Loading...
CEB Minutes 03/24/2016 CEB MEETING MINUTES MARCH 24, 2016 March 24, 2016 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, March 24, 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 Sue Curley (Alternate) Kathleen Elrod (Alternate) ALSO PRESENT: Tamara Lynne Nicola, Attorney to the Board Michael Ossorio, Code Enforcement Director Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Jeff Letourneau, Manager of Investigations Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA Date: March 24,2016 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 TIIE 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 Kathleen Elrod,Alternate 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. February 25,2016 Hearing 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. Motions Motion for Continuance 1. CASE NO: CESD20140006223 OWNER: HENRY PEREZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41, SECTION 10,02.06(B)(IXA).A VACANT UNFINISHED HOME WITH AN EXPIRED PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 39895880008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2665 OIL WELL RD,NAPLES Motion for Extension of Time B. Stipulations C. Hearings 1. CASE NO: CEN20150022700 OWNER: HERITAGE SQUARE REAL EST LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRISTOPHER AMBACH VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS CHAPTER 54 ENVIRONMENT,ARTICLE IV NOISE, SECTION 54-92(B)(1,(G)(7)AND(G)(10).REPEAT VIOLATION SOUND LEVELS OF AMPLIFIED MUSIC EXCEEDING THE ALLOWABLE DECIBEL LEVEL FOR THE TIME PERIOD BETWEEN 10:00PM AND 7:00AM. FOLIO NO: 00152480002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 13514 TAMIAMI TRAIL,NAPLES 2. CASE NO: CESD20140011921 OWNER: OMAR OTERO SR&LILIANA L PORTILLO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A).EXPIRED PERMITS FOR FENCING AND STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 39651600008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4886 16TH ST NE,NAPLES 3. CASE NO: CESD20150018793 OWNER: SOUTHWIND VILLAGE MHC LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR WELDON WALKER VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A)(E).ADDITION HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 293400006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 101 DEWEY CT,NAPLES • 4. CASE NO: CESD20150016081 OWNER: ANTHONY JAMES MEERPOHL TRUST OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR WELDON WALKER VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A)(E)(I).ALTERATIONS COMPLETED(GARAGE CONVERSION AND ADDED A ROOF WITH SCREENED IN AREA)WITHOUT COLLIER COUNT BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 70971200008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1324 ROSEMARY LN,NAPLES 2 5. CASE NO: CESD20150002237 OWNER: EDWARD M MILLER&BRITTANY L MILLER OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(I)(E)(I).COMPLETE REMODEL OF"THE KITCHEN,MASTER BATHROOM,BATHROOM, AND FAMILY ROOM,REPLACED WINDOWS AND REPLACED SOFFITS.ALL WORK DONE WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 38051960006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3875 31ST AVE SW,NAPLES 6. CASE NO: CEROW20150014167 OWNER: JOHN E PRICE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 110 ROADS AND BRIDGES, ARTICLE 11 CONSTRUCTION IN RIGHT OF WAY,DIVISION 1 GENERALLY,SECTION 110- 30(A).THE CULVERT/DRAINAGE PIPE HAS FAILED;THAT IT HAS COLLAPSED OR RUSTED THROUGH.ORDINANCE 2003-37** REQUIRES THAT NECESSARY REPAIRS ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROPERTY OWNER.PLEASE ARRANGE TO HAVE THIS PIPE REPAIRED OR REPLACED AS NECESSARY. FOLIO NO: 65271840005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 112 FAIRWAY CIR,NAPLES 7. CASE NO: CESD20140008607 OWNER: GLADYS TRUJILLO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A).REPLACEMENT OF BAY WINDOW,PLUMBING IN BATHROOM,GUTTING OF WALLS AND MODIFICATION IN ROOMS WITHOUT PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 45971240006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2020 17TH ST SW,NAPLES B. Motion for Reduction of Fines/Lien. 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens I. CASE NO: CESD20140006223 OWNER: HENRY PEREZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(IXA).A VACANT UNFINISHED HOME WITH AN EXPIRED PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 39895880008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2665 OIL WELL RD,NAPLES 3 1 2. CASE NO: CESD20140000965 OWNER: MARICELA PEREZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SI.LVERO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 0441,AS AMENDED,SECTION I0.02.06(B)(1)(A).AN ADDITION WITH ELECTRIC,A CARPORT WITH A WOODEN DECK ALL ATTACHED TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE,ALL CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PERMIT(S), INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE(S)OF OCCUPANCY/COMPLETION AS REQUIRED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING CODE. FOLIO NO: 34750000025 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4755 VIREO LN,IMMOKALEE 3. CASE NO: CENA201 50008263 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 EARI,EAF 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 4. CASE NO: CESD20150011591 OWNER: JOSE G CUEVAS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 4 (B)(1)(A)AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(EXI).A VACANT UN-OCCUPIED HOME WITH NO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. FOLIO NO: 39592820002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4230 8TH ST NE,NAPLES 5. CASE NO: CESD201 50009967 OWNER: ANTONIO BARAJAS&VIRGINIA BARAJAS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(I)(A).UNPERMITTED STRUCTURES/IMPROVEMENTS ON IMPROVED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO ADDITIONS TO REAR OF PROPERTY, NEW STRUCTURE AT FRONT OF PROPERTY AND CANOPIES. FOLIO NO: 62042080000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5341 MCCARTY ST,NAPLES 4 5£ 6. CASE NO: CELU20150010274 OWNER: ANTONIO BARAJAS&VIRGINIA BARAJAS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 2.02.03. OUTSIDE STORAGE OF ITEMS CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL,VEGETATIVE DEBRIS,PALLETS,TIRES,APPLIANCE(S),PLUMBING FIXTURE AND SCRAP METAL ON IMPROVED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 62042080000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5341 MCCARTY ST,NAPLES 7. CASE NO: CEV201.50009209 OWNER: ANTONIO BARAJAS&VIRGINIA BARAJAS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 130,ARTICLE III, SECTIONS 130-97(2)AND 130-97(3).COMMERCIAL TRUCK(S)AND TRAILER(S) STORED/PARKED ON IMPROVED RESIDENTIAL ZONED PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCES. FOLIO NO: 62042080000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5341 MCCARTY ST,NAPLES 8. CASE NO: CESD20140025741 OWNER: STEVEN R CUIFFO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A).A MOBILE HOME TYPE STRUCTURE WAS ADDED TO THE PROPERTY BETWEEN 2012 AND 2013 WITH NO VALID COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 436720006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 308 MORGAN RD,NAPLES 9. CASE NO: CESD20130019399 OWNER: DOROTHY K GILL OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOSEPH GIANNONE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTIONS 10.02.06(13XIXA)AND 10.02.06(BX I XE),AND COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS,CHAPTER 22,ARTICLE II,SECTION 22-26(B)(104.5.1.4.4).TWO UNPERMITTE.D SHEDS ON RIGHT SIDE OF PROPERTY,POSSIBLE GARAGE CONVERSION AND ATTIC CONVERSION TO SMALL APARTMENTS AND THE STAIRCASE MOVED TO RIGHT SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE FROM REAR.OF THE PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 36455080005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5009 31ST AVE SW,NAPLES 10. CASE NO: CESD20150003476 OWNER: DIAPAZON USA LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DELICIA PULSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,SECTION 10.02.06(BX1XA)AND(E). HYDROLIC CAR JACK INSTALLED AND NO PERMIT OBTAINED. FOLIO NO: 76720000602 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3435 ENTERPRISE AVE,UNIT:30,NAPLES 5 11. CASE NO: CESD20150002903 OWNER: DIAPAZON USA LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DELICIA PULSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,SECTION 10.02.06(BX1)(A)AND(E). WALL INSTALLED WITH ELECTRIC,DOORS AND CEILING TILES INSTALLED AND NO PERMITS OBTAINED. FOLIO NO: 76720002464 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3573 ENTERPRISE AVE,UNIT:73,NAPLES 12. 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)(1XE).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 ,• 13. CASE NO: CESD20140017973 OWNER: GEORGE CALDERON&CRISTINA CALDERON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 • (13)(1)(A).AN ADDITION/STORAGE ROOM WITH ELECTRIC ATTACHED TO PRIMARY STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PERMITS(S),INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE(S)OF OCCUPANCY AS REQUIRED BY COLLIER COUNTY. FOLIO NO: 00061560000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4725 VIREO LN,IMMOKALEE • 14. CASE NO: CEPM20140025426 • OWNER: LYNNE V CADENHEAD OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOHN SANTAFEMIA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS,ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE,SECTION 22- 231(12)(Q)AND SECTION 22-236.A VACANT RESIDENTIAL HOME DECLARED DANGEROUS BY THE COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING OFFICIAL. FOLIO NO: 74414040006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3414 CHEROKEE ST,NAPLES B. Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order C. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order 7. NEW BUSINESS 6 A. Elections B. Rules&Regulations Review 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- April 29,2016 12. ADJOURN 7 March 24, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, everybody. I'd like to call the Collier County Code Enforcement Board to order. A good time, if you have a cell phone, to turn it off during the meeting. And we're going to start with the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't we start with the roll call. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Robert Kaufman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Tony Marino? MR. MARINO: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Ronald Doino? MR. DOINO: Present. MS. ADAMS: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKI: Here. MS. ADAMS: Robert Ashton? MR. ASHTON: Here. MS. ADAMS: Ms. Sue Curley? MS. CURLEY: Here. MS. ADAMS: And, Ms. Kathleen Elrod? MS. ELROD: Here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have any changes on the minutes from the last meeting from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If not, I'll accept a motion to accept the -- Page 2 March 24, 2016 MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to approve the minutes. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Changes to the agenda? MS. ADAMS: Number 5, Public Hearings, Motions, Letter B, stipulations. We have six additions. The first is No. 2 from hearings, Tab 2, Case CESD20140011921, Omar Otero, Sr., and Liliana L. Portillo. The second is No. 4 from Hearings, Tab 4, Case CESD20150016081, Anthony James Meerpohl Trust. The third is No. 5 from Hearings, Tab 5, Case CESD20150002237, Edward M. Miller and Brittany L. Miller. The fourth is No. 6 from Hearings, Tab 6, Case CEROW20150014167, John E. Price. The fifth is No. 7 from Hearings, Tab 7, Case CESD20140008607, Gladys Trujillo. And the sixth is No. 1 from Hearings, Tab 1, Case CEN20150022700, Heritage Square Real Estate, LLC. Letter C, Hearings, No. 3, Tab 3, Case CESD20150018793, Southwind Village MHC, LLC, has been withdrawn. Page 3 March 24, 2016 Number 6, Old Business, Letter A, motion for imposition of fines/liens, No. 5, Tab 12, Case CESD20150009967, Antonio Barajas and Virginia Barajas, has been withdrawn. Number 14, Tab 21, Case CEPM20140025426, Lynne V. Cadenhead, has been withdrawn. And that's all the changes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept the changes. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome a new member to the Board; Kathleen Elrod. MS. ELROD: Hello. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're hiding down there at the end. Welcome. MS. ELROD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't we begin. MS. ADAMS: The first case, from No. 5, Public Hearings, Motions, Letter A, motions, No. 1, Tab 8, Case CESD20140006223, Henry Perez. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Before we begin, I know we have a Page 4 March 24, 2016 lot of people here. Do we have a lot of people who signed up to speak at this meeting, or if we don't, have the people who want to speak signed in? MR. LETOURNEAU: I believe the majority are here for a particular case, which we did get a stipulation on this morning. I don't know if they still want to speak or just show a sign of support. I'm not, you know -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: -- really sure what the Board's going to entertain at that point. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We'll get it at that time. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, Eric. MR. SHORT: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have a stipulation that you'd like to read into the record? MR. SHORT: This is actually -- for the record, Senior Investigator Eric Short, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is actually a request for a continuance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Tab 8. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This is a stip that was signed in November. At that time they were given 90 days. I guess my question is, what's been done? MR. SHORT: I'll let Mr. Perez comment to that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. PEREZ: Okay. Since then I got an extension, a little extension for the permit. Jonathan Walsh gave it to me because I put a well in. The issue I'm having with the home is that every -- when I put the plumbing in a year-and-a-half ago, everything was stolen. Okay. So at Page 5 March 24, 2016 that time everything was opened up, so I boarded it up. So I did partial electrical. I wired all the walls up to the box. Everything was stolen, the wiring; you know, the wiring that I put in was stolen. So my issue is that I cannot do anything on the inside which would allow me to extend the permit until I close off the house. So I explained this to Jonathan Walsh, and he said that -- that's why he gave me the extension until March, which is now. So my issue is that every time I do something on the inside, it disappears. So I need to close off the house, which I'm attempting to do because I bought this home two years ago when I had a second income, when my wife was with me. She left a year -- like six months later, so I've been a year and a half with one income. So it's very difficult for me to, you know, buy all the windows -- because it's, like, $20,000 in windows -- and put them all in and just close off this house. The boards aren't working because they kick them in, and I can't, you know, do anything dangerous because -- and then I'm liable if I try to, you know, put nails in it or anything so people won't kick it in. But they kicked in the boards twice. So I'm attempting to close off the house. So I've already put in five windows. I have 11 more to go, and one more door, because I closed off the side entrance door. The thing is, financially it's hard for me because I'm raising my two boys alone, and I'm on one income. And I saved enough this summer to finish off the windows. I'm doing this as an owner/builder, and I'm doing this as my own. When I bought this place two years ago, I thought that I could take the summers off because she was working and I was working. And I was going to take the summers off and just do it every summer and finish it off in a couple of years. But, you know, the circumstances are out of my control. I'm on one income now, so I'm attempting to close it. I have all the windows Page 6 March 24, 2016 there. I just need to put them in. My issue is, financially I can't afford somebody to come in to put them in, so I have to do it myself. And my work ends April 15th. I stop working, so I can do it -- after April 15th I can do it. And I can close off the windows and then redo the electrical, which is the easiest thing for me, so I can get my extension. So I'm just here to see if you can allow me to get six months so I can get my last one so I can get a six-month, you know, extension on the permit when I do the electrical. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Since November you've been broken in again? MR. PEREZ: No, not since November, because I haven't put in anything else. This was -- a little over a year ago the two break-ins happened. One happened, the plumbing, which I said, oh, it's easy to cut off the pipes. So they cut up all the pipe. You can even go in there and see; all the pipes are cut off. They cut everything that I put in. The electrical, I wired it to the wall and I put boards on it so they wouldn't see it. All the boards are on the floor. They took all the electrical. So this -- but this happened over a year and -- over a year ago. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did you report that to the sheriff? MR. PEREZ: A sheriffs officer came in; he looked. He told me that I had to board -- the place wasn't boarded up yet. I had to board the place up, and that's when I boarded it up. That was for the plumbing. But he didn't make a report, neither did I, because he said there's nothing, really, we can do because this is open field. It's on two acres. He says anybody can walk on here. He says, put "trespassing" signs on it, which I didn't have at the time, and I put one on each corner and three in the front. So now I have the trespassing sign. I have an order with them. You know, if they find anybody on the property, that they're not allowed on the property because the only Page 7 March 24, 2016 one that's working on the house is me. So nobody's allowed on the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Eric, do you have any comments? MR. SHORT: I will say that currently the home is secured. It's boarded up. There is no imminent life safety issue at this time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Comments from the Board? MR. MARINO: Is he asking for six months or 12 months? The letter says 12. MR. PEREZ: Yeah. I'll take six. It will be done this summer. I can get an extension. MR. LEFEBVRE: The house will be completed; you mean? MR. PEREZ: No, no, no. I'll be able to put in the windows so I can do an electrical so I can get an inspection done, a partial inspection done, and then they'll extend my permit six months. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I move that we grant a six-month extension. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion to grant a six-month extension. MR. DOINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. Any discussion on the motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: A vacant unfinished home with expired permit is what the original description was. So once he gets the permit renewed, then there won't be a violation; is that correct? MR. SHORT: That's incorrect. The stipulation agreement that we signed states that there has to be a certificate of completion -- or a certificate of occupancy issued before this case is resolved. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Well, six months is definitely not going to be enough time for him to accomplish that. Page 8 March 24, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I believe what Mr. Perez is saying is that once he has an inspection performed, that automatically will allow him additional time to get other inspections done. MR. PEREZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And then that's on the building side of the world. On the violation side of the world, probably Mr. Lefebvre is correct, you certainly won't be done with the house in six months. MR. PEREZ: No, I won't. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you'll probably be back here at that time to request some additional time, and at that time we would see that hopefully there's progress being made and we could extend it at that point. Any other comments from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: No. I think the six months is good. At least it will keep an eye on it and see what is happening in six months. MR. PEREZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. Any other discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Page 9 March 24, 2016 Okay. Prior to the -- prior to the sixth month ending, stay in touch with Mr. Short so that there's no time that you go over it. MR. PEREZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you'll be able to come back and request whatever you want to request at that time. MR. PEREZ: Perfect. I appreciate it. Thank you. MS. NICOLA: I have a point of clarification for the Board. He asked for a continuance and you guys -- somebody said extension. Are we doing it as a continuance or extension? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Continuance. MS. NICOLA: That's what I thought. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that what you wanted to do? MR. L'ESPERANCE: That is correct. MS. NICOLA: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the second? MR. DOINO: Yeah, second on that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The difference, by the way, between an extension and a continuance is that the fines will continue to accrue during the six months. When you get everything all said and done, if you want to come back and request an abatement or whatever, that's your prerogative at that time. So I just wanted to let you know the difference between an extension and a continuance. MR. PEREZ: Okay. So as long as I'm continuing to progress (sic) the home and finishing it up, am I going to have any problems or CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. MR. PEREZ: -- on extending it? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. MR. PEREZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Whether or not an abatement happens at a time in the future, that would be a determination that is Page 10 March 24, 2016 made by the Board at that time. And the Board has always felt that our job in life is to try to get people under compliance. And since you're working towards that, that will go a long way to hearing any request that you have at that time. MR. PEREZ: Okay. And by "abatement" you mean? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Abatement means we can abate the amount of fmes that are accruing. MR. PEREZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right now the amount of fines is at MR. PEREZ: Seventy-two hundred. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- 7,200. So if you -- six months times $200 a day, it's going to go up. MR. PEREZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But that can be abated at the time you get everything done, as long as you're showing good faith in getting the thing resolved. MR. PEREZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay? MR. PEREZ: Thank you so much. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. Thanks, Eric. MS. ADAMS: The first stipulation is No. 2 from Hearings, Tab 2, Case CESD20140011921, Omar Otero, Sr., and Liliana L. Portillo. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. OTERO: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. Could you state your name on the mike for the record. MR. OTERO: Yes. My name is Omar G. Otero. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And, Mr. Short, you have a stipulation to read into the record? Page 11 March 24, 2016 MR. SHORT: Yes, sir. For the record, Senior Investigator Eric Short, Collier County Code Enforcement. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: One, pay operational costs in the amount of$64.17 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Two, abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion or occupancy within 90 days of this hearing, or a fine of$200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Three, the respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; Four, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. OTERO: If I may, sir? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. OTERO: Okay. I spoke to Mr. Eric. And I did sign that agreement last Thursday, but if I may present my case to the Board. When I purchased the land -- I'm a Miami-Dade County resident, self-employed, lower/middle class individual. I purchased that with the intentions of establishing an agricultural business over there like planting organic vegetables and buy small quantities of animals to resell. My land is surrounded from all sides by agricultural land declared, on east side, north, and near to the Corkscrew (sic) preservation sanctuary over there, everything around this land. Page 12 March 24, 2016 I requested the agricultural exemption on this land. It was granted to me. When I was planning to do agricultural business over there, some of the local residents advised me that the winters over here could be harsh and also there has been documented panther attacks in animals over there. So based on the Florida law, which I have with me, Florida Statute 604.50, nonresidential farm builders are exempt from building code and any county or municipal building code. Determined nonresidential farm buildings means any building or supported structure that is used for agricultural purposes. What I did is a bay 60 by 30. It has no residential structure whatsoever. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me stop you for one second. What -- we're hearing this case right now. This is a stipulation that you agreed to on Thursday, I guess. If you -- MR. OTERO: To finish it, yes, because -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So do you disagree with the stipulation that you agreed to on Thursday? Do you want to change it in some way? Because if you do, instead of this being a hearing on the stipulation, we can have a hearing on the whole case. MR. OTERO: Yes, sir. I would like to leave that to the discretion of the Board after I present my case. And I give you the reason why I don't take -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, no, no, no. No. We're here. The county has read into the record the stipulation that you agreed to do so and so and pay such and such, and you have 90 days to do that. If you don't agree with that, that's fine. We will change the agenda that we have now and move this from a stipulation to a hearing, and then you can present your case. MR. OTERO: Yes, sir. Will there be any repercussions in the Page 13 March 24, 2016 meantime while we wait for the new hearing? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The new hearing can take place today. There are no repercussions that will happen. MR. OTERO: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: There's no additional fine. MR. OTERO: Yes, sir. I would like to -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's the same price whether you sign the stipulation. MR. OTERO: Yeah, I would like to do that because -- I would like to do that because my -- I cannot because of my circumstances. And what I did over there, it's -- you know, it's not residence. It's just a protection for the animals and -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you want to move this from being a stipulation to a hearing? MR. OTERO: Yes, sir, I would like that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: So he wants to cancel the stipulation? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. So you're not signing -- we'll pull the stipulation. Okay. And we'll change the agenda to hear this later this morning. And maybe you want to get together with Eric out in the hall and discuss this, and we can go from there. MR. SHORT: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay? MR. OTERO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. OTERO: Thank you. MR. MARINO: Do you need a motion to do that? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I need a motion to change the agenda. MR. ASHTON: Motion to change the agenda. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion -- Page 14 March 24, 2016 MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- and a second to change the agenda. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. ADAMS: The next stipulation will be No. 4 from Hearings, Tab 4, Case CESD20150016081, Anthony James Meerpohl Trust. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning, Eric. MR. SHORT: Good morning. Mr. Chair, before we get started, if we could establish the relationship between the contractor and the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. WHALEN: My name is Mike Whalen with New Era Construction. I'm doing the work for the owner, Mr. Jim Meerpohl. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have a letter to that effect that you can talk -- MR. WHALEN: I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And that's been provided? MR. SHORT: That's presented on your screen. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, great. Okay. MR. SHORT: For the record, Senior Investigator Eric Short, Collier County Code Enforcement. Page 15 March 24, 2016 It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: One, pay operational costs in the amount of$64.59 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Two, abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion or occupancy within 90 days of this hearing, or a fine of$200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Three, the respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; Four, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You've heard the stipulation. Do you have any concerns on the stipulation as far as the amount, time, or anything? MR. WHALEN: No. Everything looked good with the owner and myself. We should be able to be done in 90 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Could I get a motion from the Board to accept the stipulation? MR. ASHTON: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the second is? MR. MARINO: Second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Second. Okay. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 16 March 24, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. SHORT: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next stipulation is No. 5 from Hearings, Tab 5, Case CESD20150002237, Edward M. Miller and Brittany L. Miller. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Baldwin? MR. BALDWIN: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. You want to read the stipulation into the record? MR. BALDWIN: Sure do. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: One, pay operational costs in the amount of$65.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of the hearing; Two, abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspection, and certificate of completion/occupancy within 100 days -- 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of$200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Three, the respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; Four, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of Page 17 March 24, 2016 abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Since the respondent is not here, there's not a bunch of discussion. This was a remodel of kitchen, master bedroom, et cetera? MR. BALDWIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you think at 120 days they should be able to get this all under -- MR. BALDWIN: They think so. I've spoken with their architect, and he says -- he said it should be -- it should be taken care of within that for sure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. If we can get a motion from the Board to accept the stipulation as written. MR. DOINO: Motion to accept the stipulation -- MR. ASHTON: Second. MR. DOINO: -- as written. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second; Mr. Ashton. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks, Patrick. MS. ADAMS: The next stipulation is No. 6 from Hearings, Tab 6, Case CEROW20150014167, John E. Price. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) Page 18 March 24, 2016 MR. BALDWIN: Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: One, pay operational costs in the amount of$64.59 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Two, abate all violations by: Obtaining all required right-of-way permits and inspections through final approval and/or remove all offending material from the right-of-way for any activity not permitted with a valid Collier County right-of-way permit within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of$150 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Three, respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; Four, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Again, the respondent is not present. Any -- do you have any concern with this stipulation? MR. BALDWIN: No. He received a permit last week, and he's already started the work. So 120 days should be plenty of time for him to finish the work. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Could I get a motion from the Board to accept? MR. DOINO: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. Page 19 March 24, 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. MS. ADAMS: The next stipulation is No. 7 from Hearings, Tab 7, Case CESD20140008607, Gladys Trujillo. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. BALDWIN: And for the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Investigator. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It seems like you scared all the respondents away. MR. BALDWIN: Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: One, pay operational costs in the amount of$65.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Two, abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County building permit or permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of$250 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Three, respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; Four, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of Page 20 March 24, 2016 abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I see that this case was first observed April 29, 2014, so it's almost two years old. MR. BALDWIN: Right. Actually, just yesterday they went for a couple final inspections. They thought they were going to be done, but they failed on smoke detectors and some other things that he had to do because there was a fire in the house at one point. So this case kind of, you know, a few days ago we thought we'd probably take it off the agenda. But they signed the stipulation agreement, and we could have given them less time, but the 120 days CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Same price? MR. BALDWIN: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Gotcha. Okay. MR. ASHTON: Make a motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. DOINO: Second. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. BALDWIN: Thank you. Page 21 March 24, 2016 MS. ADAMS: The next stipulation is No. 1 from Hearings, Tab 1, Case CEN20150022700, Heritage Square Real Estate, LLC. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you state your name on the microphone for the record, please. MR. MAGDALENER: My name is Joseph Magdalener. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you are in what relation to -- MR. MAGDALENER: I am the owner of the shopping center called Wiggins Pass Crossing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you have a stipulation that you'd like to read into the record? MR. AMBACH: I do, sir. For the record, District Investigations Manager Chris Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. I do have a stipulation agreement, but I have met with some of the folks in the neighborhood. I explained the stipulation agreement to them, and they all seem to be in agreement with the signed stipulation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I believe this was a second violation. MR. AMBACH: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. AMBACH: Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Pay operational costs in the amount of 66.27 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Number 2, abate all violations by: Paying a fine of$250 within 30 days of this hearing for being a second noise violation as stated in Section 54-90(A) of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances; Number 3, revoking the amplified music permit PL20140002267 for the period of one year from the date of this hearing as stated in Page 22 March 24, 2016 Section 54-92(g)(10) of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances by the County Manager or designee; 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. Okay. Sir, do you have anything to say about this? MR. MAGDALENER: No. I agree with the stipulation. I signed it. And I gave it to my attorney to handle it. I talked to the owners of the restaurant called the Beach Tavern several times, and they just won't listen to me. They say I am wrong; the investigator is wrong; the county's wrong; the neighbors are wrong. We all are wrong. So I had no other choice than give it to my attorney to handle it, because that's a clear violation of the lease. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: I think this is just very weak. I think it's a slap on the wrist. And there's nothing stating that if this violation occurs again -- besides bringing him back in front of us, there's no fine attached to it. Being this is the second time, I think $250 is just -- it should be much higher than that, and I think there should be something, if it does occur again -- and with the owner's statement that the tenant feels everyone else is wrong sounds like this is going to keep on occurring, and there's no recourse. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, is this a one-time paying of a fine or monthly or daily fine? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The fines on a second violation -- Tammy, you correct me if I'm wrong -- are either 1,000 or 2- -- the maximum is 1,000 or $2,000 for a second violation. MS. NICOLA: I thought it was 1,000, but I pulled the rule last Page 23 March 24, 2016 time. MR. LEFEBVRE: What I'm trying to get at, at 250, the owner pays it and marches right along, and there could be violations for the next 30, 60 days before the case comes before us, and there's no -- no reason for the owner to force the tenant to comply. MR. L'ESPERANCE: But this is a one-time fee. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. That is correct. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Okay. MS. NICOLA: Five thousand. MR. MARINO: What's the name of the association? What's the name of the restaurant? MR. LEFEBVRE: Beach Tavern. MR. MARINO: Didn't this come before us about a year or so ago? MR. LEFEBVRE: It did. , CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, it did. Okay. Now, with the amplified -- with the amplified permit being revoked, that probably -- well, unless they violate that, which sounds, as you're describing it, that they just might since they don't agree with anything -- and I understand that you own the shopping center. They're one of your tenants. So we're not exactly talking to the people who are violating the ordinance. Jeff, you had something to say? MR. LETOURNEAU: I do. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. I'd like to point out that the actual ordinance gives guidelines to the amount of fines that should be imposed for adjudications of this particular violation. The first one being -- I'd put it up on the board if I Page 24 March 24, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Please. MR. LETOURNEAU: All right. That's the start of it right there. As can you see, the first violation is $100 and then -- go to the next page -- the second violation would be 250. So we're just going by the guidelines of the particular ordinance that was violated. As far as the revocation of the amplified sound permit, that's also in the ordinance that was cited on the stipulation. It shall be revoked by the county if a second adjudication occurs for a period of no more than one year. That's just -- we're just going by the ordinance as far as the fines and the revocation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is it a one-time fine that is allowed, or is it per violation? MR. MARINO: It looks like per violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Because that's not stated. There's no financial risk to the owner -- or if it was $250 a day and if the owner was facing a fine of six times, eight times, 10 times, that can add up and, therefore, he may want to start eviction proceedings for his tenant versus just a one-time fine, and then he marches on, and everyone goes on their merry way violating the ordinance. MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, I would defer to the county -- I mean the attorney, but I would point out the "no more than $500 fine" in the particular ordinance right there. MS. NICOLA: Right. If you look under Section 5 under the penalties, there's a Subsection 3 that says that the nuisance abatement board may order the violator to pay a fine which shall not exceed 250 per day for the first violation, but it goes on to say that for a repeat violation they may order the repeat violator to pay a fine which shall not exceed $500 per day. I mean, from an attorney's standpoint, the only difficulty that I would have with this particular ordinance is we don't have the owner Page 25 March 24, 2016 of the Beach Tavern up here getting fined. MR. MAGDALENER: He's right here. MS. NICOLA: Oh, we do. Okay. So the fine is going to -- it's going to be imposed against the owner, who would then have to impose it against -- the owner of the property against the actual facility, so... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me ask this question. Generally, if somebody did something and didn't have a permit to do something, the violation -- the payment of the penalty is every day. This is -- on a Tuesday the noise is -- the sound level violates, so on Tuesday that's a violation. Wednesday it's okay, and then Thursday it happens again. The only way to really keep this in check would be have somebody out there checking this on a pretty regular basis. Based on the folks who are living in the area, they can tell you probably better than a noise meter when they're violating the sound requirement of the code. MR. LETOURNEAU: I would say that these guys are pretty good monitors of the Tavern. They're living with it every night, and they would definitely call us. One more point I'd like to make is that if it happens again and we're here for a third time and we get a third adjudication, the penalties at that point -- we would ask for -- and it's in the ordinance -- would be to -- along with the Sheriffs Office, to confiscate the amplified sound music equipment. We would go in there, per your order, and take the speakers and whatever else out that you guys deem necessary to remove. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Now, the gentleman in the back, you own the Beach (sic), and you want to say something? Why don't you come to the mike. MR. DERIN: Good morning my name is Alessandro -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hold on. Hold on. No, no, no. Page 26 March 24, 2016 Come up, but tell us who you are on the microphone so -- (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. DERIN: Good morning to everybody. I'm the owner of the Beach Tavern. And first thing -- THE COURT REPORTER: Your name? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What's your name? MR. DERIN: Alessandro Derin. Alex, Alessandro Derin. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Alex, okay. Do you the right spelling? THE COURT REPORTER: Yeah. Can you spell it? MR. DOINO: Spell the last name. MR. DERIN: A-1-e-s-s-a-n-d-r-o, Alessandro, D-e-r-i-n, Derin. So for the first thing I would like, as an owner of the Beach Tavern, I saw lots of people over here. Think so they belong to the Lake San Marino. Supposed to be the community live behind us. And I want to apologize in front of everybody, if every time -- or something happen we disturb you guys. But I recognize a person over here, Mr. Dave Hoffman (phonetic). I don't know how come he's over here. The gentleman, you know, lives almost 600 yards from the back of the Beach Tavern, and he's the guy I catch one time behind the Beach Tavern, where we have the disposal, with the radio. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hold on one second. MR. L'ESPERANCE: It looks like we're going into the arena of a hearing instead of a stipulation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. It is a stipulation. Now, the Board can say we don't want to accept a stipulation and turn it into a hearing where we would have this gentleman testify along with any people from the association as well as Collier County. MR. LEFEBVRE. Again, to reiterate my issue with it, it doesn't Page 27 March 24, 2016 have a daily fine or a nightly fine attached to this. So it doesn't put any kind of stick to the owner to rectify this problem; just pay the $250 and then come back in front of us in another 60 days. So that's my issue with the stipulated agreement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me just ask one question. What have you done to stop the problem? MR. DERIN: We tried because, you know, from -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, no, no. What have you done? MR. DERIN: We modified the system. We had it outside, and we turned on -- sorry. Turned off all the speakers we used to have outside. That was the suggestion. He's over here, Mr. Baldwin. Oh, he's over there. The inspector has been out several times at the Beach Tavern, and I follow his, you know -- what can I say? Suggestions. So I really appreciate his help. I don't know how come it doesn't -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The concern that the Board has is that the $250 fine is -- although it is the code, Mr. Lefebvre feels that that is an easy thing to pay and go on, and we'd have another violation. I realize the other violation would come back. What we want is compliance and any way we can get compliance to include maybe having somebody out at the Beach Tavern on a regular basis to check the decibel level at the point. Yes, Chris, or -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, I think that the second part of the order is what the strong part is. The revocation of the amplified sound. What that means is if the permit is revoked, they're not allowed to have any amplified sound whatsoever. So I believe if we're out there in the future on a complainant's property and we hear amplified sound coming from the Beach Tavern CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's a violation. MR. LETOURNEAU: -- it's not going to -- we're not going to need a meter. We're just going to say we're bringing it right back to Page 28 March 24, 2016 the Board, and we're going to ask for confiscation of the equipment at that point. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me ask another question of the county. When you say "amplification," that means an electronic guitar, a microphone, that is going to cease immediately? MR. LETOURNEAU: Anything that's electronically amplified, voice, music, singing, whatever you call it, it's going to be a violation if we get a complaint and we come out there at night and we hear amplified sound. MR. LEFEBVRE: So let me ask another question. Let's say the tenant vacates the space and a new tenant comes in within the next year. Is the permit still revoked because it's for the property versus the tenant? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Who applies for the permit? MR. LETOURNEAU: That's something I'd have to ask our zoning department. I couldn't answer that question, to be honest with you. MR. LEFEBVRE: What I'm saying is, if it just changes ownership, the restaurant, they can change ownership and apply for a new permit, and -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me ask -- let me ask the landlord. Did you apply for a permit for amplification? MR. MAGDALENER: No, I did not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you didn't. So the permit was applied for by the tenant? MR. MAGDALENER: Tenant, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So that answers your question. MR. LETOURNEAU: I think -- MR. LEFEBVRE: It does. MR. LETOURNEAU: -- because we've cited the owner, I think Page 29 March 24, 2016 that -- the year stands no matter what goes in that particular location. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So for one year there will be no amplified anything at that location? MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. I don't know if that -- I don't know how that would be conveyed to a new -- if a new tenant went into the building department, wherever they have to go to get that permit. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, are we having a hearing? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, we're not. We're about to wrap this up. MR. LETOURNEAU: The permit -- it's basically that piece of property; the permit's attached to it. For a year they're not going to have any amplified sound legally coming from that piece of property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So it's in that -- MR. LETOURNEAU: And we'd have it flagged, and the zoning department would know, you know. Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So where we are right now is we have a stipulation in front of us that eliminates amplified music. There's a $250 fine. The costs are 66.27. And I look to the Board for direction on what you would like to do on this. Do you want to accept this stipulation or not? MR. LAVINSKI: Well, I guess I still don't understand. Is that music -- amplified music stopping as of today and for the next year? MR. MAGDALENER: Yes. MR. LETOURNEAU: Depending on your order. If you find a violation, we're going to go down to the zoning department after the hearing and request that they revoke the amplified sound permit for one year. MR. LAVINSKI: And is the tenant going to stop playing that music today? MR. DERIN: If that is what you decide, I have to obey. I don't Page 30 March 24, 2016 think so I can do nothing. Somethings surprise me because, you know, the violation has been done I don't know how many times, but I never had the Code Enforcement to come to my place and tell me to turn it down, you know. I am an -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're not here to hear -- MR. DERIN: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The question is a yes or no answer. You're not going to have amplified music when the permit has been terminated or revoked for -- suspended for a year, whatever words you want to use. MR. DERIN: It's going to kill the business, but I have to obey the rules. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So the answer to your question is yes. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: If the music's going to stop today or as soon as they get the permit revoked, I make a motion we accept the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have a second to that motion? MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second from Mr. Lionel L'Esperance. Now, any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 31 March 24, 2016 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. LEFEBVRE: Nay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. It passes. So you are going to go right now down and work on getting the suspension on the amplified music or whatever? MR. LETOURNEAU: As soon as this hearing's over, I'm going to go down to the zoning and request it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: And it does say "shall" in the ordinance, so I don't think there's really a choice at this point. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All right. Hopefully the neighborhood will be a little quieter. You don't have to dance in front of your house to the music. We go from there. Okay. MR. AMBACH: Thank you. MR. DERIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. If you folks want to -- if you're not bored and you want to stay, you're welcome, but if you'd like to leave, you might have other things to do. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 2 from Hearings, Tab 2, Case CESD20140011921, Omar Otero, Sr., and Liliana L. Portillo. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It almost feels like we just heard this case. This is the one that's coming back. So my first question is, is this now a hearing? MR. SHORT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So get everybody sworn in again. It wears off when you go out in the hall. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) Page 32 March 24, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. SHORT: Good morning. For the record, Senior Investigator Eric Short, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20140011921 regarding violations of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), expired permits for fencing and structures on the property located at 4886 16th Street Northeast; Folio 39651600008. Service was given on October 16, 2014. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: One photograph taken on June 16, 2014, by Investigator James Davis; one photograph taken on June 18, 2014, by Investigator James Davis. These photographs are stored in a database that I have authorized access to; I also have one aerial photograph that was obtained and printed from the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office website. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Has the respondent seen these pictures? MR. SHORT: He has. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any problem with those pictures -- MR. OTERO: No, sir, I do not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- being entered? Can we get a motion from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to accept the photos. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 33 March 24, 2016 MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. SHORT: This case originated on June 16, 2014, as a public complaint. Investigator James Davis met with the owner on June 18th and observed fencing and structures being built on the property without valid permits. The owner proceeded to work towards compliance until November 2015. Discussion with the owner reveals the inability to finish construction due to financial hardships. I met with the owner on March 17, 2016, and the stipulation was signed allowing 90 days to either complete or demolish the structure and fencing. To date the violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Could you go through those photos one more time. Do you want to point out things on these photos? This is the structure behind the fence? MR. SHORT: Yes. The fence permit has expired and -- MR. OTERO: If I may, the fence permit was completed and approved. I do have copies of it with me. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I'm just asking the question on the photos. We're going to let you cross-examine, if you want, Mr. Short. That's a picture of the structure that's on the property? MR. SHORT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You said you met with the owner back in 20 -- not you. Somebody met with the owner back in 2014. Was this the owner back in 2014? MR. SHORT: Yes. Page 34 March 24, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Next? Okay. That's a five-acre parcel or -- MR. SHORT: It's actually two parcels totaling near five acres. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Totaling what? MR. OTERO: If I may correct you, it's a total of eight-and-a-half acres. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Okay. All right. Now, do you have any questions of Mr. Short? MR. OTERO: No, sir. I would like just to give a brief explanation if you grant me the courtesy, of why, you know, I constructed that and what prevented me from finishing after I was cited by the county. As I said previously, my intention there was not to construct a primary residence, because I do have mine in Miami-Dade County, which I reside. My intention there was just to create a small entrepreneur business to plant some organic vegetables and buy and sell animals together with the neighbor. Maybe I misinterpreted the law when I was -- when I read that the state of Florida -- I don't know if the law is wrong, the county is wrong, or I misinterpreted the law, and it was an honest mistake. When I was granted the agriculture exemption before I built that -- and based on the advice of the people surrounding the area, they said there was panther attacks and the winter was harsh, and the animals had to be protected. I decided to build that. That structure doesn't have any division and electricity or any plumbing. It's no -- you know, it's not should be considered a house. When the inspector was taking pictures from outside, I invited him in. Please come in. How can I help you? He said, you know, you have a construction here. This is a residential area. This is the last edge of the Estates surrounded by agricultural land and plantations around the area. Page 35 March 24, 2016 I thought under the law I was allowed to do it to protect the animals. That was my only intention, not to build a house to live in it. I come on the weekends or -- you know, and have my neighbor watch the animals during the week, and then that's why I put the roof in it. They say maybe I have to stay on the site or something like that and protect myself from the environment and, you know, and I stayed in a hammock over there, and that's what I did. Now, when the inspector said that I have to build, I have, by law -- in order for me to have the animal protection shelter, I have to have a primary residence. I have some savings. I was going to -- you know, I was going to do something with it and continue the business, but I had a financial problem. One was my mother-in-law, which as an only child, mother of my wife, came out with cancer. I had to spend $15,000 for the operation on her breasts. Then my daughter was going to get married, and then 30 days prior to the wedding, groom got cold feet, and I lost $14,000 down payment on the venue. So I ran out of money. I'm a self-employed private investigator. I had a couple of contracts at the Port of Miami providing security over there. Firm from California came in and dropped the price 50 percent of what I was charging, so I lost that contract. I do have a property in Columbia that is worth about $80,000, and I wanted to sell it. I'm in the process of looking for a buyer so I could get those funds either to comply with the county requirements or see if I could get a contractor and an additional loan to construct the primary residence if I have to do that. But at the moment I don't have a penny to my name to do it. If I sell that property, I was asking the Board to see if you can grant me at least a year so I could sell the property and draw the plans, get the permits to do it. And that property, when the county told me that I have to alter the Page 36 March 24, 2016 construction, I went over here and paid $4,500 for a permit, and I paid $4,500 for a plan to modify the structure. But I haven't been able to do it because I consulted with a contractor, and the contractor said, Omar, if you're going to modify this, it's going to cost you approximately 65- to $70,000; septic tank, plumbing, electricity, and materials, and then you have to pay $15,000 impact fee to the county. So that amounts to more than $70,000 and -- if you're lucky and they don't find any little gimmicks. So I don't have the money. The structure is there. If I don't have a choice -- I invested, like, $60,000 in materials over there, and I build that with my wife, my brother-in-law, and a couple of friends above code to protect the animals, not to live in it. And then if I have to destroy it, I'll destroy it. But if you grant me a year, I could sell the property that I have in Columbia -- it's a house. That house is worth about 80,000 to 100,000 -- if I get a buyer, I would invest that money to modify it or construct a house. But at the moment there's nothing I can do, sir. My intention, like I said, I misinterpreted the law, and I read it before. Florida Statute 604.50, nonresidential farm buildings. Nonresidential farm buildings are exempt from the building code and any county or municipal building code. The term "nonresidential farm buildings" means any building or supported structure that is used for agricultural purposes. It is located on land that's an integral part of a farm operation. And I was granted the agricultural exemption. I didn't know, you know, that I couldn't construct anything for the animals. Now, there is another portion over here that reads, Section 604.50, Florida Statute exempt nonresidential farm buildings, farm fences, and farm signs for land development regulations adopted by the town or any municipality. Notwithstanding any provision allowed to the contrary, any nonresidential farm building, farm fence, or farm Page 37 March 24, 2016 sign, it's the same for the Florida Building Code and any county or municipal code or fee except for code provisions implemented by local authorities. I have my agricultural exemption here. Maybe I misinterpreted the law; didn't know because I don't live in Collier County. My intention was, just like I said, that small business with the neighbor and do it here or there get my, you know, vegetables and animal, buy small quantity to sell on my acres. And I did that to protect my animals. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me ask a question. You said to begin with that you have a fence that was CO'ed or you -- MR. OTERO: Yes, sir, it is, and so is the driveway. I have the papers over there in my briefcase. The fence was already, you know, approved. I did it myself, and they came, they inspected, and I passed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. OTERO: And everything surrounding my property, sir, is agricultural. There is no residential, you know, like that, and it's at the very end edge of the Estates. If you see the aerial, all that is residential on the other side of the canal. I mean -- and the construction itself is right in the middle of the property, the 250 to 350 feet from any other surrounding properties. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Did you check the permit on the fence? MR. SHORT: Yes. The county still has the permit as expired. MR. OTERO: Yeah. That was -- it expired first, and I renewed it, and then I complete it. An inspector came in, and he gave the approval. MR. SHORT: If I recall, there was a spot survey that was missing in order to get the certificate of completion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: There was -- the spot survey was missing; is that what you're saying? MR. SHORT: Yes. The inspections were done, but the spot Page 38 March 24, 2016 survey was missing in order to get the certificate of completion just for the fence. MR. OTERO: Yeah. An inspector came in and he -- but it expired, and I renewed it because I didn't have time to finish it. And he came in and he sealed it and said "pass." He gave me that. I didn't know I have to do anything else. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What they're saying, I believe, is that you passed all of the inspections, except when you put a fence in they have to do what's called a spot survey to make sure that the fence is going on your property where it's supposed to be; am I correct? MR. OTERO: They did that, sir, and I have the survey. I got the approved surveys and everything. I don't know if they conducted that. MR. LETOURNEAU: Do you have the certificate of occupancy or completion with you? MR. OTERO: Yes, sir. They should be there. If I could show it. MR. LETOURNEAU: Sure. I believe Investigator Short's just going by what he sees in the -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The original agent that issued the violation back in 2014 was not Eric; is that correct? MR. SHORT: That's correct. He's no longer employed with Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So I could understand their -- MR. OTERO: No, sir. I think I left -- no, sir, it is in my other briefcase in the vehicle. But it is, and -- you know, it is, and it's a stamp. MR. SHORT: Mr. Chair, I think the bigger issue is the structures on the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. NICOLA: Can I ask a point of clarification? Because I pulled the statute that he's referring to. Why would this not qualify as a farm building? Page 39 March 24, 2016 MR. SHORT: The reason it wouldn't qualify is in the Estates zoning district you need to have a principal use for the property, and the only principal use that is recognized is a single-family residential dwelling. MS. NICOLA: Okay. MR. OTERO: I consulted with the state attorney, and I sent them a letter, and they did say that, you know, as long as you got an agricultural exemption, you should be able to build a structure to protect the animals. I don't know. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you swear in Jeff. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. LETOURNEAU: Once again, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. I'd like to make a few points, counterpoints to this gentleman's argument. He's quoting agricultural properties. This property is Estates. And the first thing I'd like to say, I've got the permitted uses in front of me right now as far as the Estates goes. It's very short. Single-family dwelling, family care center, essential services, schools; that's it. That's all that's allowed to build initially on an Estates zoned property. I don't have the Florida Statute in front of me; however, I believe there's one keyword in the Florida Statute, and it's -- I believe it's commercial. And if you go down to accessory uses in the Estates zoned property, there is, indeed, the ability to have fruits, vegetables, and nursery plants growing. Hold on -- yeah, as an accessory use to the principal structure. You have to have the principal structure on the property before you're allowed to have the accessory uses. So, yes, he can have that, but there's no primary structure that's been inspected with a CO first before he can do the accessory uses. MR. LEFEBVRE: Also, does the state statute specifically say Page 40 March 24, 2016 that it has to be agricultural land? Does it specifically say the zoning? MR. LETOURNEAU: I don't have it in front of me. I know it does say for commercial use, though. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: When you talk about agricultural zoning, I mean, as far west -- in Pine Ridge Estates everything on the right-hand side of Hickory Road is agricultural, but you need a primary residence on it. Is there a difference between what we're talking about here as a commercial agricultural property versus agricultural use? MR. LETOURNEAU: On agricultural property, depending on the size of the property, you can have agricultural uses on that property before you have the primary structure. Unlike the Estates zoned property which specifically says you need the primary -- you need the primary use before you can have the secondary uses on there. MR. LEFEBVRE: So that's what the state statute's implying is that if you have agricultural zoned property, you will not need the permits -- county permits and so forth. MR. LETOURNEAU: That is correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: But that's specific to that zoning, not to the Estates zoning? MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. So that's the issue. You're trying to build an Estates zoning, and the law, state law doesn't apply to Estates zoning, if that's what I'm understanding correctly. MR. OTERO: Like I said, sir, yes. And maybe it was a misinterpretation, and that's what I did. That's no -- it wasn't intentional. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. OTERO: My intention here no -- is not -- I'm not looking for pity or sympathy,just understanding. I did make a mistake and I, you know -- and if I have to abide by Page 41 March 24, 2016 the rules and regulations, I have no problem with that. But circumstances out of my hand, you know, prevent me from doing that at the moment. If I could, you know, ask from the Board, give me an extension of 12 months, I sell that property, I might either build -- because I just spoke to a bank also that says, Omar, we could give you the rest of the money to build a primary residence so you don't have to destroy that, because it will be a pity to destroy. That's all treated wood, it's well constructed, it's about $60,000 that it took me to do it. And then to destroy it, it will be a pity. And I could do it. If I have to, I have no choice, I could do it but, you know, it wouldn't be fair to me, and -- MR. LEFEBVRE: You understand why we're here? MR. OTERO: Yeah. MR. LEFEBVRE: What you're providing to us is for agricultural zoning, and the zoning -- it's the incorrect zoning to do what you're trying to do. MR. OTERO: Yeah, they gave -- yeah, they gave me that, and probably I misinterpreted the law or -- and I wasn't aware of the Estates regulation. I failed to read on them. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me stop. First we need to find out whether a violation exists. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion a violation exists. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we have a motion -- MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- and a second that a violation exists. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 42 March 24, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. So the interpretation that the county has made appears to be what has been explained. Now, the remedy for that would be to give you X amount of time -- MR. OTERO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- to resolve the situation. MR. OTERO: I will appreciate that if you could grant me that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Does anybody -- I have no problem personally granting up to a year -- because it's not infringing on anybody. There's nobody living there. There's no safety -- to give this gentleman enough time to resolve his financial situation. MR. OTERO: No, sir. You've got my word. If I do sell that property, that house over there, I will take care of it immediately. It's just that I cannot -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. MR. MARINO: I'll make the motion to extend it for a year. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, we've got to -- MR. MARINO: Continue it or -- MR. LEFEBVRE: We've got to read the -- MR. DOINO: We've got to -- the violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Recommendation. MR. SHORT: The county recommends that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$64.17 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Page 43 March 24, 2016 One, obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion or occupancy within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Two, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Now, would someone like to take a stab at filling in the blanks? MR. ASHTON: I will, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. -- Bob. MR. ASHTON: Under No. 1, he'll obtain the Collier County building permits and demolition permit, inspections, certificate of completion/occupancy within 360 days of this hearing, or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed by -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you want 360 or 365? MR. ASHTON: Three-sixty. It's a little less than a year. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So it's 360, the 64.17 paid within 30 days. MR. ASHTON: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the fine after 360 days? MR. ASHTON: A hundred dollars per day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a hundred dollars a day. Okay. And we have a second from Lionel on that. Any discussion on the motion? Yes. Page 44 March 24, 2016 MR. LEFEBVRE: Is the second agreed to -- because originally it was 500 per day. Does the second agree to $100 a day? MR. L'ESPERANCE: I do. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any more discussion on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. You have 360 days. MR. OTERO: Yes, sir. I understand. And I do appreciate it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you should have plenty of time, and hopefully you'll make your sale and everything will be fine. MR. OTERO: I hope I do, sir. And as soon as I do it -- I'm more interested than anybody in complying because that's my dream, and that's my retirement land. I'd rather lose my wife and my house than lose my land. No, seriously. That's my dream, honestly. I bought that because I want to live there, but at the moment I can't build a house. That was a joke. I wasn't serious. MR. LEFEBVRE: You're on record. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You have to explain that to your wife because it is TV. Not only that -- Page 45 March 24, 2016 MR. OTERO: I do appreciate it. Thank you. It will be taken care of, I give you my word on it. Thank you. I do appreciate it. MR. MARINO: It's on record now. MS. ADAMS: The next case is from No. 6, Old Business, Letter A, motion for imposition of fines/liens, No. 2, Tab 9, Case CESD20140000965, Maricela Perez. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. MUCHA: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And good morning. Can you state your name on the microphone. MS. PEREZ: Maricela Perez. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You may want to pull the mike down a little bit. There you go. And Joe Mucha, okay. You probably are here to request something? MS. PEREZ: Well, I want to request more time due to -- I've talked to my permit affidavit guy again. And I went to the office, and I personally talked to his boss to finish his -- his section of corrections on the outstanding corrections, and they promised me that they'll talk to him and get it resolved by him and get -- give me the paper so I can submit it in. I did take care of the health department part, which I hired the health department here, and they did the evaluation already. All I'm waiting is for Antonio Rajo (phonetic) to finish his part on the permit by affidavit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. PEREZ: And I'm requesting at least 60 days or three months. I don't know. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. PEREZ: Because they promised me to hurry up and talk to Page 46 March 24, 2016 him and give me those papers so I can process it into the office. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Joe, do you have any comments? MR. MUCHA: For the record, Joe Mucha, Collier County Code Enforcement. I kind of agree with her as far as -- because I have a copy of the corrections, and there was some stuff from the health department. So if she's saying that's been taken care of, that was kind of the bulk of it, and then the rest seemed kind of minor. So I would think -- MS. PEREZ: That's what I was telling him, it's minor. Why haven't you done it? I've been on him. MR. LEFEBVRE: When were the corrections sent back to the architect or engineer? MR. MUCHA: This was dated February 25th. So if she's already jumped on it, that's a good sign. MS. PEREZ: Yes, I spoke to him. And I'm going again today, because I'm tired of waiting for him to comply (sic) my forms. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any comments from the Board as far as an extension, continuance? MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to continue for 60 days. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second to continue this for 60 days. Any comments on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 47 March 24, 2016 MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. PEREZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Sixty days. Good luck. MS. PEREZ: All righty. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If you want to borrow this to motivate them... MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 2, Tab 9, Case CESD2014 -- oh, I'm sorry. The next one is No. 3, Tab 10, Case CENA20150008263, 333 Investments Land Trust. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. CROWLEY: Good morning. For the record, Michaelle Crowley, Environmental Specialist, Collier County Code Enforcement. This was a violation of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 54, Article VI, Section 54-184(D). The location: 1450 Whippoorwill Lane, Naples, Florida; Folio 288040002. Description of violation: Prohibited exotic vegetation including, but not limited to, earleaf acacia and Brazilian pepper located upon 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, 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 Page 48 March 24, 2016 2212, for more information. The violation has been abated as of February 25, 2016. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of$100 per day for the period between January the 20th, 2016, to February 25, 2016, 37 days, for a total fine amount of$3,700. The previously assessed operational costs of$65.01 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing, $65.01. Total amount to date: $3,765.01. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning. MS. AMINI: Good morning. For the record, Shima Amini. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And I'm glad to see that everything has been abated and done, and you're here to request something? MS. AMINI: Yes. I'm here to request an abatement of the fines, please. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to abate. MR. MARINO: 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. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Page 49 March 24, 2016 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN. Carries unanimously. Well, we like to see you come and visit us every month, but now you won't have a reason to, so... MS. AMINI: Thank you so much. Have a great day. MR. MARINO: Thank you, sir. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 4, Tab 11, Case CESD20150011591, Jose G. Cuevas. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. CUEVAS: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you state your name on the mike for the record. MR. CUEVAS: Yeah. My name is Jose Cuevas. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you want to read the -- MR. SHORT: Mr. Cuevas -- they dropped off a letter to our office. I believe he would like to request more time. I don't know if you would like to see a copy of this letter. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you just put it on the -- okay. So it looks like you have just about everything done. MR. CUEVAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you're looking for an extension of time? MR. CUEVAS: Yes. I just need a little bit extension because what I'm missing in the house to finish it is only one inspection. But right now my contractor guy has a little bit problems on his license, and he go there today and take care with the license board. And as soon as they can give me inspections, I'll call it in, because I'm ready. I'll call it in, and that's it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So you think 60 days would be enough time -- Page 50 March 24, 2016 MR. CUEVAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- to get everything done? MR. CUEVAS: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: He was asking for 60 days from February 23rd. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: So do you want to give him 30? MR. CUEVAS: I'm fine with 30. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to grant an extension of 30 days or not -- MR. DOINO: Second. MR. ASHTON: Second. MR. LEFEBVRE: Continuance, continuance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. Thirty days from today. Page 51 March 24, 2016 MR. CUEVAS: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 6, Tab 13, Case CELU20150010274, Antonio Barajas and Virginia Barajas. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have two cases here. We'll hear the first one first then the second one second. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. LAVINSKI: That's pretty good. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. That was very clever of me. Good morning. MR. KINCAID: Good morning, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The first case, why don't you give us the description, and we'll go from there. MR. KINCAID: For the record, Jim Kincaid, Collier County Code Enforcement. This involves a violation of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 2.02.03 located at 5341 McCarty Street, Naples, Florida. Folio is 62042080000. Description of violation is outside storage of items consisting of but not limited to construction material, vegetative debris, pallets, tires, appliances, plumbing fixtures, and scrap metal on improved residential property. On August 27, 2015, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See attached order of the board, OR5194, Pg. 3100, for more information. On November 30, 2015, a continuance was granted. See the attached order of the board, OR5217, Pg. 2245, for more information. The violation has been abated as of March the 23rd, 2016. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a Page 52 March 24, 2016 rate of$100 per day for the period between October 27, 2015, to March 23, 2016, 149 days, for a total fine amount of$14,900. Previous assessed operational costs of$65.85 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing, $64.17. A total amount of $14,964.17. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Just a side issue. It was abated, I guess, after the 23rd, so yesterday. MR. KINCAID: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And the fines are around $15,000 on this one, and the next case -- they're around $15,000 on the second case. And the respondent is not here. MR. KINCAID: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Ordinarily, if the respondent is not here to ask for anything, it's difficult for us to grant something. So have you been in touch with the respondent? MR. KINCAID: Yes, sir. The respondent called me yesterday and was double-checking to make sure that the inspection for the abatement of violation was going to take place. I assured her that I would be out there during the day that the inspection would take place. Just as a refresher, there's a third case involved on the property as well. There was an issue with her obtaining the final inspection on the property. Evidently she didn't have the appropriate plans, or between somewhere in the renovation of the property and her husband moving all the equipment and the business off site, she lost the plans. So I think she's -- she came in, according to Renald Paul. Yesterday afternoon she was supposed to meet with him and get that issue straightened out. So she may be involved in that. I assumed that she would be here, and she's not. So I can't tell you why she is or isn't. But I think -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Ordinarily, I think that somebody -- you know, had they been here and asked for an abatement, since the Page 53 March 24, 2016 situation has been abated -- and this 15,000 on this, I don't know if-- the second case we haven't heard yet. I don't know if that's been abated or not. But just the $15,000 on this -- I'd almost like to see us have the county withdraw it until you can talk to the respondent and say, you know, if you want to abate the fme, I suggest you come to the board hearing and request that. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, one question. Didn't the respondent communicate with the county staff and ask that you confirm that it has been abated -- MR. KINCAID: I have confirmed -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: -- yesterday? MR. KINCAID: -- that it has been abated, yes. MR. L'ESPERANCE: He asked you to do that? MR. KINCAID: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The situation has been abated, not the fine. That's my concern. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'm just wondering if maybe that was his mindset. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I -- you know -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'm just asking. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- if it was explained and they understood it, I'm sure they would have been here. Jeff, you had something you wanted to say? MR. LETOURNEAU: Due to the fact that I believe both these cases that we're bringing today are abated, the county agrees with you that we would like to withdraw this at this time to give them an opportunity to come in here and speak for theirselves. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think that's the right thing to do. Anybody from the Board have a problem with that? Well, if you're withdrawing it, it's withdrawn. Page 54 March 24, 2016 MR. LEFEBVRE: And the same thing with the next case? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Great. Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 8, Tab 15, Case CESD20140025741, Steven R. Cuiffo. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. BALDWIN: For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. Violation: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location: 308 Morgan Road, Naples, Florida; Folio 3 -- excuse me -- 436720006. Description: A mobile-home-type structure was added to the property between 2012 and 2013 with no valid Collier County permits. Past orders: On March 26, 2015, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR513 8, Pg. 1190, for more information. On August 27, 2015, the Code Enforcement Board granted a continuance. See the attached order of the board, OR5194, Pg. 3088, for more information. On November 20, 2015, the Code Enforcement Board granted a continuance. See the attached order of the board, OR5217, Pg. 2251, for more information. On January 29, 2016, the Code Enforcement Board granted a continuance. See the attached order of the board, OR5241, Pg. 1375, for more information. The violation has not been abated as of March 24, 2016. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at the rate of$200 per day for the period between July 25, 2015, to March 24, 2016, 243 Page 55 March 24, 2016 days, for a total fine amount of$48,600. Fines continue to accrue. Previous assessed operational costs of 65.01 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing, $66.27. Total amount: $48,666.27. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you been in contact with the respondent? MR. BALDWIN: I was in contact with the respondent's daughter prior to the previous continuance. There was a gentleman that kept coming to all these meetings, a bigger guy. He also had another case he was following speaking on behalf the owner. He had the owner's permission. I have not spoken to him or the daughter since the last continuance. The permit has been ready since before the last continuance to be picked up. The violation has been abated except for the fact of the demo permit has not been picked up and CO'ed. The mobile home's gone. I don't know what's going on with this guy, the guy that was speaking before. When I spoke to the daughter, the daughter said that the father isn't out of town, so I don't -- I'm not sure what's going on. MS. CURLEY: We were told that he was in the military and out of town. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. MR. BALDWIN: The daughter told me that the father is 70 years old. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Maybe he's in the Salvation Army. MR. BALDWIN: So I don't know what's going on. And she said -- she specifically told me that he goes on trips from time to time. But he's in his 70s. So I'm not -- to be honest with you, I don't know what MS. CURLEY: Can't you mail him the permit? MR. BALDWIN: I honestly don't know what's going on. I wish Page 56 March 24, 2016 I knew more. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't we -- Jeff, why don't we do the same thing we did on the other. Withdraw it and maybe give him a chance to -- another chance to come in to request whatever. MR. LETOURNEAU: All right. The county wishes to withdraw this case at this time. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 9, Tab 16, Case CESD20130019399, Dorothy K. Gill. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. PEREZ: Good morning. This is in reference to CEB Case No. CESD20130019399. For the record, Cristina Perez, Code Enforcement Supervisor. Violation is Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), Section 10.02.06 (B)(1)(e), and Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article II, Section 22-26(B), and Section 104.5.1.4.4. Location is 5009 31st Avenue Southwest in Naples, Florida. Folio number is 36455080005. Description was two unpermitted sheds on the right side of the property, possible garage conversion and attic conversion to small apartments, the staircase moved to the right side of the structure from the rear of the property. Past orders: On April 24, 2014, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of facts -- 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, OR5039, Page 3250, for more information. On September 25, 2014, a continuance was granted. See the attached order of the board, OR5086, Page 2277, for more information. On January 22, 2015, a continuance was granted. See the attached order of the board, OR5118, Page 2294, for more information. Page 57 March 24, 2016 On May 28, 2015, a continuance was granted. See the attached order of the board, OR5163, Page 1492, for more information. On August 27, 2015, a continuance was granted. See the attached order of the board, OR5194, Page 3084, for more information. The violation has been abated as of March 21, 2016. The fmes and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at the rate of$200 per day for the period between August 23, 2014, to March 21, 2016, 576 days, for a total fine amount of$115,200. Previously assessed operational costs of$258.95 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearings are $67.11. The total amount to date is $115,267.11. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning. MS. GILL: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you say your name on the mike for the record. MS. GILL: Dorothy Gill. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you're here? MS. GILL: To request that the fines be abated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to abate. MR. DOINO: 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. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 58 March 24, 2016 MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. GILL: Thank you. MS. PEREZ: Thank you, Board Members. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 10, Tab 17, Case CESD20150003476, Diapazon USA, LLC. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Before we begin, could you state your name on the record. MR. KORCHAGIN: Yeah, absolutely. My name, Ilya Korchagin. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you are the owner? MR. KORCHAGIN: Owner of Diapazon, LLC, company. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good. MS. PULSE: Good morning. For the record, Dee Pulse, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violations of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and (e). Location was 3435 Enterprise Avenue, Unit 30, Naples, Florida; Folio 76720000602. Past orders: On September 24, 2015, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR5200, Page 1252, for more information. On January 29, 2016, a continuance was granted. See the attached order of the board, OR5241, Page 1353, for more information. Violation has been abated as of February 25, 2016. Fines have accrued at a rate of$250 per day for the period Page 59 March 24, 2016 between December 24, 2015, to February 25, 2016, 63 days, for a total fine amount of$15,750. Previously assessed operational costs of$64.59 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing $65.01. Total amount: $15,815.01. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have two cases. This is the first one. We'll hear the second one after. MR. KORCHAGIN: Yeah, absolutely. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And? MR. KORCHAGIN: I request you abate me from fines so -- make me free from any obligation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're requesting that the fines be abated? MR. KORCHAGIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the Board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Motion to abate. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to abate. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 11, Tab 18, Case Page 60 ii March 24, 2016 CESD20150002903, Diapazon USA, LLC. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. PULSE: Okay. This is in violations of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and (e). Location: 3573 Enterprise Avenue, Unit 73, Naples, Florida; Folio 76720002464. Description was a wall installed with electronic doors and ceiling tiles installed and no permits obtained. Past orders: On September 25, 20 -- or, I'm sorry -- September 24, 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, OR5200, Page 1249, for more information. On January 29, 2016, a continuance was granted. See the attached order of the board, OR5241, Page 1351, for more information. Violation has been abated as of March 11, 2016. Fines have accrued at a rate of$250 per day for the period between December 24, 2015, to March 11, 2016, that's 79 days, for a total fine amount of$19,750. Previously assessed operational costs of$64.59 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearings, $64.59. Total amount: $19,814.59. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. KORCHAGIN: Same request, that the fmes -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're requesting that the fmes be abated? MR. KORCHAGIN: Yeah, absolutely. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to abate. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to Page 61 March 24, 2016 abate. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. KORCHAGIN: Thank you very much. MS. ADAMS: Next case is No. 12, Tab 19, Case CESD20140004241, NKY Acquisitions, LLC. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. HOAGBOON: Good morning. For the record, John Hoagboon, Collier County Code Enforcement. I believe Mr. DeFrank would like to speak first. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. DeFRANK: Yes. I'd like to request a 90-day extension on this. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Did you write a letter to that effect? MR. DeFRANK: I did not. I heard about the hearing on Friday. I received title to this property on March 22, two days ago. I flew down from Chicago and met with a demolition company, and the property should be demolished within the first week of May. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I remember this case. MR. LEFEBVRE: So you were the lienholder on the property? Page 62 March 24, 2016 MR. DeFRANK: I was the mortgage holder, that's correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. And then someone was here last month or two months ago, whatever it was. MR. HOAGBOON: Sir, last month we had a letter from the attorney. MR. LEFEBVRE: From the attorney, okay. I knew it was some kind of correspondence. So you have hired a contractor to -- MR. DeFRANK: Yes, Apex, and I have the sheet here. MR. LEFEBVRE: To remove the house? MR. DeFRANK: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you need how much time? MR. DeFRANK: I'll ask for 90 days. He tells me the first week in May, but... THE COURT REPORTER: Did I get your name? MR. DeFRANK: Donald DeFrank. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, I would suggest that we consider a 90-day continuance to make sure everything is done. If it's removed prior to that, I guess you could come back here and request whatever you want to request at that time. Anybody -- MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to continue for 90 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. DOINO: Second. MR. MARINO: Second. MR. DeFRANK: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: You have title to the property now? You physically have title? MR. DeFRANK: Yes, I do. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Good. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a Page 63 March 24, 2016 second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. DeFRANK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. HOAGBOON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is a finger check. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 13, Tab 20, Case CESD20140017973, George Calderon and Cristina Calderon. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you pull the microphone down. There you go. And your name is George? MR. CALDERON: George Calderon. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Great. Joe? MR. MUCHA: I think Mr. Calderon, you had a request? MR. CALDERON: Yes, sir. I'm requesting for an extension of 180 days. I found out that the permit -- just to get the permits is $1,390.20, and I don't have the money at this time. I believe it's going to take me some time to accumulate this amount of money. I still need to -- I still need to -- more things to pay for before -- before this permit. The electrical, somebody -- I need to hire somebody for an electrical and -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is this space occupied? Page 64 March 24, 2016 MR. CALDERON: It's attached to our house, a storage room. MR. MUCHA: It's not supposed to be occupied. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Is there anybody who's sleeping in there or -- MR. CALDERON: No, sir. It's just a storage room. MR. LEFEBVRE: This case is from back in September 2010 (sic) when it was first opened, and it was in front of us in March, a year ago almost today, March 26th. So this has dragged on for quite a bit of time. I personally don't feel comfortable giving six more months to get this rectified. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I agree with you. Any other comments from the Board? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if it's possible for the county staff to perhaps investigate this a little bit further and come up with some different options that the respondent might have that we haven't discussed yet, financial options, something that we haven't discussed. MR. MUCHA: I really wouldn't know how to -- what other options there really could be. The fees are what they are. Part of the fee if a $650 after-the-fact permit fee, $550 is for the inspections, and then $130 of that is for the fire impact fee. I don't think there's anything that can be really waived there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's -- from this side of the fence, when you have enough money to put an extension on a building, then you should have enough money to get it permitted. So not having money is no excuse to me anymore. Not on this one, not going back that far. MR. LETOURNEAU: Can I clarify? Mr. Lefebvre, did you say 2010? MR. LEFEBVRE: No, 2014. MR. LETOURNEAU: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Page 65 March 24, 2016 MR. LEFEBVRE: September 2014. MR. DOINO: September 10th. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah, that's probably what -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You did say 10. We excuse you. MR. LEFEBVRE: September 10, 2014, just to be clear. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's still several years old. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we grant a continuance for 90 days. MR. DOINO: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second to continue this for 90 days. Discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. You have 90 days to get this done. So I would suggest that you get on it and show some progress as to getting this thing completed. You have three months to do that. MR. CALDERON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: I probably won't be -- be less likely to grant any more continuances on this case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're going to take five minutes, Page 66 March 24, 2016 eight minutes or whatever. I still need to get Sue out of here by, I promised her, 11:30. Okay. Take 10 minutes. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All right. MS. ADAMS: The next item is No. 7, new business, Letter A, elections. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Time for elections. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we have as our chairman for next year Mr. Robert Kaufman. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. DOINO: I'll second that. MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any other nominations? MR. ASHTON: I'll make a nomination for Gerald Lefebvre to be vice chair. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that. MR. DOINO: I'll third that. MR. LEFEBVRE: Actually, I'd like to step down as vice chair. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: Really? Discussion on that? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't think we should permit that. MS. CURLEY: Give us a reason. MS. NICOLA: It's not illegal, so you guys can do whatever you want on that. MS. CURLEY: Could we still force him? MR. LEFEBVRE: No. I mean, I've been doing it for long enough. MS. NICOLA: That's true. If he's voted in, then I guess he can't. MR. LEFEBVRE: I've been on this board for 14 years now. I've been chair and vice chair, one or the other, for the past, probably, nine years, eight or nine years of this. Page 67 March 24, 2016 MR. MARINO: That means you're qualified. MR. LEFEBVRE: It does, but it means that someone else should take -- MS. CURLEY: That makes sense. I'm waiting in the wings. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'd like to know, who would like to be vice chair? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I nominate Ronald Doino to be vice chair. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second that, if he accepts. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Ron? MR. MARINO: I don't -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, then vote against him. That's all. Ron? MR. DOINO: I -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Just say yes. MR. DOINO: I am a little bit on the fence. I still want to -- I'm hesitant to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We'll take care of you. MR. LEFEBVRE: It's just switching from one place to the other. MR. L'ESPERANCE: We'll take care of you. Double your pay. MR. LEFEBVRE: You're wearing a purple shirt. No one's going to notice a difference. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Would you accept it if you're elected? MR. LEFEBVRE: It's a pretty easy job. MR. DOINO: I don't know. I'm kind of-- I don't know. I'm just on the fence. I don't know. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We can change anytime you're unhappy with it. MS. CURLEY: What are the responsibilities? MR. MARINO: You've got to be up on everything. You've got Page 68 March 24, 2016 to be able to take over the meeting. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He's got to take over when I die or miss a meeting. MR. DOINO: And if I'm -- this would conflict sometimes with my business. I'm kind of on the fence. MR. MARINO: That's true. That's true. MR. LEFEBVRE: But you've been to -- your attendance has been very good. MR. DOINO: No, I know. I know. I just -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I'll make a nomination that Mr. Lavinski be the vice chair. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do we have to withdraw? Since we made motions, do we have to withdraw? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Doino has declined. Mr. Lavinski has accepted if we vote him in. So all those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. And we're going to have you out of here on time, I promise. There are -- there are a couple of items that I marked, with some input from my English-major wife. On the -- under Article VI, under stipulations, B, it says, non-contested cases "and present at the hearing" is a typo. It should say, "who are present at the hearing." Anybody Page 69 March 24, 2016 have a problem with that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's just turning it into English. Under hearings, under A, contested cases by respondents, same thing, "who are present at the hearing," it should say. That's two. On the next page, under Article VII, under Section 3, it says, secretary to the board shall send out notice of hearing along with a statement of violation and a copy of the rules and regulations to the alleged violator by either certified mail, comma, return receipt requested, comma, hand delivery upon party. That's got to be cleaned up in English so it means what it is, if you get my drift. MS. ADAMS: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The commas are in the wrong place. MS. ADAMS: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Under Section 4, like, the second sentence, the Code Enforcement investigator shall submit the charging packet of information detailing the alleged violations to the secretary of the board for distribution to the board members 15 business days prior to the board hearing. There was an "at" there, at least two words. It should be -- that should be cleaned up to say what you mean when it needs to be sent out. MS. ADAMS: Well, we actually distribute the packets about five days. Do you want to change that -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, I think so, because -- MS. ADAMS: -- to five days? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- we're in violation every month. MS. ADAMS: Yeah. I mean, we don't have it ready 15 days before the hearing, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. MS. ADAMS: Yeah. So do you want me to put five? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think that would be good unless Page 70 March 24, 2016 somebody has a problem with it. Tammy, do you have a problem with that or not? MS. NICOLA: I don't have a problem with that, no. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I mean, it would be nice to get it that way, but it just doesn't happen. And the rest of it is actually, you know. Gerald, you and I have been doing these things for the last umpteen years. You would think we would have picked some of this stuff up. I don't know. But those are the changes, and they're all just English changes that I think need to be made. Do you have any suggestions, Tammy? MS. NICOLA: I don't. I think they sound like good suggestions to me. I mean, on the notification provision, I just think you need to make sure that there's reasonable notice. That's what -- it's -- sometimes, I think, in a lot of the statutes that I read daily, it talks about giving reasonable notice, because when you start to put time restrictions on it, then you give someone a loophole. So I think cleaning that up is a good idea. MS. ADAMS: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: I've got a couple I'd like to discuss. One's an easy one. Page 10, Section 5, the fourth sentence down there's a typo. It said, the order "nay" be enforced. It probably should say may, may be enforced. MS. ADAMS: Okay. I'll correct that. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. And then the one that I really want to address which gives me agita every month; Page 8. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I know what this is before you even say it. MR. LAVINSKI: There's a whole bunch of gobbledygook that Page 71 March 24, 2016 talks about respondents having to ask for an abatement and prepare 15 packages and all that jazz. If we're not going to do that, I think that ought to be removed, 15 copies, and on and on and on. It talks about a motion for reduction, which we can do. Section 3, I'd like to -- today was a perfect example. I think Mr. Lefebvre made a motion to do away with $115,000 after the person has already had five or six continuances. I think we're missing the boat because part of Section 3 says we should consider the time and costs incurred by Code Enforcement to have the violation corrected. Now, five or six continuances certainly is going to cost somebody something. So I -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: On that one in particular, I believe that young lady had paid $258 in -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. Dorothy Gill did. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: She paid $258 in court costs, if you will. So I just want to mention that. MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. I understand that. But I think H in Section 3 doesn't talk about those costs. It talks about other time and costs incurred by the Code Enforcement to have the violation corrected. It doesn't talk about administrative fees or anything like that. And I think that's where we're missing the boat on most fines. I don't think that every fine ought to be abated in its entirety. There obviously, in my opinion, has to be some incentives for folks and respondents to correct these things, and it's not fair to let this one go on two years, or whatever, and have the fine abated when somebody else has worked diligently in three months or two months to get theirs abated and yet they're treated the same. So I think we need to take a look at partial abatements at some degree. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We did that, actually, for the first time that I can remember, last month. We didn't abate the entire fine. I Page 72 March 24, 2016 forgot which case it was, but I thought of you when it happened. MR. LAVINSKI: Right. And that made me proud, but it hasn't happened again. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I do have one -- a little bit I'd like to contribute to that discussion. I'm curious what the rest of the jurisdictions might be doing in Florida. I'm wondering what options, perhaps, they've exercised or what ideas they've come up with, and I'm curious what percentage of the different jurisdictions in Florida perhaps go along with the same suggestion that we're making here, and there might be more than we think. But I'm just curious what the other jurisdictions might do. Perhaps a study can be made or a couple phone calls be made. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We -- remember the course that we went to over at the hotel where they discussed the state statute on that? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Which was not very long. It was only a couple of pages long, as I recall. MS. NICOLA: Yep. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Was it 463 or six and seven-eights or something? MS. NICOLA: I have a copy of it, I'm sure, because I brought -- I brought the packet. I mean, my recollection of it -- and I'd have to go through it, you know, a little more carefully -- is that the Board has huge discretion to abate all or part of the fines based on a case-by-case basis. And I think I've gone on the record in saying this before, that if you impose standards with which to guide you on that, then you really limit yourself. You limit yourself to the dynamics of each individual situation, which is the reason for the board in the first place. So, you know, I understand the concern of abating the fines in every single case, and maybe that's what you guys feel like you're doing. But what you're really doing is you're listening to these people Page 73 March 24, 2016 come up here and plead their case, and we see them over and over again. And the chronic offenders are going to be the ones we see over and over again chronically offending, and maybe those are the people that you don't abate the fines. But the people that we saw today, those are people that have worked diligently and have had legitimate reasons for having the extensions of time and the fines accruing. So, I mean, that's what you guys are there for. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a suggestion. I agree with Mr. Lavinski, and I think that that whole Article X needs to be looked at. And if we could get a copy, because we probably misplaced or put away that statute. MR. LAVINSKI: This blue thing? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, the blue thing, the blue thing. Just that -- and review that, and we can change these at any time we want after our meeting. But maybe it would be a good idea to focus on the state statute and Article X and see if we can come up with a suggestion. One of the things that I have noticed that we've seen on the bottom left-hand side of the fmes that -- and it shows a high priority, a low priority. That gives us some leeway, you know. You know, if it's a dangerous building is different than if you didn't cut your lawn. So I think maybe that's in order, and I have no problem reviewing that in great detail, and -- MS. ADAMS: Mr. Chairman, if I can make a suggestion. Maybe we should set up a workshop with our new director. Maybe he would like to be involved in, you know, any changes you guys may make to the rules regarding the fmes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think that would be fine. MS. ADAMS: Maybe we can set that up whenever it works for everybody. If you just want to let me know what month is good, we Page 74 March 24, 2016 can do it at the end. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Put it on one of our light months. MS. ADAMS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We've had months -- and today we had gotten sidetracked on a couple of the cases, but we legitimately could have been done much, much quicker. I think that's a good idea. Maybe you can talk to Mike and see what would be good for him. And probably the best time for all of us is after one of our meetings. MR. LAVINSKI: Right. And I think sooner is better. We've been kicking this can down the road. I've been here 10 years, and I think I've heard this nine of those 10 years. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think you brought it up each and every year. MR. LAVINSKI: Right, because we've got to get -- MS. CURLEY: Wait a minute. I have a comment about it, because you have brought it up. But then, you know, we're all sitting here, and we're all making motions, and we're all agreeing to it. So if somebody doesn't like the motion, then they should say something. So, I mean, the discretion lies as we're making our motions. It's not something we need to rewrite or -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I agree, but I think a certain amount of education might be in line with what you're saying to say that if you have something that's considered severe, maybe 30, 40 percent, whatever it is, and keeping in what Tammy said, that you don't want to tie yourself into a box. MS. CURLEY: No, I completely agree with -- of not having walls. I think it's the best. There's people -- for example, this person that was here earlier who we've gone through this 500 days with her and, you know, the hardship that she had. I mean, the specifics were that she didn't even own the house, you know, was a juvenile youth, and her -- Page 75 March 24, 2016 MR. LEFEBVRE: Her parents. MS. CURLEY: -- parents -- you know. So there's a lot of long stories that go on. And the gentleman who bought the house with the -- you know, the storage shed in Pine Ridge without a house. I mean, they've done amazing things, and we've helped them, and that's why we give them all these extensions, they pay the $68, which is an averaged cost of all the fees, including the paper and everything that it takes to get us here. So those -- we're not losing money, as is the county not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You know what always surprises -- MS. CURLEY: It's a service that we pay for with our taxes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What surprises me is that everybody gets raises, but the costs don't go up, the court costs, if you will. MS. CURLEY: Well, it's a state -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The costs for the magistrate are almost double our costs. MS. CURLEY: We were educated on that by the former -- it was Jeff? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Jeff Wright. MS. CURLEY: And he said that that's a cost number that they average based on all the administrative fees and everything you're speaking about. So unless you're going to fine them, unless we're going to make this a revenue center, then we're doing what we're here for. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, we don't want to make it a revenue center. Our call to duty is compliance, and any way we can do that -- MS. CURLEY: We're really nice people. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well -- MR. LAVfNSKI: Yeah, but they come in last. MR. MARINO: Does that mean I'm not getting a raise? Page 76 March 24, 2016 MS. CURLEY: Let's just keep this in mind in the next couple months, because we have some cases coming to fruition, and -- MR. LAVINSKI: I've tried that before. MS. CURLEY: Well, then make the motion. MR. LAVINSKI: You know what ifs like to get seven people to think that way if our rules don't say that? MS. CURLEY: The rules give us discretion. MR. LAVINSKI: I've gone down that hole and gotten nowhere. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, do you want to, again, review the state statute -- MR. LAVINSKI: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- that talks about Article 10 -- maybe you can email it out to us for the folks who have misplaced their blue binder, and maybe after the meeting we can put it on the agenda to talk a little bit further about it or maybe even adopt something. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I would like to find out what some nearby jurisdictions are also doing, please. MR. LAVINSKI: That's probably -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, I have listened to the code board in the City of Naples and Marco, and they could learn a lot from Collier County. MR. LAVINSKI: You've got that right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: There's a day and night difference. I think we'd have to go to a larger municipality. MR. L'ESPERANCE: That would be fine. I'd like to see what Lee County does. I'd like to see what Dade does, maybe Broward, but at least Lee and Dade. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Maybe we can -- we'll take a little field trip. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'd like that. Page 77 March 24, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All we have to do is find -- MS. CURLEY: We could -- do you know anybody that could get us a party bus? MR. MARINO: I'm out of the business. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You all either have to be together or separate. You can't have onesie, twosies. Okay. So why don't we bring that back on the agenda, and maybe Mike can discuss that with us also after the meeting. Our next meeting is? MS. CURLEY: The 29th April. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The 29th. MS. ADAMS: The 29th. It would be an item on the agenda because it has to be on the record. MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. That's another thing. Speaking of our next meeting, can you talk to someone in the Collier County television network? The last two months our meeting has been announced for a Friday. We don't meet Fridays. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Next month we do. MR. MARINO: Next month we do. MS. ADAMS: Next month, yeah. MR. LAVINSKI: Typically we don't meet Friday. MS. ADAMS: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: But the last two months have been Friday. MS. ADAMS: Where did you see that? MR. LAVINSKI: On that closed-circuit TV thing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Channel 97. MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, Channel 97. The day after meetings they list when the magistrate's going to meet and all this other stuff. Ours is always -- has been the last two months for sure a Friday. MS. ADAMS: I'll look into that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You want to meet on Saturday or -- Page 78 March 24, 2016 MR. L'ESPERANCE: I think Sunday morning. MR. LAVINSKI: Plus their sound stinks. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. The sound, by the way, does stink. I tried listening to the planning board, and it was like everybody was talking with marbles in their mouth. MR. LAVINSKI: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, maybe they did have marbles in their mouth. I don't know. Okay. Anybody have any other changes in the rules that they'd like to suggest that we either review or change? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Just Article X for our next meeting. MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Unless you have another one. MR. LAVINSKI: No, that's it for what I had. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do we have to make a motion to approve our changes to the rules? MS. CURLEY: Yeah. Make a motion for a motion (sic)? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Make a motion that -- go ahead. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion that we approve the changes therefore mentioned. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'll second that. And -- all those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. Page 79 March 24, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. One of the things I'd like -- you'll correct the English so we can look at those at the next meeting? MS. ADAMS: I'll make all the corrections. I'll bring a finished copy to all of you next month. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You know we have to sign it. MS. ADAMS: And you all have to sign it, that's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. Okay. Okay. Well, it's been a pleasure, folks. It's time to go eat. MS. CURLEY: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You got it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We are adjourned. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 : 13 a.m. O ! ENFORCEMENT BOARD irep 1111k..9; O :�' ' ll�ir►. FMAN, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on Oar)` 25, 2 ( as presented or as corrected Page 80