mobile home is gone? Page 27 February 25, 2016 MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: The mobile home's gone, and the property owner's working on -- she's applied for four permits, one being the demolition of the mobile home and the other three for the other three structures that do remain. Two are sheds, and one is a storage and carport building. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't you read the stipulation into the record? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Number 1, pay operational costs in the amount of 64.17 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Number 2, abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits and/or -- correction -- or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion and/or occupancy within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Number 3, respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; and, Number 4, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any discussion on the stipulation? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motion? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept -- Page 28 February 25, 2016 MR. ASHTON: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 2 from hearings, Tab 2, Case CESD20150017917, Raffaele Fabrizio and Janice Fabrizio. MR. BONAQUIST: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you state your name on the mike? MR. BONAQUIST: Yes, sir. My name is Jim Bonaquist. I'm an attorney. I represent Mr. Fabrizio. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We don't have to swear you in, by the way. Just -- we trust attorneys. I don't know why, but -- Page 29 February 25, 2016 MS. NICOLA: Because you should. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh. Spoken like a true attorney. MR. BONAQUIST: So I just wanted to tell you what has happened to Mr. Fabrizio. I understand that his permit for his pool has expired, and that's the problem; that there really isn't a health and safety issue with respect to the barrier; that the barrier is there. That -- okay. So last January, January of 2015, more than a year ago, Mr. Fabrizio entered into a contract with the permit holder, Jackson Pools, to do an extensive repair and finishing up of his pool that had been abandoned by his prior pool contractor. Ten months later, it hadn't happened. Came to see me, wrote a demand letter to Jackson that they finish the job. They ignored it, so we terminated them. In October of last year, we got a new pool contractor involved. I've spoken to the president four different times; October 20th, December 11th, most recently January 20 and 21, extensive conversations, asked him what's going on, would he please finish this for Mr. Fabrizio. I was assured on each occasion it would happen. Apparently it didn't happen, and now we received a notice of this hearing. I forwarded that to the pool contractor, and we've called and emailed him every day since then with no response. So this is now the third contractor for Mr. Fabrizio that hasn't followed through. I would just say, it's really through no fault of his own. He's tried. He lives in New Jersey. He comes down. He fined out nothing's done, he calls me, I call the pool company, and that's what's been going on now for quite a while with him. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. What we've done here is Page 30 February 25, 2016 kind of gone out of order. We were going to have you present the case, and then you can rebut it. So why don't we -- now we have a little background that you can present your case with. MS. GIGUERE: Good morning. For the record, Vicky Giguere, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20150017917 dealing with violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), a pool permit PRDB20140514906, expired, leaving pool with no permanent safety barrier creating a health and safety hazard, located at 3158 Saginaw Bay Drive, Naples, Florida, 34119. Folio number is 69770005842. Service was given on September 11, 2015. I have the case evidence in the following exhibits: An aerial photograph of the property, one photo taken September 9, 2015, and one photo taken November 10, 2015. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Has the respondent's attorney seen these photos? MS. GIGUERE: Yes, he has. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any problem with us admitting them as evidence? MR. BONAQUIST: No, I don't. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Motion to -- MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- accept? MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 31 February 25, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. GIGUERE: So this complaint originally came in from our contractor licensing department, and so we went out and observed -- on September 9th I saw the orange construction-type fence, which is an approved temporary barrier while they're in the permitting process; however, at that time I did find that the permit for the pool had expired on the 3rd of September. I called the property owner and left a message on September 9th and issued the notice of violation after that. I checked CityView for permits on October 12th and found a permit for the pool was in re-activate status at that time, and there was also a permit for the screen enclosure to go around the pool, and it had already been put up. So at that time we decided to give more time to complete the permit since progress was being made. But after that point, the permit just stayed in expired status. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What date was that that you -- that the screen enclosure went in? MS. GIGUERE: The permit was applied for for the screen enclosure on September 10th. And by my recheck on the -- I believe the date was 10th, the screen enclosure had already been put up. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And it wasn't inspected? MS. GIGUERE: Yes. They have had inspections on the screen enclosure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What was the -- if you know, Page 32 February 25, 2016 the last date of the inspection? MS. GIGUERE: I do. It looks like here actually a couple of weeks ago in February. But they have -- they're just missing their final inspection at this point for the screen enclosure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And this is all part of the same permit? MS. GIGUERE: No. That's a separate permit. So it took care of the health and safety issues as far as the pool permit being expired because it did have a permanent barrier around it, so that's why we granted them in a little more time before taking them to hearing, hoping that the pool permit would be finished. And I had spoken to the property owner. He explained to me the issue with the contractors and whatnot. So at that time we felt there was no health and safety issue. But, unfortunately, the permit remained expired from the beginning of this case, and so here we are. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: On the permit that's expired -- I'll explain why I'm asking these questions in a minute. On the permit that is expired, when was the last inspection on that permit performed? MS. GIGUERE: June of 2015. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Because, as you know, once you do an inspection, it extends the time on the permit. MS. GIGUERE: Correct, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the first thing we're trying to find out here is whether a violation exists or not. So that's why I'm asking those questions. Okay. Do you have any other information to provide to us? MS. GIGUERE: At this time, No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Now, we have heard part of your explanation. And as I said, we discuss, then we'll Page 33 February 25, 2016 either have a finding of whether there is a violation or there isn't. If there is no violation, that's the end. If there is a violation, then we'll hear ways of abating the violation, so. I cut you off in the middle. I'm sorry. MR. BONAQUIST: That's quite all right. I really have no facts bearing on whether there's a violation or not. I didn't expect to be here today. Mr. Fabrizio is in New Jersey. He lives there. He works there. I just wanted to come to the Board and explain what was going on through no fault of his own. He's been trying -- and I have personal knowledge of that -- to get this done. He's just been let down by the folks that said they would take care of it for him. And since there is no life/health/safety issue, what I would ask is that he be granted as much time as possible to get a new contractor in to pull the permit and just get it closed out and get it done. And it's going to -- we called a pool company for him yesterday, a new one, and the information we received was everybody is very, very, very busy right now. We don't know if we can get out there and, if so, when we can get out there. So I think we're going to need at least 120 days, and I would ask for more than that, actually, so we don't need to come back. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Before we do that, we either have to find that the respondent is in violation or not. I have one question for the county. This came from contractors licensing? MS. GIGUERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did they provide any information on their investigation as far as the contractors are concerned? MS. GIGUERE: It was -- it came down to a civil matter Page 34 February 25, 2016 between the contractor and the property owner, and I believe contractor licensing was contacted by the contractors. I don't know if it was in fear that they would get in trouble because a permit wasn't being finished, whatever the case may be. But they just referred it over to us because the permit was expired. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. As everything revolves around -- it's probably money. Okay. Any discussion from the Board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, yes. A couple things. There's two permits that were issued for this pool. This permit that was issued that expired did have an inspection done in June, correct? MS. GIGUERE: Yes. It had passed quite a few inspections, and in June it also received an extension so that it would not expire but, for whatever reason, by the time the extension came up to end in September, the permit just expired. MR. LEFEBVRE: But if you have an inspection done in June on a permit, it automatically extends the permit for six months? MS. GIGUERE: No. Actually, what happened in June was the extension to keep the permit from expiring. So it wasn't actually an inspection. They have had quite a few prior inspections on the permit. MR. LEFEBVRE: When was the last inspection on the property for this permit? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: June 10th. MR. LEFEBVRE: No. She said that's when -- now she's saying that's when they extended the permit. MS. GIGUERE: It actually looks like the last inspection was done July of 2014, and so before the permit expired, they went to get the extension, and then after that, it expired in September. Page 35 February 25, 2016 MR. LEFEBVRE: This is almost two years this has been going on, a pool that -- MR. BONAQUIST: July of 2014 would have been the first contractor that abandoned the job -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. BONAQUIST: -- which was then taken over in January of 2015 by the second one. We're now on the third one. And my understanding, sir, is there's no issue of money. I've received no claims, no liens, no allegations that money is owed to anyone. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The reason that we go through this is, for your benefit, if there was an inspection, the last inspection was done five months ago. From that date, you have six more months for the permit not to expire. That's how it works, so that someone doesn't pull a permit, do no inspections. That's when the permit expires, after one year. So as long as you're working on that permit doing inspections -- is the way we treat that -- it's extended that way. But in this particular case, it looks like the inspections were done prior to six months so, in fact, this permit has expired. MS. GIGUERE: Correct. If I had to guess, I would say that the second contractor came in and got the extension on the permit so that it would not expire, but they never actually did any inspections, and so that way it was left to expire. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So that contractor came in around what time frame? MS. GIGUERE: I believe it was the beginning of 2015. MR. BONAQUIST: January of 2015. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So that's over a year now as well. MR. BONAQUIST: Yes, sir. Page 36 February 25, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And he did -- MR. BONAQUIST: He did some work. He was paid a substantial amount of money and then just stopped coming to the job; never finished it and never came back. MR. LEFEBVRE: So what's the state of it now? What needs to be done to complete the pool? MR. BONAQUIST: I cannot comment on that. I do not know. As of 10 days ago, I thought it was done. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, it's pretty simple. If a new pool company came in and they said, okay, here's the scope of work that we have to do, and then if they got paid, they got paid for a certain amount of work they did. So then there should be something -- if there's six things that they -- 10 things they said have to be done, six were done, they got paid for the six, there should be four items done (sic), so this should be very easy to figure out. MR. BONAQUIST: We've left numerous messages to try to find out the status, and I don't know what the status is. MS. GIGUERE: If I may, I wasn't able to print out all the activities on the permit, but I do have a screen shot of the majority of them here, and they have passed inspections such as the pool deck, the underground and whatnot. So there's quite a bit of the pool that is already done. It's not like they're at the beginning stage of the permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you see any safety issues on this at all? MS. GIGUERE: Not at all. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, let's do first things first. Is -- does a violation exist? MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that a violation does exist. Page 37 February 25, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we have a motion. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second that a violation exists. Any discussion on that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. Now, do you have a suggestion for us to resolve the situation? MS. GIGUERE: I do; that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $64.59 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion within blank amount of days of this hearing, or a fine of blank amount of dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated, and the respondent must notify the Code Enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into Page 38 February 25, 2016 compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff s Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Now, do you think it will take somewheres around 120 days to 150 days to get everything nailed down and completed? MR. BONAQUIST: I don't know that, sir. I'm asking for as much time as possible. Especially if we're going to have liquidated damages at the end of the time, I would ask maybe for six months then, only because of the conversation I had yesterday with a different pool company where the representation was made "everyone is very busy now." I don't know when I can get to it. I don't know if I can get to it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. During our deliberation on this, I'd like to throw out that there is no safety problem with it -- it appears that the owner of the property, the respondent, has been working to resolve this situation and, because of circumstances, that's why this is before us -- to consider that when you fill in the blanks on this suggestion. MR. LEFEBVRE: On the flip side, what makes me a little bit leery is that it's in a development, Riverstone, which has a lot of children in it, and if for some reason they do get into that -- into it, I just think that it might be -- if the pool's filling up with water, you can't see in the pool. I just don't want to see a kid injured. So it's been going on almost two years now. I think this needs to be fixed. Get someone out there as soon as possible to get this fixed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody else would like to throw out some possible numbers to fill in here? (No response.) Page 39 February 25, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, I'll throw out some numbers. I'm the resort of last. Initially you said three months. I'm going to say four months, and a fine of$100 a day if it's not completed after the four months. Now, if it's not done in the four months, you can come back, and we will see what progress has been made, and quite often the Board extends the time even further. But this is to -- we only care about compliance. I take what Mr. Lefebvre said very seriously, but as long as the county feels that there is no safety hazard there, that's my motion, that we impose the 64.59 to be paid within 30 days -- that's important -- and that we grant four months -- is that 150 days -- and the fine is $100 if there's no compliance prior to that. Any discussion on the motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: How many days again? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hundred and fifty. MS. NICOLA: Hundred and fifty is -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Five months. MS. NICOLA: -- five months. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Five months. MR. ASHTON: You want to give them five months? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If you want to make it four months, we'll make it four months. MR. ASHTON: I think 120 days would be more than sufficient. MS. NICOLA: A hundred and twenty moves you to June 24th. Giving him the extra 30 days would move them into July versus June; it would give them until the end of July. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I didn't get a second yet, so -- Page 40 February 25, 2016 MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. There's a second on my motion. I have no problem changing the days. I think that we're, obviously, just trying to bring the situation into compliance. So if you want to make it 120 days, I have no problem changing my motion. MR. LAVINSKI: The second agrees. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Second agrees? Any discussion on the 120 days? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah. Part of-- the other thing I just thought of is this property is not being occupied. So if something does happen and someone does get into the pool area, that's my biggest concern. So I'd like to see it shorter than 120 days, but -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I'm sure that the code that the contractors work by is to put up the necessary fences, et cetera, to keep this thing safe. MS. GIGUERE: When the case originated, there was only the orange construction fence, which is actually an approved temporary barrier while you're building the pool. They have since put it in a screen enclosure with doors and latches. So they've actually upped the security around the pool, if you will. So at this time we don't feel that there is a health and safety issue. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So, I mean, it's the same as my house now. I'm not home, somebody could break into my cage and go for a swim, but that's just how it is. Any other discussion on the motion for 120 days, $100 a day fine after that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? Page 41 February 25, 2016 MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. LEFEBVRE: Opposed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. One opposed. So 120 days. Should you run into any problems meeting that 120 days, I suggest you come back before the 120 days elapses so that we can address that issue at that time. MR. BONAQUIST: Very well. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. GIGUERE: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 3 from hearings, Tab 3, Case CESD20150007420, NWFP Holdings Corporation. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. Could you state your name on the mike so we can hear. MR. MUHAMMAD: My name is Muhammad, and I represent NWFP, and my boss is outside the country, and I'm the store manager. And the problem is my boss hired the company for the lighting company -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hold on. Hold on. I just wanted to get your name for the record. MR. MUHAMMAD: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And then we're going to go to the county to present what they have, and then we're going to come back to you. But before we come back to you, are you authorized by the Page 42 February 25, 2016 NWFP Holdings Corporation to represent them at this hearing? MR. MUHAMMAD: Yeah. My boss would present, but I don't have any kind of papers, anything else, because he's outside the country right now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody on the Board have a problem with that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Does the county have a problem with that? MR. LETOURNEAU: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All righty. Now we go to the county. MR. MUSSE: Good morning. For the record, Investigator John Musse, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20150007420 dealing with the violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), alterations to structures without applicable Collier County permits located at 11163 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida, 34113; Folio No. 62150200002. Service was given on April 22, 2015. At this time I would like to present the case evidence in the following exhibits: Three photos taken by Investigator Robin Ganguly of Contractor Licensing on April 14, 2015; one aerial view of the property; and a copy of Permit No. PREL20150618260. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me just do a quick summary. So it has -- description of violation: Alterations to structure. The structure is? Do you have pictures? MR. MUSSE: Oh, I'm sorry. That was a -- that's what's on the -- yes. It can be shown on the pictures. That's what's on the Page 43 February 25, 2016 NOV. Sorry. I didn't start out with this case, and I was kind of misled as well with the description of the case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You have to stay after school. MR. MUSSE: I have stay, yes. But, yes, that's what's listed on there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you have a picture -- I'm trying to understand what this case is about. MR. MUSSE: Yeah. I'll show you with the photos. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Has the respondent seen the photos? MR. MUSSE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any problem with us seeing the photos? MR. MUHAMMAD: No problem. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ASHTON: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second to accept the photos. All those in favor? MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. Page 44 February 25, 2016 MR. MUSSE: I'll explain. What the "alterations" is, is Investigator Kincaid received a complaint on April 13, 2015, stating that he observed men installing new lighting at the Marathon convenience store. Complainant did not see a permit displayed and was concerned that they might be unlicensed contractors. Investigator Kincaid conducted some research and did not find an active permit for the work. He notified contractor licensing, Investigator Robin Ganguly, who conducted an inspection on April 14, 2015, where he found an unpermitted removal of old florescent lighting tubes, tombstone lighting receptacles, ballasts, and the installation of new LED lights and circuitry in the ceiling by an unlicensed contractor. A pre -- a reinspection was made by Investigator Kincaid on June 23, 2015, and he found Permit No. PREL20150618260 for the installation of the LED lights. Permit was issued on June 12, 2015. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So let me, just before we -- so April is when it was observed? MR. MUSSE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I imagine something was said to the respondent. MR. MUSSE: Yes. The service -- the notice of violation was served on April 22nd. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And then in -- the permit arrived when? MR. MUSSE: It was issued on June 12th. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So on June 12th a licensed -- the only people allowed to pull permits, a licensed contractor, pulled a permit on June 12th? MR. MUSSE: Correct. Page 45 February 25, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MUSSE: I received this case on December 16, 2016 -- or 15, sorry, and checked the status on the permit. Conducted some research and observed that the permit actually expired that same day. I was able to get in contact with the contractor, John Pierre. I informed him that the permit was expired and he has to get in contact with the building department to reactivate the permit. He said he would and get an extension on the permit. Conducted a pre-inspection -- prehearing inspection yesterday. Permit is still expired. I contacted Mr. Pierre as well. He said -- apparently there's some conflict -- I'm getting two sides of the story. There's conflict between the contractor and the owner. Mr. Pierre notified me that when he went to the property, he noticed that the -- he stated that the property owner hired other people or contractors not -- can't verify whether or not they're licensed or not; that they added lighting to the outside of the property, or the structure as well, and he says that wasn't part of the original permit. So I advised him if there's any issues, then he has to get in touch with the building department and cancel the permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you don't know whether or not he's canceled the permit yesterday or not? MR. MUSSE: As of yesterday he has not canceled the permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So just in summary format, somebody observed, and they cited them for doing electrical work, I'm assuming -- MR. MUSSE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- without a permit? MR. MUSSE: Correct. Page 46 February 25, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: After that, the respondent got a licensed contractor, pulled a permit, that permit was never finalized, and expired? MR. MUSSE: Correct. It's only missing a final inspection. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I understand. Any other pictures that -- MR. MUSSE: No. MS. ADAMS: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Now we're up to listening to you on this particular case, so... MR. MUHAMMAD: Yeah. My boss hired some company from Miami, and these people is coming and see it, and he said he pull up the permits, and then he put the lights. And my boss give his friend money, and these people is coming in one, two days after he's left, and he never show up, just -- and my boss have personal problems, and he just go back to the country. And I just -- he just called me, just take care for this stuff I just call these peoples and peoples, but he never answer, no nothing. And I just talked to another company and just still talking for these peoples because he just says very busy, and -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So what we want to determine first is whether a violation exists. So I haven't heard anything that contradicts the county as far as a violation on the property. Electrical work was done, and there's no CO on the permit that was pulled to complete that task. The other additional work outside is not part of this case, I don't believe. MR. MUSSE: As of yet, no. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So that's what we're concerned with. Page 47 February 25, 2016 Any discussion from the Board? MR. DOINO: Make a motion a violation exists. MR. ASHTON: Motion a violation exists. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion a violation exists, and a second by Bob Ashton. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. A violation exists. And Joe -- Jonathan, can you give us your suggestion to resolve this situation? MR. MUSSE: The county recommends that code -- or the county asks the Code Enforcement Board to order the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$65.01 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits, demolition permit, inspection, or certificate of occupancy/completion within X amount of days of this hearing, or a fine of X amount of dollars per day will be imposed until the violation's abated. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to Page 48 February 25, 2016 conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any methods to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff s Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This is an electrical concern in a place that sells gasoline, so I would think that that is a possible safety concern. MR. MUSSE: As of right now, the store is still open. When I walked in there, it doesn't appear to be any danger, but I'm not a licensed electrician. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You said it's awaiting a final -- MR. MUSSE: Just a final, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- inspection? MR. MUSSE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So everything is closed up, buttoned up, just waiting for the final? MR. MUSSE: Yep. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Would somebody like to take a shot at filling in the blanks on this suggestion from the county? MR. LEFEBVRE: First, when is your boss coming back from wherever he is? MR. MUHAMMAD: I hope so next month, because his mom and dad is very old and is very sick, and he just only have one son, that's why he go back over there to take care. I hope so is next month he's come back. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has he authorized you to take care of this problem? MR. MUHAMMAD: Yes, sir. Page 49 February 25, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: So we have a permit in place? MR. MUSSE: It's expired. They just need to reactivate it. MR. LEFEBVRE: This seems like this could be done in a relatively short fashion. You have a company, electrical company that's currently -- MR. MUHAMMAD: I'm still talking to somebody, because that's the old company. I just call him, and he just no appear, no nothing, no answer, no call me back. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's important that the company that you're talking with is licensed in Collier County to pull a building permit because that's probably what's required here, and to get it fully inspected and a CO issued. So I don't know if any of the companies -- I guess the first company was from Miami; is that correct? MR. MUHAMMAD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't know whether or not they were authorized to pull a permit in Collier County. It doesn't sound like it, but I don't know. But I think this would be a -- as Mr. Lefebvre said, it's sort of a simple thing. You get ahold of a licensed electrical contractor in Collier County, you have them go in there, pull a permit on the work that was done, have it inspected, and we're all done. So the amount of time that would need to be provided to do that is probably relatively, as Mr. Lefebvre said, limited; probably 30 to 60 days should take care of it. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll make a recommendation or motion; that the 65.01 be paid within 30 days and that within 30 days of this hearing a permit -- everything will be completed, certificate of completion will be granted, or a fine of$200 per day will be imposed. Page 50 February 25, 2016 MR. DOINO: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. You have one month to do what we said was get a licensed contractor who's licensed in Collier County, show them what needs to be done. I'm sure that the county would be glad to show what is in violation and get it all resolved and -- in 30 days. Okay? MR. MUHAMMAD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 9 from hearings, Tab 9, Case CEPM20150024335, Davis Crossings VIII, LLC, et al. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, Steve. Looks like you're the lone ranger today. MR. ATHEY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you tell us what we have. Page 51 February 25, 2016 MR. ATHEY: Good morning. First of all, for the record, Stephen Athey, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CEPM20150024335 dealing with the violations of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22-236, dangerous building, located at 8770 Davis Boulevard, Naples, Florida, 34104; Folio 34690080008. Service was given on January 15, 2016, and at this time I'd like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: I have eight photographs of the structure itself, but first I would like to show three aerials, give a reference of the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Can we get a motion to accept these photos? MR. ASHTON: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. MR. ATHEY: And also -- I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Go ahead, Steve. MR. ATHEY: Declaration of dangerous building letter from the building official is also included in the evidence. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, fine. Okay. Page 52 February 25, 2016 MR. ATHEY: Okay. My initial site visit was on January 14, 2016, after receiving the declaration of dangerous building or structure letter from the building official, which is dated December 30, 2015. And while outside I photographed the structure -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you stop -- one second. Go back to that previous picture. Where is this? Davis is where? On the right? The left? Top? Bottom? MR. ATHEY: This is the -- this is the lot where the violation -- alleged violation exists at the corner of Davis Boulevard and 951; the address being 8770 Davis Boulevard. Now, I showed you this as a reference from 2006 where there was nothing. The next photograph will show where the structure -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. I just wanted to know what street was on this map. I can't see. MR. ATHEY: That's going to be Davis. MR. LEFEBVRE: Davis. MR. ATHEY: That's Davis. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Davis is up on the top. MR. ATHEY: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: On the right is 951. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Gotcha. All right. MR. LEFEBVRE: It's the steel structure that's there. The -- MR. ATHEY: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: Didn't we hear this case before? MR. LETOURNEAU: We heard a permitting case dealing with the property. This is the property maintenance case now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ATHEY: So here you see, in the following year, a 2007 aerial where a structure -- or construction had begun or some activity had begun on the property. Page 53 February 25, 2016 The remainder of the photographs, particularly the next aerial, which is current, would show that virtually nothing has changed; no activity on the property for almost 10 years. This is the structure itself. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Was there something there before this business? MR. ATHEY: No. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just vacant land. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Just vacant land, okay. MR. ATHEY: Yeah, vacant land. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is it still owned by Benderson? MR. ATHEY: It is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: And the previous case we had, there's been no resolution on that, correct? MR. ATHEY: I wasn't involved in the previous. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do we know? MR. LETOURNEAU: No, no resolution. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: It's kind of odd. I mean, they're a billion-dollar-plus company, and I just don't -- can't figure out why they're not responding. MR. ATHEY: We've had no contact with the owners at all. MR. LEFEBVRE: No contact at all with Benderson that's out of Sarasota? MR. ATHEY: No contact. MR. LETOURNEAU: Originally with the first case, there was communication, but during this case we've made numerous attempts to contact them, and they haven't replied to anybody. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ATHEY: And the photographs show the state, Page 54 February 25, 2016 dilapidated state of the structure. To add testimony, if you so desire, the building official is actually here and could add testimony to the status or the state of the structure itself. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't we hear him right now. MR. WALSH: Good morning. John Walsh -- oops. Sorry. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. WALSH: John Walsh, chief building official, Collier County. I actually have been to this site, I think, two or three times at this point. It's been there for quite a few years, obviously. This became a big-ticket item, an AIMS issue, if memory serves correctly. People wanted to know what was going on with the building. We brought the first case with regards to an open permit that hadn't been closed out. I granted an extension of 90 days the first time. Nothing happened. One of the stipulations of that extension was to have the building analyzed by a structural engineer, which was done, and the response back was that they were going to pull a separate permit to basically rehab and retrofit the existing structure, the steel building and concrete. There are some concrete on there as well. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How long ago was that? MR. LEFEBVRE: Four years ago. MR. WALSH: Couple of months. I don't have the permit number in front of me. I want to say that was probably a year ago CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. WALSH: -- give or take. Permit went through, and a structural engineer came back and said that the steel columns -- Page 55 February 25, 2016 and if you pull up the pictures, you'll see one of them. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They look like they're rusting out. MR. WALSH: Yes. You'll see here that the horizontal -- the beams are -- have severe rust. From my site visit, I saw the roof panels, the decking that was up there was rusted. Several holes you were in it. I had a couple people calling up and saying that kids were playing in the area. I had one guy actually admit that he used the building as a place where he'd shoot his bow and arrow because it was a nice safe spot in his opinion because it would bounce off the concrete wall. That didn't sit too well with me. So I went out. We agreed that a separate permit would be pulled to rehab the steel structure as it exists. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is this property fenced? MR. WALSH: No. That is the reason why my latest determination has come out, because I agreed to allow the building permit to rehab the building to fix the steel structure as it exists currently, to replace and sandblast, do whatever the engineer came back and said that needed to be done so the whole building wouldn't have to come down. In that process, they would fix the building as exists but it would also give them time to basically reapply for a building permit to complete the building. That process has not begun at all. I haven't had any communication with regards to the new building permit to finish. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: When's the last communication you had with the company? MR. WALSH: With the actual company itself was before -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. MR. WALSH: -- the building permit to fix the steel Page 56 February 25, 2016 superstructure was issued. I want to say June, might have been -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. WALSH: -- summer, I would say, give or take. Might be a day or two off. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. WALSH: So that permit was issued. And then I want to say within the last month after some pushing -- and I want to say it's in response to my determination of a dangerous building -- they came in and they started to remove some of the roof decking. The site's still not protected. You can walk in there right now. I almost drove through the building because it's right on grade, and you have complete access to it. There's several panels that are holding on by a thread. I wouldn't walk through the building. I wouldn't even want to be working on the building, per se. That's the reason why I have the determination, and I have -- I'm not waiving on that. Right now the site is not safe, the building is not safe. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And it's not protected? MR. WALSH: No, no. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So for us, at this point, we want to find -- make a determination whether a violation exists or that a -- that the property is an unsafe structure. Anybody? MR. DOINO: Violation, yeah. I would say a violation exists. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. From Mr. Doino, a violation exists. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second from Mr. Ashton. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) Page 57 February 25, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. And, Mr. Athey, you have a suggestion? Oh, I see Jeff Letourneau there. Yes, Jeff. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. In the beginning when we prepped this case, we had the standard recommendation of, you know, obtain demo permits or a building permit and get the thing fixed. But after speaking with Mr. Walsh just recently, he advised us to maybe put a second part of the recommendation outlining maybe them getting a fence and then getting the permit while the fence is up just for safety reasons. It's very similar to the boarding ones we always use. And I'll put it up here. I'll show you. And, basically -- I don't have a second copy of this. I'm sorry. Where's the microphone at? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So basically what this property needs is a chain-link fence around it immediately? MR. LETOURNEAU: It needs some building-official approved barrier to alleviate the immediate safety issue. So I'll read the recommendation: That the Code Page 58 February 25, 2016 Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of 65.85 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Two, alternatively, if a county-approved barrier is obtained and the property is secured within blank days of this hearing, then the time required to complete the repairs, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy will be extended to and must be completed within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Now let me stop you. When you say -- that's not to complete this shopping center. That's just to -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, I mean -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, a fence is one thing; I understand that. The No. 2 here, "alternatively." So the first one is to demolish it? MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, the first one is either to get a building permit and bring the building up to a safe condition or demolish the structure. The second one is either get a fence, maybe get a little more time to do the same thing, repair it up to a safe condition where the building official says that it's safe at that time, or demolish the building also. So the fence is the same as, like, we added in our boarding certificates, puts a Band-Aid up, buys them a little time to get the actual other permit going. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Discussion from the Board? Page 59 February 25, 2016 MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, I just want to revert back to the previous case. I can't remember when it was heard, but I do remember the case. It's not in compliance. There's a fine on the property every day. How come we haven't foreclosed on that fine? How come we haven't started action to foreclose on that? MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. If you remember -- and I'm just pulling this out of my memory. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. LETOURNEAU: You get -- it was a dual-part order. The first part was to get the permit issued by sometime last October and get the CO completed by December. We're -- yeah. We're going to -- I think it's going to be scheduled next month to impose the first part of the fine. MR. LEFEBVRE: If that -- we're asking them in No. 1 to do the same thing as we asked them in the previous case. MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, the previous case they have to -- they have to have a permitted property. In this case they need to -- they need to get the building safe at this point. So it doesn't -- they don't necessarily, in this case, have to complete the building. They just need to put it in a safe condition. MR. LEFEBVRE: But No. 1 says, obtain all required Collier County building permits or demolition permits, inspections, certificate of completion or occupancy within blank days. So if we did that a year ago... MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, I could take out the occupancy part and just say a certificate of completion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think the easy way to describe this -- maybe not use these words -- is they need to fence the property immediately because of the safety violation. They're not going to be doing a whole bunch of work, and whether they are or Page 60 February 25, 2016 not doesn't matter. It needs to be fenced immediately. MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And I think maybe if we handle this recommendation in that fashion, get it fenced, give them a limited amount of time to get it fenced so it complies with the safety issues, and then the second part would be to go through the permitting as far as the other issues are concerned on the property. But the primary is the safety right now. MR. LETOURNEAU: If you wanted to take the first part of that out of there and just use the second part of that, that would be pretty much along the lines that you're talking about right now. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, there's more than --just than a fence. There's parts of the building that are not secure. And we're going to be coming into hurricane season in four months or so, three-and-a-half months, four months, so that worries me. But what worries me even more is if we do leave 1 in here, if we already have another case against it -- against them, and we're using the same language, we're penalizing them twice, because in the last case it says, must have a CO by a certain date or period. Now we're telling them again to do it. So if we impose a fine each time, for each case, it's for the same -- I'm afraid for the same thing. MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, two separate violations, though. One's an expired permit. They haven't got the permit issued. They didn't go down and get a permit issued. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. But you're asking them to do two of the same things. MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, the first case I'm asking them to finish the building. In this case I'm asking them to make the building safe -- whatever they have right now safe. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. The statement of Page 61 February 25, 2016 violation, under No. 2 it says it's a -- description of violation is a dangerous building. How do we make it less dangerous? And the way you make it less dangerous is to cut off access to that building in any way we can. I agree -- I agree with Mr. Lefebvre 100 percent, but I'd like to handle these issues this way. It makes it simpler for us to write an order and for it to be understood. So what would be a reasonable amount of time to have them pull a permit to put a fence in that probably would be -- I don't know. We can ask the building official what type of fence that would be required and what he thinks it would take as far as time is concerned to do that. MR. WALSH: Basically, the fence we're looking for is called a temporary construction fence permit. They are, more or less, over the counter. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So there's -- you can get that in a week, a day, no problem? MR. WALSH: Yep. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And there are contractors who provide that type of construction in the county? MR. WALSH: Yep. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. WALSH: Now, how busy they are versus all the other construction that's going on, that I can't -- but they should be able to get it up within a very reasonable amount of time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So would you think 30 days would be a reasonable amount of time? MR. WALSH: Yep. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. NICOLA: Mr. Chairman, can I make a suggestion on the language? Because I think the way that it reads -- I think it Page 62 February 25, 2016 needs to be changed and to say something like obtain a county-approved barrier and have the property secured within blank days instead of saying if a county-approved barrier is obtained. In other words, be more directive. That would just be my suggestion as far as drafting the order. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I agree with you. MS. NICOLA: Okay, great. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That way we're protecting a dangerous building which is what the violation was, so -- and that's what we're here for. It appears that 30 days would be a reasonable amount of time. Would someone like to make a motion to that effect to begin with? MR. LAVINSKI: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. LAVINSKI: If I may, this might be out of order. I remember this case last time. And I see Commissioner Fiala is here. I mentioned last time that she has a program in East Naples to try to get East Naples up to some standard. Would it be possible for her to give us a couple of comments as to what her phone (sic) or her constituents are saying to her about this particular site which has been there for years? MR. LEFEBVRE: I think it very relevant to the case. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Commissioner, you've been invited to come up front. Good morning. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you so much. I appreciate the recognition. And you don't even realize that you are hitting the nail right on the head. I get comments all the time, all the time. Now, most of you know that I'm very active within the community and I go Page 63 February 25, 2016 to a lot of things. I give speeches. This time of year I'm giving three speeches a week to different homeowner associations. The very first question out of anybody is what are we going to do with that skeleton building? It's a shame that people would allow that to sit in our community like this for so many years. And a lot of complaints. I get a lot of emails from people as well, but there isn't an audience that I speak to that doesn't ask about that. I'm giving town hall meetings right now. It's the first question out of the audience as well. And I think that after all this time, languishing all these many years, it shows what the contractor thinks of us in Collier County. You're not worth any more than just this rundown skeleton building. And I think it makes a very loud statement. And I would suggest that it -- we've been very lenient, very patient, very understanding, but I think it's about time we're not so understanding and we insist that they do something with this building; either tear it down or build it up but not let it sit like this. And a fence, what does that do? That gives them more time. That's my own opinion. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: My comment on the fence is the first thing that we need to do is provide safety for our residents. So the providing a fence is not to give them any more time. It's to protect the property, and I think that has to be done. The second part is to offer some sort of a motivational tool to this corporation so that they get busy doing something. And we have the means to provide that motivation here at the Board, so... MR. DOINO: What's the maximum on that? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We can go $2,000 a day. I thought it was $1,000 way back when, but I revisited the rules, Page 64 February 25, 2016 and I believe it's $2,000 a day. Even $1,000 a day is -- I don't remember what the original case called for, but I'm sure that there's a huge fine accruing there. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, the other option is if they don't do it within the 30 days, the county contracts it out to get it done and then files a lien against the property for -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. We can make that motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: And I think we should -- MR. DOINO: I like that. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- absolutely include that in our order. I mean, I know usually it says that the county -- MR. LETOURNEAU: That's that verbiage on the bottom there, "by any means necessary." CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: But, again, I want to just stress that I'd like -- for this property in particularly, want to have that done if it's not done in 30 days. I'm amazed that -- Benderson is one of the largest commercial developers/owners of shopping centers. I'm just absolutely amazed and appalled that they have not come forward and taken care of this property. It devalues their properties because they own properties all around there. And it just really fuddles me that they're being so negligent. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, liens on this property also affect their other properties in Collier County, should they own any others. MR. LEFEBVRE: They do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't know whether they do or not. MR. LEFEBVRE: They own a bunch of other commercial Page 65 February 25, 2016 properties. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So a lien imposed upon this property is a lien imposed on all the properties that they possess in Collier County, correct? MR. LETOURNEAU: That is correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. NICOLA: Bob, can I ask you a question? Why do you think it's $2,000 a day? Because I'm looking at 162.09, and I can give you my packet, and I'm reading Subsection D to say that on a first violation, which -- MR. LEFEBVRE: This is. MS. NICOLA: -- this would be, it would not exceed $1,000 a day. I just want to show this to you to make sure we're on the same page. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you think this is a first violation even though there's another case on it? MR. LEFEBVRE: Different case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, that's the case I'm talking about as far as -- MR. LETOURNEAU: It's a different violation. MS. NICOLA: That one? But, see, then you can impose $5,000 a day for a repeat violation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. NICOLA: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: The original case is $250-a-day fine for getting the permit issued, and then if they don't get the CO, then it's another $250 a day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any idea what that's accrued to? MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, it's $250 a day since October 28th, I believe. Page 66 February 25, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, okay. That's nothing. Okay. So, again, safety, and then taking care of this problem. I concur with Mr. Lefebvre that you don't want to do anything that's going to double fine them for the same issue. That will just cause lawyer action. So you said that is coming up when, that case? MR. LETOURNEAU: The imposition will be brought forward next month at that next CEB hearing for the original case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's going to come before us? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. NICOLA: If you guys don't want to extend the time to complete the building, do you want to take out the remaining language in Section 2 where it says, then the time required to complete the repairs, inspections, and certificate of occupancy -- or completion/occupancy will be extended and just end it with, "obtain a county-approved barrier and have the property secured within blank days of this hearing," and just end it there, if you're not extending the time for the certificate? MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. Well, what I also want is -- in the testimony by the -- Mr. Walsh, is it, correct -- Mr. Walsh stating that there may be some roof panels that are loose and so forth. So "secured," I'd probably want to spell out what needs to be secured, and maybe we may need some more language or to specify specifically what it is so they're clear. Because "secured" to somebody might -- is your house "secured" would mean to me, is your door locked and everything locked. So I don't want them to think that "secured" means just a fence around it. MR. WALSH: If I may, I'm going to put the aerial up. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. I want to be very clear and concise Page 67 February 25, 2016 so they understand exactly what needs to be done. MR. WALSH: My opinion, based on my site visit from yesterday -- and if you wanted to, I could show you my photos on my phone, but the panel -- MR. LEFEBVRE: We have to enter it as testimony so, unfortunately, we can't do that from your phone. MR. WALSH: They are hanging from the roof so, in my opinion, to "safe off' this site, we protect all access; protect all access from around that building. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you show that on -- your finger on the -- yeah. MR. LEFEBVRE: Let me ask you. Is the parking lot safe? Are there any electrical poles that have wires that are hanging out, that the whole site might be better to be fenced in versus just the building? MR. WALSH: You'd want -- I mean, it's not a construction site yet so, I mean, as a builder, I would probably want -- there is a portion of the parking lot used to store material. It just has basically a couple orange cones around it. I'm surprised it's actually still there, to tell you the truth, because it's right next to the highway; pick it up and go. I would -- there's a dirt road that comes right around the back of the building and along the front of the building, which is kind of separate from the actual parking lot. So that's a clear easy way of blocking off access around the building. You want to give a little extra room, that's fine, because that gives you a place to store material. But that fence should be secure, should not be able to be knocked over or blown over or easily moved, and it should be locked. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Can you show us again on there where the fence should go. I don't know how we'll Page 68 February 25, 2016 describe this in an order, but... MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, maybe securing the building. Does our Land Development Code spell out a barrier for construction where it has to be installed? MR. WALSH: No. MR. LEFEBVRE: It doesn't. Okay. So I want to have some clarity so they don't come back and, say, just put a fence right around the steel girders or, you know, the -- I mean -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, looking at your outline there, do you think that if a construction barrier was placed where you have your mark on that aerial photo, that would bring that building into safety compliance for the present? MR. WALSH: If it's a suitable barrier, yeah. I mean, they're typically six foot high. They have some sort of screening on them. Most of them have some sort of a pad that -- they kind of sit and they can move it around. Unfortunately, you know, the winds that we get here -- I've seen several sites that have those; they're all knocked down. This should be a permanent fixture because of the way that building exists. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Now, to go along with our county commissioner, to motivate them, I would certainly entertain the largest fine that we can come up with, whether it's a thousand dollar or not, to have this barrier placed within 30 days or the fines will be $1,000 a day, and they will accrue quite quickly. Maybe this would get the attention of this corporation. If not, we're hearing their case next month. MR. LEFEBVRE: And then, also, we want to include any roof panels -- MR. DOING: That's what I was going to say. Page 69 February 25, 2016 MR. LEFEBVRE: -- that may be blowing around, so forth and so on, correct? MR. WALSH: Yeah. I mean, if they get a big enough wind, they will probably move. But, I mean, right now I'm more worried about them falling. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. What I'm worried about is "secure" is very ambiguous. So "secure," they can say, we put a fence around it, it's secured. But then this -- MR. WALSH: I would say something that's permanently affixed to the ground. MR. LEFEBVRE: But I'm not talking about the barrier. I'm talking about the roof and the other part of the structure. I don't want that to be blowing around. And we've had an unusual winter where there's been tornadoes and high winds and so forth. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, two things: Put the fence around it. Next month we can order the corporation to demolish it. MR. WALSH: Yes, you could. I mean, right now they have a permit to remove those rusted-out failing roof panels. I believe the permit is also to remove the bar joists that are up there because they're deteriorating as well, and to sandblast and repair any of the superstructure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: When was that permit pulled? MR. WALSH: The permit was pulled, I want to say, about a year ago. That was the permit that more or less abated the first code case as far as I recall. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the permit expires in one year? MR. WALSH: It expires 180 days from the date of issuance unless they have -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Inspections. Page 70 February 25, 2016 MR. WALSH: -- action pursuit and they have passing inspections. Then they get 180 days from that point on. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And they have no inspections so far? MR. WALSH: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They've done nothing. MR. WALSH: Well, within the last month I believe they tore off the closest, maybe two -- 40 feet on the side to 951. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. DOINO: That can't be added, can it, demolishing some of that? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, we're going to hear this case as far as the structure is concerned next month. MR. DOINO: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And my concern -- MR. LETOURNEAU: No, only the imposition would be next month. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The imposition. MR. LETOURNEAU: You've already heard the case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And they were found in violation? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But $250 a day to a corporation like this is not a real motivational tool. So I'm sure other cases can be filed in respect to this for other violations. But right now safety. Let's get it fenced in so that no kids wander in there or people shooting bow and arrow. So would you help us with the language on the fence for the order so that we make sure we have the proper fence there. MR. WALSH: I would say something to an element of roughly six foot in height, permanently affixed -- not something Page 71 February 25, 2016 that is readily, easily movable -- and that blocks off all access to the perimeter of the building with room for staging and storage of material. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. WALSH: And that it's locked. That it -- that nobody can just go flip the gate open. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is that per the LDC? MR. WALSH: No. There are parameters. I don't have it front of me. There are parameters in safeguards during construction -- I'm pretty sure it's Chapter 33 of the Florida Building Code -- that gives certain parameters, but there's nothing 100 percent specific. That's why we basically agreed to my interpretation of it being safe. MR. LETOURNEAU: Couldn't you just say a barrier approved by the Collier County building official? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. Now, we need a time frame on that, when it needs to be done, and then we need, if it's not done in that time frame, what the fine would be. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think we know what the fine's going to be. MR. DOINO: Ten days; 10 days? MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, we're going to have to give them more than that, because they're going to have to pull a permit and get a contractor out there. MR. DOINO: The sooner the better. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't we -- does anybody want to make a motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: The only thing -- the only question I still have, to secure the building, we've been talking about the roof panels and everything. If that was in a prior order, again, I don't want to include that in this order. And without knowing the prior Page 72 February 25, 2016 order, I don't want to duplicate something. What I don't want to do is have a two-part where it says that we have to put -- they have to put the barrier up and then also secure the building if the building -- if that was already included in a previous case, I don't want them to come back and say, well, you're double jeopardizing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't think a fence was included in the prior case. MR. LEFEBVRE: It wasn't, but was the roof panels included? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, we can do -- MR. WALSH: Again, I'm going off memory. It's been a couple of months. I'm pretty sure it said that a permit had to be acquired to address the issues of the building. We allowed a -- basically an alteration or a repair permit to come in and fix the issues that were damaged that are failing. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. So then I think the only thing we can probably deal with today is the fence. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. And I think we might see some activity from them. Again, what we want is compliance. We want it safe and we want this skeleton removed. So we'll do a "skeletonectomy" or whatever it takes on this facility. It's probably not doing the corporation any good, and it certainly isn't doing Collier County any good. MR. WALSH: Can I also -- sorry to interrupt. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. WALSH: The construction fence permit is, at most, a one-day depending upon when it comes in. MR. DOINO: One day. MR. WALSH: So it's a more or less over-the-county permit. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. But you're going to have to hire Page 73 February 25, 2016 somebody to -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So thirty days would be a reasonable amount of time. I think I asked that already. Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: And considering the facts of this, I think if a fence company comes in with a permit for this property, it probably will be streamlined to get done knowing the history of this case. Can you put down -- put the recommendation back up, please. I guess I've done most of the talking. So we all agree that No. 1 probably has to be removed. MR. DOINO: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: All right. And let's see if we can try to modify No. 2 a little bit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think Tammy did a pretty good job of her wording on that. Did you write that down, by any chance? MS. NICOLA: I did. This is what I have so far: The respondent must obtain a county-approved -- and I've changed this -- permanent barrier approved by the Collier County building commissioner (sic) at least six feet in height which shall block off all access to the building and shall be locked and secured. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Building official, I believe. MS. NICOLA: Building official, sorry. MR. LEFEBVRE: And also must receive a permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This is your motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: It sounds like it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And how much if they don't comply after -- I guess you said 30 days? MR. LEFEBVRE: Thirty days, $1,000 a day. MR. DOINO: I'll second that. MR. LEFEBVRE: And also -- I know it's already stated in Page 74 February 25, 2016 No. 3, but I just want to make it on the record if it's not completed within 30 days, I'd like to see the county move forward immediately to get this secured. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You'll agree with that? MR. DOINO: Yep. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The second agrees. MR. LETOURNEAU: Did you say building commissioner? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Building official. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Building official. MS. NICOLA: Building official; I changed it. Sorry about that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: So it might take -- I mean -- MS. NICOLA: I had the commissioner on my brain. MR. LEFEBVRE: It might take a day or two for you to review it, correct? You're not going on vacation anytime soon? MR. WALSH: No. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion; we have a second. Any other discussion on this motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) Page 75 February 25, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. And we'll be hearing the other case next month. Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. LAVINSKI: Could we have Jeff Letourneau just go over that briefly for Commissioner Fiala's purposes to let him -- to let her know what we expect to do next month regarding this building? MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, the original case is for the expired 2006 permit. We brought the case, I believe, September of last year, and the order was for Benderson to get a permit issued to bring the property up to a permitted condition on October 28th. They failed to do that. The second part of the order was then to get the final CO sometime next December. So they didn't get the required permit by October 28th, so they have a $250-a-day fine accruing for that portion of the order. We're going to bring it back next month and ask for the Board to impose that fine at this time, which is over $30,000 at this point. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's the fine? MR. LETOURNEAU: That's the fine right now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What about the -- and if they don't do that, the demolition can be ordered, et cetera, et cetera? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah. At that point we have that standard verbiage that the county may abate at any means necessary. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So one way or another that building is going bye-bye soon. MR. LAVINSKI: Does that help, Donna? COMMISSIONER FIALA: It helps a lot. Thank you very Page 76 February 25, 2016 much. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is there any other way that we can -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: The citizens of Collier County will be very happy to hear that we're going to take some action. Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Since this is such a hot spot, is there any way to communicate with Commissioner Fiala on -- maybe on a regular basis of the update of this building? MR. LETOURNEAU: We have a process called AIMS that we're updating probably once every two weeks on this issue. This is, you know, a high-profile issue, and we try to keep her in the loop as much as possible. MR. LEFEBVRE: Very good. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Thank you, Commissioner, for coming in. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do we need to do a finger check? You need a break, okay. Why don't we take five minutes. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board back to listen to the next case, which is... MS. ADAMS: The next case is from No. 6, old business, Letter A, motion for imposition of fines/liens, Number 1, Tab 10, Case CENA20150008263, 333 Investments Land Trust. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. CROWLEY: For the record, Michaelle Crowley, Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hi, Michaelle. And your name? MS. AMINI: Good morning. For the record, Shima Amini, Page 77 February 25, 2016 and I am the daughter of the landowner, Mr. All Reza (phonetic) Amini. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you have the permission? MS. AMINI: Yes, correct. I have actually taken over the role as property manager. My father has been very ill and hospitalized. At the moment he's not hospitalized. He was hospitalized for a week right after -- following the new year, so I had taken over. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you're here to request something, otherwise... MS. AMINI: I am, but I'd like to have Michaelle speak first, and then I could go right after. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, ordinarily it's done that (indicating) way. On the cases it's handled that way. MS. AMINI: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But that's okay. Either way. What do you prefer, Michaelle? You want to read this into the record first? MS. CROWLEY: I will, just for clarification. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CROWLEY: This is a violation of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 54, Article VI, Section 54-185D. Location: 1450 Whippoorwill Lane, Naples, Florida; Folio 288040002. The violation: Prohibited exotic vegetation including, but not limited, to earleaf acacia and Brazilian pepper located upon an unimproved property within a 200-foot radius of improved residentially zoned property. Past orders: On October 22, 2015, the Board continued this matter. See the attached order of the Board, OR5210, Page 296, Page 78 February 25, 2016 for more information. On November 20, 2015, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order: The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the Board, OR5217, Page 2212, for more information. The violation has not been abated as of February 25, 2016; however, after my arrival here this morning, I did hear from Ms. Amini that the contractor was reportedly there yesterday afternoon. I was not aware of that or I would have gone out this morning before coming here, but I will do an inspection as soon as I leave here. But as of February the 25th, that has not yet been abated. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of$100 per day for the period between January 20, 2016, to February 25, 2016, 37 days, for a total fine amount of$3,700. Fines continue to accrue. The previously assessed operational costs of$65.01 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing, $64.59. Total amount to date: $3,764.59. I will indicate that I also did a reinspection on Tuesday and at that time confirmed that the last remaining earleaf acacia had been removed. What remained was litter that was exposed. I would say 95 percent of it had been removed by Tuesday. I am told that it was finished yesterday, so hopefully that will be good news for later today. But as of my last site inspection it was remaining. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. AMINI: Okay. So last time I was here was back in November, I believe November 20th. I was very new on the case. My father sort of threw me into it. And the landscaper told me Page 79 February 25, 2016 that he should be done with everything within two weeks. I was not really aware of the circumstances and what it entailed; however, this is 10 acres of land. I believe we had a 60-day extension. Well, the calendar did not really work to my benefit because we had Thanksgiving; we had all of the Christmas and everything, and everyone was traveling. Then my father fell ill. Now, I do not -- my father and I, we do not live here in Collier County. I do work here, however, five days a week. I -- it was my mistake. I accidently thought that the 60 days was 60 business days, therefore -- I apologize for that. That's what -- but I have been pressing on my landscaper, making sure that he is keeping up to date with everything. I would also make stops over at the land. Again, this is 10 acres. We're talking about seven-and-a-half football fields. So I don't know exactly what all of the different vegetations were. However, they are at this time removed completely, and Michaelle will -- has just said that. In reference to the litter, there's only just a tiny bit left, which Michaelle had sent me photographs of. And with that litter, it was supposed to be gone yesterday by 12 noon. If there's anything there right now, I will personally go and pick it up in my truck and take it. So I also ask that if there's any way for the fees to be either waived or limited or -- because of the -- unfortunately, the holidays and everything that had come up. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you're looking for the A word? MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, we can't do that because -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. The word, I think, that you were looking for, you would like the fines abated. Page 80 February 25, 2016 MS. AMINI: Oh, correct; yes, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, that's okay. The way I see this, if this violation has been resolved, we would certainly entertain a motion to abate it. I can't ask you to run out there and come back, so... MS. CROWLEY: I'll try. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How far away is it? No. MS. CROWLEY: It's on Whippoorwill, by the interstate. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think that the respondent has gone out of their way to resolve the situation. And if we had heard this next week instead of this week, probably it would be abated, and we would certainly entertain that as a motion. Any discussion from the Board? MR. LEFEBVRE: We can continue it, or we could have the county withdraw it and bring it back next month. MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. We'd recommend withdrawing it till next month. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good. Okay. So next month you should come back, everything should be done, and at that time make your request to abate the fines. MS. AMINI: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you. MS. CROWLEY: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 4 from imposition of fines, Tab 13, Case CEROW20140012496, Maria Padilla. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. Could you state your name on the mike so that -- MR. GADINAS: Jesus Gadinas (phonetic). Page 81 February 25, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I see that the violation has been abated; is that correct? MR. KINCAID: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you're coming before us to request something? MR. GADINAS: No. I got a letter that we had to show up to court today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. GADINAS: Actually, like three of them. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You got three letters? MR. GADINAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're having a sale on letters this week. So it looks like everything has been resolved. There was just a five-day lapse where the fines accrued at $878. MR. GADINAS: Well, actually, on the 29th the job -- we had called in for inspection, and the inspector didn't show up till Monday. So, actually, it was just a weekend. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you're asking for the fines to be? MR. GADINAS: I want to be done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Abated? MR. GADINAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you have -- did you pay the operational costs on this? MR. GADINAS: I don't -- I wasn't aware of that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. In order for us to abate the fine, the one thing that we can't abate is the operational costs. And in this particular case, the previously assessed operational costs are $65.01. MR. GADINAS: Who do I pay that to? Page 82 February 25, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You can give me -- no. MR. GADINAS: I'll give you the money. That's fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. You can take that up with the officer after this meeting. MR. GADINAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And if those fines are paid today, I don't think the Board would have any problem in abating the $878. Can I get a motion from the Board? MR. L'ESPERANCE: So moved, Mr. Chairman. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. So if you pay the 65.01, your $878.76 will be abated. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, minus the 65.01. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Minus the 65.01. You'll do the arithmetic. MR. KINCAID: Could the county comment on that before we make a final decision on that? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. KINCAID: Just to refresh the county, when we brought this case to hearing -- this has been going on since, I Page 83 February 25, 2016 believe, June of 2014. It requires the -- some corrections to a right-of-way. There was some issues that had to be corrected, and then it was never finished. So over the course of a year and a half, the work was finally done. Just as a refresher, the permit was pulled the morning that the case came to hearing when you gave them the time frame and to come back here today. The only reason code had the case back was because the transportation department basically had the property scheduled to go in there and remove all the improvements that were on the expired permit. And we're back today, and the Board, at the last hearing, gave Mr. Padilla an extended period of time because he requested that he would like to match his existing driveway with pavers, and he was pretty sure that he wouldn't be able to obtain the permit to make the correction in the period of-- the short period of time that you were going to give him to put the driveway apron in. So we went to the last day. The county doesn't make same-day inspections. It's not their policy. So it would be the next business day, whatever day he called it in. So, basically, he has waited till the last day to make the corrections. But in making the corrections, he did not make them -- he did not order any paver brick, and the correction was put back in concrete. I don't know if we need to enter this in evidence, or if it would just -- but I have actual pictures of it where it's poured back in concrete which, to me, could have been done within a day or two of the order. So just those comments, and I'll leave it up to you what you wish to do with it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. It's in compliance now; Page 84 February 25, 2016 is that correct? MR. KINCAID: Yes, it is. As far as the transportation, but there's a lot of putting everything off till the last minute, so I don't CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. And we'd like everything to run smoothly, and sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. But in the end, that's what we want is compliance, and this is now in compliance. Any comments from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We voted on this already, so you're going to see the agent after the meeting, and you'll take care of the $65.01. MR. GADINAS: Right now, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, thank you. MR. GADINAS: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 5 from imposition of fines, Tab 14, Case CESD20130003491 Oasis at Naples, the A Condominium. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ORTEGA: For the record, Herminio Ortega representing the Oasis at Naples. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you come before us now to request something? MR. ORTEGA: An abatement of fines. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. It's says the violation has been abated; is that correct? MR. MUSSE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Does the county have any Page 85 February 25, 2016 problem if these fines would be abated? MR. MUSSE: No objections. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any comments from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motions from the Board? MR. DOINO: Make a motion -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to abate. MR. DOINO: Second. 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? MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. ORTEGA: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 7 from imposition of fines, Tab 16, Case CESD20130008321, Antonio Louissaint. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning. Could you state your name on the microphone so we can hear you. Page 86 February 25, 2016 MS. FRANCOIS: Jesula Francois. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you are a relative of Antonio? MS. FRANCOIS: Yeah. I'm the daughter of Antonio Louissaint. He's in Haiti trying to vote for a president. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So he's given you permission to come before the Board? MS. FRANCOIS: Yes, I do. I have permission and I had -- and I was the one that pulled all the permits and sign everything. So I'm good, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All righty. Mr. Mucha, you want to read this order and see where we go from here? MR. MUCHA: For the record, Joe Mucha with Code Enforcement. I think she's going to have a request of you as well. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MUCHA: This case just recently came into compliance as of Monday. Permit has been finalized. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I see there's a considerable amount of fine on it which dates back to March of 2014, so... MS. FRANCOIS: Yeah. I did not -- we did not have the money to get the permit. When I would come here, I would always get an extension, but I would always work on it. Like, I would, you know, work on it little by little because I had to get a permit. I had to do a permit affidavit. I had to pay the architect to give me the drawings. And I did all that with my dad's income, which was $770 every month that he was getting. So that's why it took me a little more time. And I was explaining to Joe, and Joe said I could ask to have the fees removed, sir. Page 87 February 25, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The operational costs have been paid. Any discussion from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motions from the Board? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I move that these fees be abated. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second to abate. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries. MR. MUCHA: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. FRANCOIS: Thank you. And I would like to say thank you to Joe. He been very kind to me, you know, help me in my income, and I'm so, you know, thankful that he was the one that, you know, was chosen to help me. I am so thankful. And thank you guys for helping me, too. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. Page 88 February 25, 2016 MS. FRANCOIS: Uh-huh. MS. ADAMS: The next case is the one that we're calling back. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. ADAMS: It's from Tab 12, Case CESD20140004241, NKY Acquisitions, LLC. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And Mr. Cimino has gone? Was that this one? (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. LETOURNEAU: I don't think he was ever here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That was the other case, okay; Bonaquist. MS. NICOLA: Mr. Bonaquist. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Gotcha. MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. I spoke with Mr. Noell of the Collier County Attorney's Office, and he gave me the Florida State statute. I'm going to put it up here, if that's okay. Submit it into evidence. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do we have to accept it as evidence? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Make a motion to accept it. Go ahead. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion and second. All those in favor? MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 89 February 25, 2016 MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: It's pretty small print. I'm going to try to go in layman's terms exactly what Mr. Noell told me is that when a lis pendens is filed, that pretty much puts a stay on anything that's going to be put on the property in between the lis pendens and the final judgment of the sale. So, basically, if you guys were to impose right now, the likelihood would be that it would be wiped away, and we'd have to come back here again to do it all over. So the County Attorney recommended that we withdraw it for a month or continue it for a month, see if the property owner -- the new property owner does buy the property and comes in here and talks with you guys at that point. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I would suggest a continuance rather than anything else. At least the fines would continue to accrue. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, if you withdraw it, the fines stay. MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah. Everything's the same as it was before we came here. So the county recommends withdrawing till next month. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Kerry, are we at the end of where we are? MS. ADAMS: We're up to the consent agenda, but there is Page 90 February 25, 2016 none for this month. There are no cases to be forwarded to the County Attorney's Office, so... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Motion to adjourn. MR. DOINO: Second. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Third. MR. DOINO: Fourth. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hang on a second. MS. ADAMS: We may have a report. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, how we doing today? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I'd like to introduce Mr. Ossorio. He is the new director of Code Enforcement. MR. OSSORIO: For the record, Mr. Chairman, Mike Ossorio. I'm the Collier County Director of Code Enforcement. It's a pleasure to be here. It's my first CEB meeting in 18 years. I started my career in Code Enforcement back in 1993, then I moved to the building side, then I moved to the operations side, then I moved to the contractor licensing side, and I've been there ever since. Pleasure to be here. Thank the County Manager, thank the Assistant County Attorney and the County Attorney's Office for this recommendation of getting this job. I appreciate it. What I saw today was a collaboration of good work. I look forward to continuing to doing good work. I'm looking to do some changes, some modifications. I believe in change. I believe in detail, so hopefully we'll see some of that come out in the next couple of months. With that, I want to give you just a quick report. I'm a piechart person. I want to give this to Kerry. Thank you. I've been on the Licensing Board for 18 years, and I've never used this machine. And Ron Doino can probably tell you. I don't Page 91 February 25, 2016 even know how to turn this on, so I appreciate the -- Kerry, thank you. If you can point to -- let's see -- nuisance abatement, 16 percent, and that's the -- at the bottom. That's 16 percent you can see, and you can basically see from the permitting side, under site development is 15 percent, and that is a monthly basis. So you're going to see this on our website. You're going to see this on a monthly basis. And I'm not going to give you numbers and charts and how many code cases; I'll go ahead and read it into the record. But I always like the piechart. And you can see on a daily basis what the Code Enforcement office does. Fifteen percent of the time we're doing building permit issues relating to construction. You can see by nuisance abatement, 16, we're doing weeds and trash and litter. You can go on from signs, right-of-ways, and property maintenance. So that's just a flavor for what we're doing for the month of January. With that said is we have open cases this month. We did 106 this week, and we've done -- in the last four weeks we've done 667 cases. We waivered $4,666,000 in fines in the last several years; $972,476 in the last four weeks. So we are busy doing the executive summaries. We have over 1,027 cases, ongoing cases that filter on by year by year. And the other -- and that's all I have other than -- we've -- we process 667 cases, and we do about 160 to 180 cases per day -- per week, and those are call-in complaints. We do some -- we do communicate with the building department and licensing department for any kind of health/safety issues, but we're going to Page 92 February 25, 2016 try to get the word out there to the associations to really try to be part of the solution, not the problem; call in more complaints. Be a more civic-minded duty. So that's my philosophy. That's going to be my detail for the next couple of months. So with that, I appreciate the opportunity. I think it was a long meeting. Benderson case was the first, and hopefully we'll get that order signed in the next couple days, and we'll get the process started for the appeal process, if there is an appeal process, and we'll get with the County Attorney's Office and Kevin Noell, the assistant county attorney, to go over our options on that piece of property. So with that, I appreciate the time and effort. No raises for you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are you going to be attending all our meetings or -- MR. OSSORIO: Yes. I'll be -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: --just the fun ones? MR. OSSORIO: No. We're going to be attending most of the meetings. I might have Jeff Letourneau sit there, but I also might have the supervisors sit there, too, as well, because they -- I don't like a big podium crowd. I like order. So you might have me sit there. You might have Jeff sit there. You might have the area supervisor sit there. So I'm going to try to open up to all the -- all our clients, so we'll figure that out. Other than that, I appreciate the opportunity. MR. DOINO: Congrats, Mike. MR. OSSORIO: Ron, it was good seeing you. I look forward to working with each and every member here. So, appreciate it. Thank you. MR. ASHTON: Welcome aboard. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Welcome aboard. Okay. With Page 93 February 25, 2016 that, we have our next meeting scheduled for March -- MS. ADAMS: Twenty-fourth. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- 24th. MR. LEFEBVRE: When do we have our regular meeting where we look over the rules and -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: March 24th. MR. LEFEBVRE: So we're going to do that next. MS. ADAMS: Yep. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And we have a new member. You must be our new member hiding out there. I could tell because everybody else is gone. Why don't you come up here, and we'll all meet you. Thank you. MS. ADAMS: We're adjourned? ***** Page 94 February 25, 2016 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :34 a.m. C • ! _ ENFOR _ ENT BOARD Wrakiiri 1 • ERT K6 MAN, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on 2 L-j - as presented ✓ or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC/COURT REPORTER. Page 95