Loading...
CEB Minutes 04/29/2016 April 29, 2016 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, April 29, 2016 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Robert Kaufman Robert Ashton Ron Doino Gerald J. Lefebvre James Lavinski Tony Marino Sue Curley Lionel L'Esperance (Excused) Kathleen Elrod (Alternate) ALSO PRESENT: Tamara Lynne Nicola, Attorney to the Board Jeff Letourneau, Manager of Investigations Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA AGENDA Date: April 29,2016 at 9:00 A.M. Location: 3299 Tamiami Trail East,Naples, FL 34104 NOTICE: THE RESPONDENT MAY BE LIMITED TO TWENTY(20) MINUTES FOR CASE PRESENTATION UNLESS ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE BOARD. PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE(5)MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. ALL PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN THE PUBLIC HEARING ARE ASKED TO OBSERVE ROBERTS RULES OF ORDER AND SPEAK ONE AT A TIME SO THAT THE COURT REPORTER CAN RECORD ALL STATEMENTS BEING MADE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE,WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL Robert Kaufman,Chair Ronald Doino, James Lavinski,Vice Chair Tony Marino Gerald Lefebvre Robert Ashton Lionel L'Esperance Sue Curley,Alternate Kathleen Elrod,Alternate 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. March 24,2016 Hearing 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. Motions Motion for Continuance I Motion for Extension of Time 1. CASE NO: CESD20140017894 OWNER: JOSE F GARCIA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR SHERRY PATTERSON VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A). INCOMPLETE HOME. FOLIO NO: 40420400004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2087 DESOTO BLVD N,NAPLES B. Stipulations C. Hearings 1. CASE NO: CESD20150014619 OWNER: PETER WESSELL AS TRUSTEE OF THE PETER WESSEL IRREV TRUST UTD 2/14/06 OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A).A SHED TYPE STRUCTURE LOCATED IN THE REAR YARD OF THE PROPERTY WITH NO PERMITS ON FILE. FOLIO NO: 49582200004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6 DERHENSON DR,NAPLES 2. CASE NO: CESD20150015459 OWNER: FRANCES POOLE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ARTHUR FORD VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A).A REAR DECK INSTALLATION AND LANAI CONVERSION/ENCLOSURE AND WINDOW INSTALLATION WITHOUT REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS, INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION/OCCUPANCY, FOLIO NO: 24982560000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1865 HARBOR LN,NAPLES 3. CASE NO: CEVR20150022127 OWNER: CC-NAPLES INC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 3.05.08(C). PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION THROUGHOUT PUD. FOLIO NO: 69351040006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: NO SITE ADDRESS,NAPLES 2 4. CASE NO: CEVR20150022124 OWNER: CC-NAPLES INC BENTLEY VILLAGE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 3.05.08(C). PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION THROUGHOUT PUD. FOLIO NO: 143040008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: NO SITE ADDRESS,NAPLES 5. CASE NO: CEVR20150018846 OWNER: CC-NAPLES INC BENTLEY VILLAGE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 3.05.08(C). PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION THROUGHOUT PUD. FOLIO NO: 142720002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 14707 TAMIAMI TRL N,NAPLES 6. CASE NO: CEVR20150022131 OWNER: RETREAT HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 3.05.08(C). PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION THROUGHOUT PUD. FOLIO NO: 69350160000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: NO SITE ADDRESS,NAPLES 7. CASE NO: CEVR20150022128 OWNER: RETREAT HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 3.05.08(C). PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION THROUGHOUT PUD. FOLIO NO: 69350080009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: NO SITE ADDRESS,NAPLES 8. CASE NO: CEVR20150022132 OWNER: RETREAT HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 3.05.08(C). PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION THROUGHOUT PUD. FOLIO NO: 69350120008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: NO SITE ADDRESS,NAPLES 9. CASE NO: CESD20150024052 OWNER: K&R HOMETECH LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR VIRGINIE GIGUERE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A). INTERIOR ALTERATIONS CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO;THE REMOVAL OF INTERIOR WALLS,PLUMBING,AND ELECTRICAL WORK ALL DONE PRIOR TO OBTAINING COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS FOLIO NO: 63100120005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4810 AZTEC CIR,NAPLES 3 10. CASE NO: CELU20160001622 OWNER: NAPLES LOAN ACQUISITION LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 1.04.01 (A) AND 2.02.03.OUTSIDE STORAGE OF GOODS,CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO: SEVERAL CARDBOARD BOXES FILLED WITH ALUMINUM CANS,BARRELS,BUCKETS, TIRES,CANS,PLASTICS,ETC. FOLIO NO: 60780840009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5388 MYRTLE LN,NAPLES 11. CASE NO: CELU20160002489 OWNER: NAPLES LOAN ACQUISITION LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 1.04.01 (A) AND 2.02.03.THE OUTSIDE STORAGE OF GOODS CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO: TIRES,METALS, PILES OF YARD DEBRIS,RECREATIONAL/COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AND TRAILERS,ACCESSORY STRUCTURES SUCH AS CANOPY TENTS,SHEDS,CHAIN LINK FENCE,ETC. FOLIO NO: 60780800007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: NO SITE ADDRESS,NAPLES 12. CASE NO: CESD20160002567 OWNER: NAPLES LOAN ACQUISITION LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 5.03.01(A), 10.02.06(B)(1)(A)&2014 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE,CHAPTER 1,SCOPE AND ADMINISTRATION,PART 2 ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT,SECTION 105 PERMITS, 105.1 REQUIRED. SEVERAL UNPERMITTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: CANOPY TENTS,SHEDS,AND FENCE. FOLIO NO: 60780840009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5388 MYRTLE LN,NAPLES 13. CASE NO: CELU20160002491 OWNER: NAPLES LOAN ACQUISITION LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 1.04.01 (A) AND 2.02.03.THE OUTSIDE STORAGE OF GOODS CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO: TIRES,METALS,PILES OF YARD DEBRIS,RECREATIONAL/COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AND TRAILERS,ACCESSORY STRUCTURES SUCH AS CANOPY TENTS,SHEDS,CHAIN LINK FENCE,ETC. FOLIO NO: 60780760008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: NO SITE ADDRESS,NAPLES B. Motion for Reduction of Fines/Lien. 4 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. 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 2. 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 3. CASE NO: CEV20150009209 OWNER: ANTONIO BARAJAS&VIRGINIA BARAJAS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 130,ARTICLE III, SECTIONS 130-97(2)AND 130-97(3).COMMERCIAL TRUCK(S)AND TRAILER(S) STORED/PARKED ON IMPROVED RESIDENTIAL ZONED PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCES. FOLIO NO: 62042080000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5341 MCCARTY ST,NAPLES 4. CASE NO: CESD20150009967 OWNER: ANTONIO BARAJAS&VIRGINIA BARAJAS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(I)(A).UNPERMITTED STRUCTURES/IMPROVEMENTS ON IMPROVED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO ADDITIONS TO REAR OF PROPERTY, NEW STRUCTURE AT FRONT OF PROPERTY AND CANOPIES. FOLIO NO: 62042080000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5341 MCCARTY ST,NA 5. CASE NO: CESD20140004266 OWNER: CARMEN B CINTRON EST OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JUAN SERNA HERRERA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A).FOUR STRUCTURES ERECTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 63858720003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 908 GLADES ST, IMMOKALEE 5 6. CASE NO: CESD20150007420 OWNER: NWFP HOLDINGS CORP OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A).ALTERATIONS TO STRUCTURE WITHOUT APPLICABLE COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 62150200002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 11163 TAMIAMI TRL E,NAPLES 7. CASE NO: CEV20150013943 OWNER: JACK O'CONNOR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 130,ARTICLE III,SECTION 130-95. SEVERAL UNLICENSED VEHICLES AND TRAILERS ON THE ESTATES ZONED PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 37164160008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 230 5Th1 ST SW,NAPLES 8. CASE NO: CEVR20140007649 OWNER: PIOTR&JOANNA BANSKI OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 3.05.08(C).COLLIER COUNTY PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION ON PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 38280080003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 731 LOGAN BLVD S,NAPLES 9. CASE NO: CESD20150009975 OWNER: JOHN L CIPOLLA&ROBERT RICCIARDELLI&LESLIE RICCIARDELLI OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DELICIA PULSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A)AND(E).ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITION AND NO COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT OBTAINED. FOLIO NO: 24120480007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 264 BURNING TREE DR,NAPLES 10. CASE NO: CELU20140025432 OWNER: BRADLEY GOODSON&LEIGHA WILSON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELE MCGONAGLE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,SECTION 2.02.03.OUTSIDE STORAGE CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO,NUMEROUS HOUSEHOLD ITEMS, WASHER,DRYERS,METALS, PLASTIC,WOOD,GLASS, SIDING,TIRES,ETC. FOLIO NO: 75760120006 ADDRESS: 2448 FLORIDA AVE,NAPLES 6 11. CASE NO: CEAU20150003344 OWNER: BRADLEY GOODSON&LEIGHA WILSON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELE MCGONAGLE VIOLATIONS: THE 2010 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE,105.1 AS REQUIRED.CHAIN LINK FENCE INSTALLED AROUND THE PROPERTY WITH A PRIVACY FENCE IN FRONT WITHOUT A VALID COLLIER COUNTY PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 75760160008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2432 FLORIDA AVE,NAPLES 12. CASE NO: CELU20140025168 OWNER: BRADLEY GOODSON&LEIGHA WILSON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELE MCGONAGLE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,SECTION 2.02.03.OUTSIDE STORAGE CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO,NUMEROUS HOUSEHOLD ITEMS, WASHER,DRYERS,METALS,PLASTIC,WOOD,GLASS,SIDING,TIRES,ETC. FOLIO NO: 75760160008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2432 FLORIDA AVE,NAPLES 13. CASE NO: CEAU20150003345 OWNER: BRADLEY GOODSON& LEIGHA WILSON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELE MCGONAGLE VIOLATIONS: THE 2010 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE,CHAPTER 1,PART 1,SECTION 105.1 AS REQUIRED. ALTERED THE FENCE PERMIT BY ENCLOSING BOTH PROPERTIES AND ADDING A PRIVACY FENCE IN THE FRONT WITHOUT A VALID COLLIER COUNTY PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 75760120006 ADDRESS: 2448 FLORIDA AVE,NAPLES B. Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order 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 C. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order 7. NEW BUSINESS 1. IMPOSITION OF FINES DISCUSSION 7 8. CONSENT AGENDA A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. 9. REPORTS 1. CASE NO: CEAU20150020251 OWNER: WILLIAM ROBERT ANDREWS JR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: 2014 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE,CHAPTER 1,SECTION 105.A FENCE INSTALLED ON IMPROVED CONSERVATION PROPERTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE REQUIRED PERMITS,INSPECTIONS,AND CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION. FOLIO NO: 374240004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1516 PANTHER RD,COLLIER COUNTY 2. CASE NO: CESD20150021350 OWNER: WILLIAM ROBERT ANDREWS JR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A).OBSERVED SEVERAL PERMITTING VIOLATIONS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO:LARGE SOLAR PANELS,TWO STORAGE SHEDS,DETACHED GARAGE,A LARGE COMMUNICATION TOWER/ANTENNA,A SCREENED WOOD DECK ATTACHED TO THE DWELLING,AND TWO POLE BARNS ON IMPROVED CONSERVATION PROPERTY ALL WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE REQUIRED PERMIT(S),INSPECTIONS,AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY/COMPLETION. FOLIO NO: 374240004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1516 PANTHER RD,COLLIER COUNTY 10. COMMENTS 11. NEXT MEETING DATE- May 26,2016 12. ADJOURN 8 April 29, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, everybody. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board to order. Notice: The respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation unless additional time is granted by the Board. Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes unless the time is adjusted by the chairman. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Robert's Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the 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. And if you'll all stand, we'll recite the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. It might be a good time if you have a cell phone and you forgot to turn it off to do so; otherwise, we have you come up to the microphone and answer your calls. Why don't we have the roll call first, Kerry. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Robert Kaufman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKI: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Ronald Doino? MR. DOINO: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Tony Marino? MR. MARINO: Here. Page 2 April 29, 2016 MS. ADAMS: Robert Ashton? MR. ASHTON: Here. MS. ADAMS: Ms. Sue Curley? MS. CURLEY: Here. MS. ADAMS: Ms. Kathleen Elrod? MS. ELROD: Here. MS. ADAMS: And Lionel -- Mr. Lionel L'Esperance has an excused absence. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So for today's hearing, Sue Curley will be the voting member. And let's move on to the agenda. MS. ADAMS: Number 5, public hearings, motions, Letter A, motions, motion for continuance; we have three additions. The first is Number 1 from hearings, Tab 2, Case CESD20150014619, Peter Wessell, as trustee of the Peter Wessell Irrevocable Trust under trust dated February 14, 2006. The second is No. 10 from hearings, Tab 11, Case CELU20160001622, Naples Loan Acquisition, LLC. The third is No. 12 from hearings, Tab 13, Case CESD20160002567, Naples Loan Acquisition, LLC. Letter B, stipulations, we have two additions. The first is No. 9 from hearings, Tab 10, Case CESD20150024052, K&R Home Tech, LLC. The second stipulation is No. 2 from hearings, Tab 3, Case CESD20150015459, Frances Poole. Letter C, hearings, No. 3, Tab 4, Case CEVR20150022127, CC Naples, Incorporated, has been withdrawn. Number 4, Tab 5, Case CEVR20150022124, CC Naples, Incorporated, Bentley Village, has been withdrawn. Number 5, Tab 6, Case CEVR20150018846, CC Naples, Incorporated, Bentley Village, has been withdrawn. Page 3 April 29, 2016 Number 6, Tab 7, Case CEVR20150022131, Retreat Homeowners Association, Incorporated, has been withdrawn. Number 7, Tab 8, Case CEVR20150022128, Retreat Homeowners Association, Incorporated, has been withdrawn. Number 8, Tab 9, Case CEVR20150022132, Retreat Homeowners Association, Incorporated, has been withdrawn. Number 11, Tab 12, Case CELU20160002489, Naples Loan Acquisition, LLC, has been withdrawn. Number 13, Tab 14, Case CELU20160002491, Naples Loan Acquisition, LLC, has been withdrawn. Number 6, old business, Letter A, motion for imposition of fines/liens, No. 6, Tab 20, Case CESD20150007420, NWFP Holdings Corporation, has been withdrawn. And that's all the changes to the agenda. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Not many changes today, I see. MR. MARINO: I'm taking them out. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We need a motion from the Board to approve the agenda as modified. MR. ASHTON: Make a motion to approve the agenda. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Take your choice. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 4 April 29, 2016 MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Does anybody have any changes on the minutes that were sent out? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, I'd like a motion from the Board to approve the minutes as bulleted. MR. DOINO: Motion to approve. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. That brings us down to motion for continuance. MS. ADAMS: The first motion for continuance is No. 1 from hearings, Tab 2, Case CESD20150014619, Peter Wessell as trustee of the Peter Wessell Irrevocable Trust under trust dated February 14, 2006. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. WESSELL: Good morning. Page 5 April 29, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have a slip that was left here, which is, to say the least, difficult to read. MR. WESSELL: I apologize. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're not a doctor, are you, because MR. WESSELL: No, sir. Just gifted with an inability to print very nice. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't you tell us rather than me trying to -- MR. WESSELL: Okay. I'm requesting a 60-day continuance, and code enforcement, through Jeff, said they wouldn't oppose if it were 30 days, and I said that was fine with me. The reason is, is because I'm really not prepared at this time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I'm looking at the case. This began July of 2015; that's about nine months ago. MR. WESSELL: Correct. And we had a hearing, I believe, in January, and at that hearing I thought everything was kind of pushed under the carpet. You asked for a motion to find no violation, and somebody had called the county attorney and turned and reported that the county attorney wanted to review some case law, and we would decide if it ever got called again. And I left with the impression that it wasn't going to be called again. And then I got notified. My neighbor signed for certified mail, I guess. I was in the hospital. And I didn't get the certified mail until recently. And I'm just not prepared at this time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The county? MR. LETOURNEAU: Like Mr. Wessell said, we have no objection. I think 60 days is probably excessive, but 30 days would be fine. I think that's enough time for him to get his stuff together. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The nature of this is it's a shed Page 6 April 29, 2016 without a permit? MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. MS. NICOLA: If I could interject, I think this is the case where he brought up -- THE COURT REPORTER: You're not on the mike. MR. LETOURNEAU: Laches. MS. NICOLA: -- laches and equitable defenses, and he was going to speak with an attorney about that. And then I think also we shelved it because we wanted to get the position of the county attorney on whether there had actually been a prior code case where they might have said to the previous owner that the shed was in compliance and then this gentleman here apparently bought the place thinking that everything had been good. So that's my recollection. MR. WESSELL: I actually lived there when the prior code case was conducted with the prior owner, had made an offer to buy the place, withdrew my offer to buy the place until Code Enforcement Board finished their case, asked the Code Enforcement officer, is it all good to go? He said, yes, it's all good to go. I submitted a reduced offer to buy it because -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We don't need to hear the whole case. We're looking at this at either granting a continuance or not. So rather than hear all the details now, the reason you want a -- it looks like the county is recommending a 30-day continuance and you need 60 days. MR. WESSELL: Thirty. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thirty is fine? MR. WESSELL: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the Board? MR. LEFEBVRE: When's our next hearing? It would be our next hearing, correct? Page 7 April 29, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: It may be shy of 30 days. MR. WESSELL: That's fine. MS. CURLEY: It's the 26th. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: 26th. MS. CURLEY: Of May. MS. NICOLA: I mean, I think we should get an opinion from the County Attorney's Office on this. I don't know what happened there, but have we? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah. We did discuss it with the County Attorney's Office, and the county's prepared to present the case at this time. We don't believe that it rises to Mr. Wessell's claim of laches in this particular case. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion that we continue until our next hearing, which is -- MR. MARINO: May 26th. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: May 26th. MR. LEFEBVRE: Thank you. May 26th. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on that motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. Page 8 April 29, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. So till the next meeting, hopefully you'll have everything resolved by then and everybody will be happy. MR. WESSELL: Thank you, members. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next motion for continuance is No. 10 from hearings, Tab 11, Case CELU20160001622, Naples Loan Acquisition, LLC. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This is part of the paper that's been left on our positions for the Board's benefit, if you wanted to peruse that. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And just as a previous summary, my note on this says outside storage of stuff, okay. Without going through the -- yes, sir. MR. FREEMAN: We're requesting a continuance on this case for -- I'm sure the next hearing date would be fine. THE COURT REPORTER: Your name? MR. FREEMAN: Brad Freeman. I'm an Attorney at Conroy, Conroy, and Durant. We had spoken with Jeff, and the county was going to have no objection to our continuance for this. I believe the stuff on the lot has been cleared out, and there were also some unpermitted structures that are being removed as of today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Before we go any further, I'm going to recuse myself. My company has a relationship -- John R. Wood has a relationship with Conroy, Conroy, and Durant, so... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Okay. And the county says? Page 9 April 29, 2016 MR. MUSSE: We have no objection to the continuance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You have no objective (sic) to a 30-day continuance? MR. MUSSE: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any discussion from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. What's the continuance? It says here that two have already been abated. MR. MUSSE: Yeah. The property owners originally had four cases. They have three separate lots that generated four cases. The cases on the vacant lots have been abated as of right now. MR. LAVINSKI: So that's not one we're addressing here? MR. MUSSE: No. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You believe that the property owner will have this all done by our next meeting on May 26th? MR. FREEMAN: Yeah, absolutely. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any further discussion from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motion from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to continue till the next meeting. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 10 April 29, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: (Recused.) MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next motion for continuance is No. 12 from hearings, Tab 13, Case CESD20160002567, Naples Loan Acquisition, LLC. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You look familiar like I just saw you. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You don't have to swear in, by the way. They tell us we're supposed to believe attorneys, so they don't have to swear in; is that correct? MR. LETOURNEAU: I don't know how, but yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This is -- my notes on here says more stuff outside, so... MR. FREEMAN: I believe this one was for unpermitted structures. There was a shed and some sort of canopy tent that are being removed. I think they started working on this yesterday. They're finishing that up today. And I think we were going to call in for a re- inspection sometime next week. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This will be done May 26th also you believe? MR. FREEMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you're looking for a continuance till that time? MR. FREEMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anything from the county? MR. MUSSE: No objections to the continuance. Page 11 April 29, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any comments from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to continue till next meeting. 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? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: (Abstains.) MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you, Counselor. MS. ADAMS: The next case is a motion for extension of time. It's No. 1 on the agenda, Tab 1, Case CESD20140017894, Jose F. Garcia. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. MUCHA: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. Just a quick summary. We have a letter from you requesting an extension of 160 days to complete the process of building a house. I'll read you my notes and then have you comment. This is a request for 160 days. I'd like to know what's been done in the past 11 months. MR. GARCIA: I started doing the roof. I've been doing Page 12 April 29, 2016 plumbing inside. All the walls are done inside, but I haven't been able to finish it because I've been having problems with the engineering inspection inside the house. I have brought, like, three letters to the county inspectors, and they reject two of them. I just brought another one about two weeks ago, and I'm waiting on the response. Until they gave me the okay on that inspection, which is 107, I won't be able to proceed and do all the roof And until I do all the roof, I won't be able to continue inside the house. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I'm looking -- the sheathing, the 107 -- MR. GARCIA: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- that's done early in the construction. Generally, when you build a house -- MR. GARCIA: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- the house goes up, the sheathing goes on, the roof, in progress, is the next inspection, then the completion on the roof, and then it will take months to finish the inside, drywall and heating and A/C and all the rest of that. So you think that -- I'm just asking -- that in 160 days you'll be complete with a CO on this property? MR. GARCIA: I should be able to. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And from the county? MR. MUCHA: For the record, Joe Mucha, Supervisor of Code Enforcement. Would you like to see a picture of what the house looks like now? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. MUCHA: I think we're going to need more than 160 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. Are you working on this house on a daily basis or -- MR. GARCIA: Yes, I am. Page 13 April 29, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- is this a part-time? MR. GARCIA: I'm working every day on it. Not full time. I have full-time job, but every afternoon after I finish my work, I go into the house and put some hours on it and also during the weekends. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I am somewhat familiar with building, and I agree with Mr. Mucha that this is probably more like nine months at the earliest to get this done. MR. GARCIA: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What does the county feel about this? MR. MUCHA: I mean, he's making progress, so we don't have an issue with that, but I just think he needs more time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: So is this 107, sheathing -- I mean, that looks like a concrete block house. You normally don't sheath the outside of those. Is that accurate? MR. MUCHA: I'm not too familiar with that, so I can't speak on that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The 107 is the exterior vertical, whatever they do to it. So they can use wood as sheathing. The block, once that goes up, that's part of the -- so, it needs a lot. I mean, the roof isn't on it. It's not been dried in yet? MR. GARCIA: It is dried in. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It is dried in, okay. So that means if you put one tile on the roof, then you can get the roof in progress, but you need the 107 before you do that. I understand. MR. GARCIA: Correct. MS. CURLEY: Joe, where did the complaint come from, the initial complaint? MR. MUCHA: This goes back several years, so I think maybe at one point, because it was abandoned, we might have, during the Page 14 April 29, 2016 foreclosure crisis, picked it up, because it used to be just a shell, and then I think at some point you purchased it in 2014? MR. GARCIA: I think, yes, couple of years ago. MR. MUCHA: So -- and he's been working on it since that point. MS. CURLEY: So it's not a neighbor that's looking at this? MR. MUCHA: I don't think so. I mean, I haven't gotten any calls about it, let's put it that way. MR. MARINO: So when he bought it, it was just a shell? MS. CURLEY: Looks good. MR. GARCIA: Yes, it was. It was just all the way down to the tie beam, and that was it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You put the windows in? MR. GARCIA: I did. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. GARCIA: I put the windows and the doors in. And, like I say, the roof is already with the paper on it, but I'm just waiting for the 107. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any problem out there? You're out on DeSoto, which is -- MR. GARCIA: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any security problem with your property? MR. GARCIA: No, not at all. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Okay. No kids hanging out there, et cetera, okay. Any additional comments from the Board or any motions? MR. LAVINSKI: Well, what are we looking for, the 160 days or CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't think you can complete it in 160 days. I mean, you could do 180 days, and then if it's not done at that time, the respondent can come back in and give us a progress Page 15 April 29, 2016 report, show us another picture, and we could grant the additional time that's required at that point. MR. MUCHA: I would be comfortable with 180 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: This is very similar to the Tannassee case in that he's been in front of us several times, so I think that would be a recommend -- I make a motion that we continue for six months. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hundred and eighty days. MR. LEFEBVRE: Hundred and eighty days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. So the six months, that's actually 20 days more than you asked for. Be diligent and do your work, and when you come back, if it's not done -- and I seriously doubt, unless you work 24 hours a day, that you're going to be done with this. Show us the progress, and I'm sure the Board would certainly be receptive to granting you the additional time that you need to get a CO. MR. GARCIA: Thank you. Page 16 April 29, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. NICOLA: Is this being granted as a continuance or an extension of time? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Continuance. MS. NICOLA: Thank you. MR. GARCIA: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is from Letter B, stipulations, No. 9 on the agenda, Tab 10, Case CESD20150024052, K&R HomeTech, LLC. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning and good morning. Could you state your name on the mike for the record. MS. ROJAS: Maria Rojas. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you may want to pull the mike down a little bit so -- ah. More comfortable. That's Tammy from our lost-and-found section. MR. LAVINSKI: Fine job, Tammy. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Very good. MS. NICOLA: They were very fancy. I thought he might be bummed if he lost them. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Very good. Okay. You want to read the stipulation into the record? MR. AMBACH: I do, sir. For the record, Chris Ambach, Supervisor, Collier County Code Enforcement Board. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Pay operational costs in the amount of$68.79 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permits, inspections, and certificate of completion or occupancy within 90 days of this hearing, or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Number 3, respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 Page 17 April 29, 2016 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; And, finally, 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. Do you understand the stipulation? MS. ROJAS: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you should be able to complete this, you believe, in 90 days? MS. ROJAS: Yes. We are actually -- all the permits are being submitted. So they've been rejected. We have to do it again, the plans, but it's been on track. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. ROJAS: We're just getting our -- any minute to be approved and that will be probably -- in a couple weeks, it will be done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the Board? MS. CURLEY: Did you buy this house in this condition? MS. ROJAS: Yes. It was a foreclosure home, and they have to be -- the reason is because they were a dumpster in there. They were throwing two dumpsters throwing away stuff in there. And we try -- I think the people that they hire, we -- they told -- rip it up, everything in there, so they did it on their own. And by the time -- you know, the door even they left open so -- the windows. So I guess one of the county inspectors came by and thought, oh, they're working on it. But, actually, it's -- the contractor is doing the permit, not us, you know, because this is -- we do a lot of these. Page 18 April 29, 2016 You know, we have a contractor. They go in. They -- and put back on the market. That's it. MS. CURLEY: Okay. So you bought it, and it wasn't like this in November? It was -- MS. ROJAS: It was -- well, when we bought it in foreclosure it was -- we have to clean up. And that was -- you know, they rip out everything. They have to put up to code everything, put a new -- new kitchen, everything. And about a week after the permit -- the thing is, there were two permits in place. One was they wanted the right-of-way, so because we bought the property with that contingency, they have to be done, so we've done that, but we didn't know the -- because we did that in -- like yesterday they told me I need to call because I thought they do by themselves after the first time. And then the other permit they went in, but they were rejected, and they were back and forth, but eventually we got everything solved that -- you know, what they wanted. We got a meeting with people that they do the permits, and they say, okay, we wanted this, and we'll be done that (sic). And that's why we have an agreement so we can have it complete. After the -- the permit is done, we can complete and get done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You'll have everything done in 90 days? MS. ROJAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody want to make -- any other questions or comments or want to make a motion? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a seconder. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? Page 19 April 29, 2016 MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. AMBACH: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next stipulation is No. 2 from hearings, Tab 3, Case CESD20150015459, Frances Poole. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. STUCKY: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you want to state your name on the mike? MS. STUCKY: I'm Deborah Stucky, and this is my mother, Frances Poole, and I'm here representing her. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you have -- oh, I see Mom back there, okay. Great. You want -- you may want to pull your mike down for you. MS. STUCKY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Very good. Okay. Why don't we have the county read the stipulation in. MR. FORD: For the record, Investigator Arthur Ford, Collier County Code Enforcement. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Pay operational costs in the amount of$65.85 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Page 20 April 29, 2016 Abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, certificate of completion/occupancy within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed until the violation's abated. The respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator to perform site inspection to confirm compliance; That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of the abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You understand the stipulation that you agreed to? MS. STUCKY: Ido. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you think the amount of time that is being granted, 120 days, should be sufficient to get everything done? MS. STUCKY: Ido. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any discussion from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 21 April 29, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you very much. MS. STUCKY: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case from No. 6, old business, Letter A, motion for imposition of fines/liens, No. 1, Tab 15, Case CESD20140025741, Steven R. Cuiffo. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: For the Board's -- we have a revised paperwork on it that was at your position when you sat down. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. BALDWIN: For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location: 308 Morgan Road, Naples, Florida; Folio No. 436720006. Description: A mobile home type structure was added to the property between 2012 and 2013 with no valid Collier County permits. Past orders: On March 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 violation. See the attached order of the Board, OR5138, Page 1190 for more information. On August 27, 2015, the Code Enforcement Board granted a continuance. See the attached order of the Board, OR5194, Page 3088, for more information. On November 20, 2015, the Code Enforcement Board granted a Page 22 April 29, 2016 continuance. See the attached order of the Board, OR5217, Page 2251, for more information. On January 29, 2016, the Code Enforcement Board granted a continuance. See the attached order of the Board, OR5241, Page 1375, for more information. The violation has been abated as of April 28, 2016. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at the rate of$200 per day for the period from July 25, 2015, to April 28, 2016, 279 days, for a total fine amount of$55,800. The previous assessed operational costs of$65.01 have been paid. The operational costs for today's hearing, $67.11. Total amount: $55,867.11. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I have a problem with this case in that the respondent is not here. Ordinarily if the respondent was here, they could ask for an abatement, a reduction in fines, or whatever, but it's not the Board's position to do that for them. So what we have done in the past, and the county may want to consider this, is to let the respondent know that they should be here if they want something other than this fine to be imposed, to show up and request that. And what the county has done in the past has been to withdraw the case and bring it back next month. So I leave that with you for your comment. MR. BALDWIN: I spoke with the owner's daughter. I don't know if you remember the last time I was up here. I said there was confusion between the person that was pulling the permit who kept showing up to these meetings. Obviously, there are four or five meetings here that -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is the one that was overseas? MR. BALDWIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. Page 23 April 29, 2016 MR. BALDWIN: I spoke with the daughter two weeks ago. She finally got him to finalize the permit. The mobile home type structure was removed months ago, even before the previous hearing. Finally, she got ahold of him -- the guy. I believe -- from what she said, the same person who was up here before speaking on behalf of them was supposed to be here today, so... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. Because once we permit that person to speak, they could ask for an abatement or whatever. But it's always been a longstanding effort from the Board that we don't recommend that. Somebody has to request that. Jeff, do you have a comment? MR. LETOURNEAU: I think they were well aware that this hearing was going on today. I'm not really sure that the county wants to withdraw it. I think -- I don't feel comfortable withdrawing it at this time. They've known every time we've had a hearing here that we've had a hearing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is the individual still overseas? I mean, not that he has to be here. MR. BALDWIN: According to his daughter, just as I stated in the last hearing, he is not in the military or overseas. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think you said he was in his 70s or so? MR. BALDWIN: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the Board on this? MR. LAVINSKI: Mr. Chairman, I think this is one of those cases, last meeting one of our learned colleagues mentioned that we're not in the business of profit center. We're also not in the business of allowing county taxpayers' money to be feverishly thrown away on four continuances plus the original hearing. So if we're going to consider anything, I think that a total Page 24 April 29, 2016 abatement is totally out of the question in -- regarding the amount of money that Code Enforcement has spent. Obviously, they've spent four to five times more time on this case than they do on a typical mobile home case, let's say. So I don't think -- if anyone has in their mind of abating the full amount, I think it's totally out of the question, and there should be some -- some recovery of the Collier County taxpayers' funds that have been spent on this case above and beyond what's normally accepted. MR. LEFEBVRE: The operational cost is the cost to prosecute the case, correct? MR. BALDWIN: Yes. MS. CURLEY: I think we should call it a fine, and I'll make a motion to impose the $5,000 fine, abating the balance. MR. MARINO: Yeah, 10 percent. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Let me just follow this through. And we have that motion on the floor. Do we have a second, by the way? MR. LAVINSKI: I'll second that if I read it correctly, that there's still a 5,000. MS. CURLEY: Yes. MR. LAVINSKI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So we have a motion and a second. Now, discussion on the motion. Had the respondent shown up today to ask for an abatement, that may or may not be -- the case would be any different than it is now. Had we imposed it or even this imposition, they have recourse to go before the Board of County Commissioners and ask for something. So one way or the other, their car is going to have to find the parking lot out here to get some sort of resolution to this case. MR. LEFEBVRE: Don't they also have the opportunity to appeal our ruling within 30 days? Page 25 April 29, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, they do. MR. LEFEBVRE: Then they can come back in front of us. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The car still has to pull in the parking lot. MR. LEFEBVRE: Absolutely. MS. CURLEY. Or when they sell the property, they can pay us. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. They don't pay us. MR. MARINO: You're not getting any of it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. I'm sorry, Sue. That's -- okay. So we have a motion. Any more discussion on the motion? MR. MARINO: What is the motion for, $5,000 fine or 10 percent of what's owed? MR. LEFEBVRE: Five thousand dollars. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Five thousand dollar flat. And the reasoning for that is that -- you mentioned it and Sue mentioned it, that money has been spent, et cetera. MR. ASHTON: Money's been spent. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Ossorio has come up here. You don't look like the respondent, but we'll listen to you anyhow. MR. OSSORIO: Good morning. For the record, Mike Ossorio, Collier County Code Enforcement. I just want to make sure that we look at the gravity of the violation and what steps the respondent took to complete (sic) the violation. I know it was a long process. I would feel more comfortable if Mr. Baldwin would go ahead and put on the record that he's been communicating with respondent for many months. Was there anything in your mind that thought they were trying to, you know, not get in compliance or not follow the code? MR. BALDWIN: No. As I stated before, I've spoken to the Page 26 April 29, 2016 daughter twice, actually, and she was under the assumption that -- I'm sorry. The name of the gentleman that pulled the permit and that was here before -- I can't think of his name right now, but he had cases right after us. She was under the assumption that he was taking care of everything for her father. MR. LEFEBVRE: Robert. Begins with a C. MS. CURLEY: Except for he wasn't here last time, which -- MR. BALDWIN: Correct. MS. CURLEY: -- that's an indicator that you're not being paid if you stop showing up for your customer. MR. BALDWIN: He did finalize the permit within the last week, so they were aware of-- they were completely aware of this hearing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The one comment I want to make that Mr. Lefebvre mentioned about the -- yes, the previously assessed operational costs of 65.01, Mr. Lefebvre said that covers the cost. That's one charge, and I think that's the one charge for the last 11 months, 12 months, whatever, almost a year. So to Mr. Lavinski's point, a lot of money has been spent by the county over the past year to resolve this case, hence the motion from Ms. Curley for $5,000. And should they want that abated, they have their process to go before the Board of County Commissioners or appeal the decision of the Board, so... MR. LEFEBVRE: The individual I think you're talking about is Robert Ricciardelli. MR. BALDWIN: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Richiardelli (phonetic) or Ricciardelli. MR. BALDWIN: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Case -- Tab No. 23, Case No. 9. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. It's -- there's no question that it's been abated. It was abated a while ago. All we need is a warm body here to request something. It may or may not change the motion Page 27 April 29, 2016 from the Board, but it would be a good step forward. MR. BALDWIN: There have been five hearings on this case, and he -- Mr. Ricciardelli showed up for the first three of them. The last two no one has been here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, we have a motion and we have a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 2, Tab 16, Case CELU20150010274, Antonio Barajas and Virginia Barajas. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This is -- there are three cases here. We'll hear them one at a time. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. BARAJAS: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. This is a case with outside storage. Why don't you read into the record what we have in front of us, and then we'll address any requests by the respondent. MR. KINCAID: This case is dealing with the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 2.02.03. Location is 5341 McCarty Street, Naples, Florida; Folio Page 28 April 29, 2016 62042080000. It's dealing with a violation of outside storage of items consisting of, but not limited to, construction material, vegetative debris, pallets, tires, appliances, plumbing fixtures, and scrap metal on approved 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 the attached order of the Board, OR5194, PG3100, for more information. On November 30, 2015, a continuance was granted. See the attached order of the Board, OR5217, PG2245, for more information; The violation has been abated as of March 23, 2016. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a 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$6,585 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing, 64.59. The total amount is $14,964.59. And I believe the rest of the things at the bottom of the page are for the Board's consideration. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning. MS. BARAJAS: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You are here to request something, obviously. MS. BARAJAS: We are here to see if we can get all these -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you pull your mike down. We're going to listen to the cases one at a time, okay. So this particular case was the outside storage of stuff. MS. BARAJAS: Everything has been removed, and we are asking to see if we can get this case closed and the fines removed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I have one question. When Page 29 April 29, 2016 did you take possession of this property? Is this -- you've had this for a while or -- MS. BARAJAS: I would say more than 20 years. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Questions from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. A question on -- why did we do the continuance back in November 20th? Refresh my memory. MS. BARAJAS: We needed an extension because we had to remove also some -- like, a shed and stuff, so we asked for an extension to get all that taken care of MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. Was -- basically the magnitude of the job was -- MS. BARAJAS: Yeah. MR. LAVINSKI: -- more than met the eye? MS. BARAJAS: Yeah. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. MS. CURLEY: Well, thanks for showing up. MS. BARAJAS: Last time they told us that we didn't have to come in. I spoke at -- I went to Code Enforcement, and I spoke with Renald. And I asked him, because -- and I told him -- because two case were supposed to be closed that last time, but -- and I asked him -- I was there -- do we have to appear? And he spoke to the supervisor in Code Enforcement, and they said we didn't have to appear, so that's why we did not appear. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And at that time the county withdrew it to bring it back now so that you had a chance to appear and to ask for an abatement. MS. BARAJAS: Yes, correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So there must have been a little confusion in the halls of Horseshoe? MR. LETOURNEAU: Sounds like it, yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All right. So this -- before us Page 30 April 29, 2016 right now, this particular case, any more discussion from the Board or any motions from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: Well, in the consideration that there may or may not have been an issue with Code Enforcement telling them not to appear, I'd like to make a motion that we abate this amount in full. MR. DOINO: Second. MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. So this case that we just heard is done, and the dollars have been abated. MS. BARAJAS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Which moves us to the next case. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 3, Tab 17, Case CEV20150009209, Antonio Barajas and Virginia Barajas. (The speakers were previously duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This case -- just for review purposes, this was a truck that was parked on the property? Page 31 April 29, 2016 MR. KINCAID: Commercial vehicle. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Commercial vehicle? MR. KINCAID: Landscaping business. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Was it registered or unregistered? MR. KINCAID: No. They were all legally registered. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Okay. And the truck was removed? MR. KINCAID: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You -- why don't you read through this, and then we'll go on. MR. KINCAID: This is -- case is dealing with a violation of the Collier County Code of law and ordinances, Chapter 130, Article III, Sections 130-97(2) and 130-97(3). Location: 5341 McCarty Street, Naples, Florida; Folio 62042080000. The description of the violation is commercial truck and trailers stored or parked on improved residential zoned property in violation of Collier County ordinances. Past orders: On October -- 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 the attached order of the Board, OR5194, PG3098, for more information. On October 26, 2015, a continuance was granted. See the attached order of the Board, OR5217, PG2243, for more information. The violation has been abated as of March 23, 2016. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of$100 per day for the period between October 27, 2015, to March 23, 2016, 149 days, for a total amount of$14,900. Previously assessed operational costs of$65.85 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing are $64.59. The total amount of Page 32 April 29, 2016 fines is $14,964.59. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This is the second case. It's a truck. The trucks are gone. MS. BARAJAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They don't come back. MS. BARAJAS: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Discussions from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, here's a case where I feel that the continuance -- it's pretty hard to justify just moving a commercial vehicle or two or three, whatever the case may be. So I think the continuance probably was in order at the time. Here, again, I feel that it's costing us more, the county taxpayers more, so I'd like to make a motion to abate all of the fine except $500. MR. DOINO: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. KINCAID: Could I make a comment? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. KINCAID: In all fairness to the respondents, in order to do the work on the property, in order to do the demolition work, which was quite extensive, it required them to have to have commercial vehicles on the property. So it would be almost impossible for us to differentiate between what these vehicles were being used for since the owners of the property were doing a lot of the work themselves and the vehicles that they were using were flatbed trucks, which is also the vehicles that they use in the landscape business. It was almost impossible for us to make that differentiation. That's why we did not bring the case back to court on a compliance date was because of that reason. So certainly the Board has jurisdiction here and can do what it pleases, but I think there's a valid argument of why it would be Page 33 April 29, 2016 necessary for them to have those trucks, certainly, to -- they have to haul the stuff off the site, so I think that was their choice of ways to do it by the truckload rather than to pay dumpster fees and have that type of expense in addition. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Based on Mr. Kincaid's comments, do you want to modify? MR. LAVINSKI: No. I think it would have been easy enough to separate the two or three vehicles that originally brought this case from the ones they may have to have brought in to remediate the other issues, so I'd like to have my motion stand. MS. CURLEY: I have a comment. MR. LEFEBVRE: I have a comment. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Lefebvre first. MR. LEFEBVRE: Ladies before gentlemen. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: I do recall that it -- the practice of them parking these vehicles on this property had been very -- for a very long time, and to find a place for them to park these cars while they weren't working was a hardship, especially during season, to find a storage place where their property was safe, and they took the time to explain that to us in the last hearing. I don't -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: My comment was going to be, if I hire a contractor to do work on my place and demo or move stuff or do whatever, I don't expect those vehicles to sit there overnight. I expect them to put whatever needs to be put in the vehicles to remove it and take them off site at night. So I think that's what should have occurred here in a relatively short fashion. And this is not a seasonal type of thing where I can't find housing. It's I can't -- you know, it took time to find storage, which isn't really seasonal. Page 34 April 29, 2016 So I think Mr. Lavinski's motion is in order. MR. LAVINSKI: Thank you. MR. MARINO: They didn't have a contractor, did they? They were doing it themselves. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. MS. CURLEY: True. And at the time, they had explained to us that those fees of extra storage hadn't been taken into consideration to run their business, so they had to accommodate those new expenses. MR. LEFEBVRE: That's fine, but any other landscaping company that is operating within the law and ordinance has that, has storage and everything. So, to me, if you're running a business, you have to understand that you have to keep the vehicles in a commercial space. MS. CURLEY: They had -- behavior of these vehicles had been there for more than 10 years. MS. BARAJAS: Twenty. MS. CURLEY: Twenty years. MR. LEFEBVRE: They got away with it for 20 years, so -- I mean, I don't -- if I was selling clothes, I don't open up a clothing store in my house, so I feel that $500 is a -- MS. CURLEY: A lot of money. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- a low -- a low amount to charge for 20 years. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any additional comments from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: Call the question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I see scrambling going on. I'm waiting for -- you ever try to unscramble an egg? MR. LAVINSKI: That shouldn't affect our decision. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. MS. CURLEY: Just another comment. The Board was told by Page 35 April 29, 2016 these people that they were doing this by themselves, and so we were accommodating that, you know, in the last hearing. So now to say that we have judgmental (sic) now because we don't -- we didn't want those vehicles parked there and so we have a different opinion a month later or two months later. It seems a little inconsistent. MR. LEFEBVRE: It's not a different opinion. We never said that -- we're already reducing the fine by fourteen thousand -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Four hundred. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- four hundred dollars. I think we're being very lenient in this particular case. I wouldn't want landscaping vehicles strewn -- and I remember the pictures clearly, and I remember there was a tarp and other items that were there. I wouldn't want that in my neighborhood, and just to get away with not paying anything, I think, would be an injustice to the neighbors that had to deal with this for 20 years. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Call the question, please. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. It carries. Okay. That's -- this one -- is that the last case? No, we have one more. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 4, Tab 18, Case CESD20150009967, Antonio Barajas and Virginia Barajas. Page 36 April 29, 2016 (The speakers were previously duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me have your paper. I didn't get one. Well, this case is unpermitted structures, et cetera. Do you want to read this into the record, Mr. Kincaid? MR. KINCAID: This is -- case is dealing with a violation of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Violation address is 5341 McCarty Street, Naples, Florida; Folio 62042080000. The description: The violation is unpermitted structures/improvements on improved residential property consisting of, but not limited to, additions to the rear of the property, new structure at the front of the property, and canopies. The past orders: On August 27, 2015, 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, OR5194, PG3096, for more information. On November 20, 2015, a continuance was granted. See the attached order of the Board, OR5217, PG2241, for more information. The violation has been abated as of March 28, 2016. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of$100 per day for the period between October 27, 2015, to March 28, 2016, 154 days, for a total amount of$15,400. The previously assessed operational costs of$65.85 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing, $64.59. The total amount is $15,464.59. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Your comment on this case? MS. BARAJAS: We are asking to see if we can get this case Page 37 April 29, 2016 closed and the fines removed. This has all been taken care of, and everything has been removed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Comments from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: Mr. Chairman, this is one I feel that the continuance probably was deserved because it appears that there's a lot more work involved in getting this particular piece abated. And even though I feel that there obviously was more work involved by the Code Enforcement Board, I'd like to make a motion that we abate the entire amount. MR. ASHTON: Second. MS. CURLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion, a second. Any comments on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. So there were three cases. Just numbers off the top of my head, they came to about $44,000, and the fine on that is 500. I think that was a reasonable amount given all the work, et cetera, that was done on this. So thank you very much and good luck. MS. BARAJAS: Thank you. Page 38 April 29, 2016 MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 5, Tab 19, Case CESD20140004266, Carmen B. Cintron Estate. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This is one that also was sitting at your position when you came in. A revised Tab 19. The change is -- the original "was not abated," and the change is "has been abated," okay. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name on the microphone. MR. CINTRON: Luis Alberto Cintron. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. CINTRON: And my request is, you know, to waiver all fines, you know, after my completion. I have a certificate right here for my doing (sic), you know. And I did everything in my power to just do everything that you-all asked or the Code Enforcement asked. I was in compliance with everything, and hopefully all fines will be waived. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You want to read the case in? MR. HERRERA: Yes, for the record, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator Juan Serna Herrera. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location: 908 Glades Street, Immokalee, Florida, 34142; Folio 63858720003. Description: Four structures erected without first obtaining Collier County building permits. Past order: On January 22, 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, OR5118, Page 2290, for more information. Page 39 April 29, 2016 On July 22, 2015, a motion of extension of time was granted. See the attached order of the Board OR5179, Page 191, for more information. On February 25, 2016, a motion for a continuance was granted. See the attached order of the Board, OR5247, Page 3197, for more information. The violation has been abated as of April 27, 2016. Fines and costs to date -- dates are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of$100 per day for the period from January 20, 2016, to April 27, 20 -- I mean -- I'm sorry. From January 20, yeah, 2016, from (sic) April 27th of 2016, 99 days, for a total fine amount of$9,900. Previously assessed operational costs, $65.43, have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing, $65.01, for a total amount of $9,961.01. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So this appears to be, in summary format, there were four structures built on the property without permits, and it came before the Board January of 2015, so a long time ago. I'm just looking down at the comments below. The gravity of violation, health, safety, welfare, at the time as unpermitted sheds were being utilized for living purposes. I would call the gravity, then, not moderate. It would be more than moderate. Any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation: The owner obtained demolition permit and removed the sheds. Now, I'll ask the county, this was first brought up in January of 2015. When were the sheds removed? Was that April 27th, or they were removed prior? MR. HERRERA: They got the CO on April 27th. Let me see. The inspection was passed on April 26th, was when he called for the inspection. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) Page 40 April 29, 2016 MR. MUCHA: For the record, Supervisor Mucha, Code Enforcement. The sheds were actually removed a few months back, I mean, completely. It was just debris. You know, he's a working man. You know, taking the debris to the dump and having to pay just took him a little bit of time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. But the original case was brought up in January 015. MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They were occupied at that time? MR. MUCHA: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And they were occupied, I would assume -- I don't remember this case in particular -- that we instructed MR. MUCHA: They were vacated after -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Immediately, yeah. MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir; yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That was my question. Okay. Comments from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, number -- did you -- respondent, did you build these sheds? MR. CINTRON: No, sir. I -- my mom, you know, they had it. She passed away, and I'm the one taking up on this right now. I'm trying to do the best I can. MS. CURLEY: I do remember that he had trouble getting a permit because the property was in his mother's name, who's deceased. MR. CINTRON: Right. MS. CURLEY: So that was a reason for a lot of the original delay back in 2015. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to abate. MS. CURLEY: I second that. Page 41 April 29, 2016 MR. LEFEBVRE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any comments on the motion? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. I'd still like to understand. Did you profit from the rental of these? MR. CINTRON: No, sir, I didn't. I didn't have none of them, you know. What my mom had before, you know -- because I was in California. I wasn't -- and I came back and, I mean, she -- I had to take care of her for about three years, and then she passed away, and then this accumulated, and I'm trying to take care of it the best I can, you know. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. So you haven't profited from any of the rental of these units? MR. CINTRON: No, sir. I just got the problem. MS. CURLEY: So far it's cost him $65.00. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any other comments on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. CINTRON: Thank you very much. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 7, Tab 21, Case CEV20150013943, Jack O'Connor. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) Page 42 April 29, 2016 MR. BALDWIN: For the record, Code Enforcement Investigator Patrick Baldwin. Violation: Collier County code, laws and ordinances, Chapter 130, Article III, Section 130-95. Location: 230 5th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida; Folio 37164160008. Description: Several unlicensed vehicles and trailers on the Estates zoned property. Past orders: On November 20, 2015, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact; 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 2235, for more information. On May 28, 2015, a continuance was granted. See the attached order of the Board, OR5163, Page 1500, for more information. On January 29, 2016, a continuance was granted. See the attached order of the Board, OR5241, Page 1381, for more information. The violation has been abated -- has been abated as of March 1, 2016. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have occurred -- accrued at the rate of$50 per day for the period from December 21, 2015, to March 1, 2016, 92 days, for the total fine amount of$4,600. Previous assessed operational costs of$65.85 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing, $65.43. Total amount: $4,665.43. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You must scare off the people. Nobody shows up when you're here. MR. BALDWIN: Well, the owner of this property lives on the East Coast and he owns a paving business, and he's just jammed up with work, apparently. Page 43 April 29, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: I got -- go ahead. MR. ASHTON: He couldn't have a representative -- I mean, he's jammed up. I mean, if he has a business, couldn't somebody come here to find out what's going on or -- MR. BALDWIN: I don't know, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, this goes back to November 20, 2015. That's a long, long time ago. MR. BALDWIN: A lot of the problems was it was a rental property, and he actually had a paving business here, and some of the trailers and stuff was left on the property, so he was -- had to haul them back, and also the renters of the property, he was trying to evict, and they had some unlicensed vehicles and boat trailers on the property, and it took a little while to get the eviction process going and get them out of there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the owner of the property has been working with you diligently to resolve this situation? MR. BALDWIN: I've had contact with the owner, yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Question. It's regarding past orders, the dates. November 20, 2015, is when we heard the case, and then it says May 28, 2015, a continuance was granted. That's not -- MR. BALDWIN: Yeah. When I was reading that, that's why -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. So what's -- what are -- so we have it on record correctly, what are the actual dates? Okay. So November 20th is when we heard the case, and when did we hear it for a continuance? MR. BALDWIN: There was a stipulation -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Stipulation. MR. BALDWIN: -- first signed, and they abated the violation, and then I think it was just the operational costs. MR. LEFEBVRE: March 29, 2016, is when we granted a Page 44 April 29, 2016 continuance. MS. ADAMS: If I may, the actual hearing date was January 29, 2016. A continuance was granted until March 29th. So that May date should be January 29, 2016. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: On the past orders, on the past orders. MS. ADAMS: I think that was -- that whole section should have been taken out, to be honest. MR. LEFEBVRE: Because I'm looking at an order in our package that says, the respondent's motion for continuance in this case is granted March 29, 2016. I don't see anything for January. I just want to make sure that it's correct here. MS. ADAMS: I believe what happened was when this was prepared, the date, the May 28, 2015, should not have been in there. There was one continuance granted on January 29, 2016. MR. LEFEBVRE: Where you looking at that January 29th? MS. ADAMS: If you see under past orders, the very last sentence, it says on January 29, 2016. The May 28th date, I believe, is incorrect. I didn't prepare this document, but from what I'm looking at, the forms in the case, that should not have been -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The re-inspection -- 12/28. MR. BALDWIN: There was only one continuance granted, and I believe that was because the operational costs were not paid at the time, and the violation was abated way before that. It was March 1st. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Again, we're back with, I understand he's on the East Coast. We're back here with the only way to abate this fine would be for somebody to go up there and ask for it, and there's nobody here to ask for it, and -- MR. BALDWIN: Just speaking in conversation with him, he was -- he had thought there was a little miscommunication. He thought the operational costs were paid. I met with him on the property. We went Page 45 April 29, 2016 over all the vehicles were removed. All the vehicles had tags. It was an oversight. The violation was -- the reason we're here today is because at first the operational costs weren't paid. The violation has been abated. And he worked with me. He just had an oversight and didn't pay the operational costs. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you're recommending? MR. BALDWIN: Well -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I know. MR. BALDWIN: -- it's the discretion of you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We understand that. But we like to hear what you have to think on this as well. MR. LAVINSKI: No matter what happened with him in past, the respondent didn't show up. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Nobody here. MR. LAVINSKI: And it's been more than one trip to take care of this, you know. I'd like to make a motion that we rescind all but $500, again, of this fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's a motion? MR. LAVINSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So abate everything -- MR. LAVINSKI: Abate everything but $500. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Comments from the Board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, we have to have a second. I'll make a motion -- or I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any comments on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. Page 46 April 29, 2016 MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. When you deliver the message back to the respondent, I would suggest that you let him know that he can go before the Board of County Commissioners and plead his case. MR. BALDWIN: I will, sir. Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Or appeal. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Or appeal our decision, one of the two. MR. LEFEBVRE: And come back. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 8, Tab 22, Case CEVR20140007649, Peter and Joanna Banski. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. The violation was of Collier County Land Development Code, 3.05.08(C). Location of the violation: 731 Logan Boulevard South, Naples, Florida; Folio No. 38280080003. Violation description: Prohibited exotics throughout the property. Past order: On February 26, 2015, the Code Enforcement Board issued a fining of fact, conclusion of law and order; the respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinance and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the Board, OR5128, Page 145, for more information. Page 47 April 29, 2016 On July 23, 2015, a continuance was granted. See the attached order of the Board, OR5179, Page 176, for more information. On January 29, 2016, a continuance was granted. See the order of the Board, OR5241, Page 1379, for more information. The violation has been abated by -- as of March 31, 2016. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at the rate of$100 per day for the period between June 27, 2015, and March 31, 2016, totaling 279 days, for a total fine amount of$27,900. Previously assessed operational costs of$65.01 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing are 65.43. Total fine amount is $27,965.43. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning. MR. BANSKI: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name on the mike. MR. BANSKI: Yes, Peter Banski. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Peter. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You were sworn in? MR. LETOURNEAU: I was, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are you sure? Okay. And you are here to request? MR. BANSKI: To close my case and waive the fines. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Comments from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I just passed out a copy of an article that was in the Naples Daily News last Thursday, April 21st, written by Stan Chrzanowski, who's a former Collier County Engineer who's currently on the Planning Commission, is currently also a member of the Collier Sportsmen's and Conservation Club. And I don't know if anybody else has had a chance to read this, Page 48 April 29, 2016 but in your leisure read this. And the gist of the article is we're chasing our tail here with exotic removal. This gentleman stands before us with a fine; I don't know how much he paid to do it. I personally talked to an association two days ago. They just got a bill of$6,000 for their annual maintenance of their exotic removal. And one of his closing comments here, removal at all? Seriously? And he talks about the Everglades and about the 150,000 acres that Collier Enterprises and those dudes have out there. I'd like, in addition, Mr. Chairman, if you would mind asking Mike, our Code Enforcement division director, to see if he can squeak into the efforts that the county is making to review their long-range plans and where we're going and where we're not going. See if they can tuck in this exotic removal issue and revisit it. I'm sure we're working to 15- or 20-year-old issues. I think it ought to be reviewed, along with the planning, which may not be applicable today. And I would just like the Board, my fellow colleagues here, to take this article into consideration and to actually consider not only abating this fine but asking that somehow Collier County code board review our past, present, and future exotic removal fines and what have you because it's just -- you know, it's like taking a cup and trying to empty the ocean; we ain't going to get there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Ossorio, I don't know if you got a copy of this or not. MS. ADAMS: No, he did not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No? MS. CURLEY: I have a question about the case. What -- was the complaint from a neighbor? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes, it was. MS. CURLEY: I happen to have experience, Board, of having a Page 49 April 29, 2016 neighbor whose exotics devoured my property line for years up until I had to actually hire somebody to get the exotics off my property so I could enter my driveway. And this was in a county not far north of here that stopped enforcing their exotic plant vegetation rules during the economic downtime. It's quite a disservice to neighbors to not have these rules in place. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. BANSKI: Well, in my case, if I may say, I'm backing into Vineyards, and I think Vineyards is complaining about all the neighbors living in Logan Woods and want their exotics removed. My -- actually, my trees never encroached into their property. I always had them cut down, like, a foot or two feet from their property. MS. CURLEY: Not everybody's as nice as you. MR. BANSKI: I try to be. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, let's go back to the case at hand here. MS. CURLEY: I make a motion to abate the fines. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second to abate the fine. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. Page 50 April 29, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. BANSKI: Thank you very much. Thanks for closing the case. Have a good day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. You too. MR. OSSORIO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record again, Mike Ossorio, Collier County Code Enforcement. I just want to make sure that -- I'm sure Mr. Banski realizes that he's going to maintain his exotics. Mr. Banski? MR. BANSKI: Yes. MR. OSSORIO: Can you stand up really quick. MR. BANSKI: Yes. MR. OSSORIO: I just want to make sure, since you are in compliance, you are going to maintain your property. MR. BANSKI: Oh, of course. MR. OSSORIO: That you keep -- because that's one of the issues, once you get into compliance, especially Brazilian peppers and Australian pines, it's really up to the respondent or the homeowner to take care of their property, so... MR. BANSKI: Everything has been removed. I'm in the process of planting fruit trees, beautiful palm trees, putting sod in the back. I mean, it's going to look like Port Royal. MR. OSSORIO: And that's what -- that's what the county, in my mind, is to long-range planning as of educating the homeowners, understanding what is exotic, what does that mean to maintain your property, and how that affects your neighbor. MR. BANSKI: Oh, definitely. I mean, it was -- I would always do it. It's just a matter of time. It will probably have take me two more years to get my property to the point of, you know, looking beautiful. MR. OSSORIO: All right, Mr. Banski. Thank you very much. I Page 51 April 29, 2016 have nothing else. And I'll take this under consideration, and I'll talk to the zoning director and see what is long-term under the LDC. MR. LAVINSKI: Right. I'd appreciate it. And, Mike, you know, realistically, unless we put diapers on all the birds and the animals and ask the good Lord to stop blowing the wind, we're wagging our tail here and not getting anywhere. So I'd like the county to take a serious look at whether we're (sic) unrealistically expectations applying to these people. But I agree, current law is current law, and we've got to address it. MR. OSSORIO: I understand. But there are some parameters. We are complaint-driven, and I hear your concerns; however, Brazilian peppers, I think we're fighting a good fight, and I believe that if a neighbor has an issue with their Brazilian pepper neighbors, I think it's our obligation to make sure they get in compliance and maintain their property. I think there is some parameter out there that basically says residential or commercial within -- Jeff, I don't know, is it 150 feet or MR. LETOURNEAU: Two hundred feet. MR. OSSORIO: So there are some -- you know, there's some guidelines that we deal with and how we live by them. MR. LAVINSKI: Right. And I would just like those to be reviewed. Because here again, you read the article from Stan. Agriculture doesn't have to live up to this. What if I live next to an agricultural site? I'm going to be infested over and over after spending my $6,000 a year to abate it. But anyway, thank you. MR. BANSKI: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 9, Tab 23, Case CESD20150009975, John L. Cipolla, Robert Ricciardelli, and Lisa Ricciardelli. Page 52 April 29, 2016 (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. PULSE: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We gotcha under the break. I think after this case; we may have to relieve your fingers. You want to read this case into the record. MS. PULSE: For the record, Dee Pulse, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is a violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and (e). Location is 264 Burning Tree Drive, Naples, Florida; Folio 24120480007. Description of violation was active construction of an addition and no Collier County building permit obtained. Past orders: On August 27, 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, OR5194, Page 3092, for more information. On November 20, 2015, a continuance was granted. See the attached order of the Board, OR5217, Page 2249, for more information. On January 29, 2016, a continuance was granted. See the attached order of the Board, OR5241, Page 1377, for more information. The violation has not been abated as of April 29, 2016. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of$100 per day for the period between October 17, 2015, to April 19, 2016, which is 186 days, for a total fine amount of$18,600. Previously assessed operational costs of 65.01 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing, 65.01 . Page 53 April 29, 2016 Total amount: $18,665.01 . CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This is another old case, and the respondent is not present, and they're not in compliance. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to impose the fine as written. MR. MARINO: Second. MR. DOINO: Second. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and several seconds. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Have you been in contact with these people? MS. PULSE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are they working on anything? MS. PULSE: Just yesterday I spoke to Robert Ricciardelli, I believe is how you pronounce it. He has not been feeling well the last few days. He has -- he did acquire the final building inspection yesterday, which passed. There are, however, some outstanding conditions and a fee due, so there was no CO. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you. MS. PULSE: Thank you. Page 54 April 29, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're going to take 10 minutes. Break. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board back to order, which brings us to... MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 10, Tab 24, Case CELU20140025432, Bradley Goodson and Leigha Wilson. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Hi Michele. MS. McGONAGLE: Good morning. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You want to read this into the record. MS. McGONAGLE: Yes, sir. Violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, Section 2.02.03. Location: 2448 Florida Avenue, Naples, Florida; Folio 75760120006. Description: Outside storage consisting of, but not limited to, numerous household items, washers, dryers, metals, plastic, wood, glass, siding, tires, et cetera. Past order: On October 22, 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, OR5210, Page 280, for more information. The violation has not been abated as of April 29, 2016. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of$200 per day for the period between December 22, 2015, to April 29, 2016, 130 days, for a total fine amount of$26,000. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of$65.01 have not been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing, $63.33. Page 55 April 29, 2016 Total amount: $26,063.33. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. McGONAGLE: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any discussion from the Board? Any motions? MR. ASHTON: Motion that we impose the fine. MR. DOINO: Second. MR. MARINO: Second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) It carries. MR. LEFEBVRE: Have you been there recently? MS. McGONAGLE: I have, at least weekly. MR. LEFEBVRE: Any changes? MS. McGONAGLE: They've made some changes, but they just don't get it. MR. LEFEBVRE: So maybe -- will this be something the county may have to go in and take care of? MS. McGONAGLE: We met with her this morning. It's actually not the property owner. It's the property owner's girlfriend. She was here. We talked to her. She has -- she stated that they have hired someone to go in and clean the property. They will have them for the Page 56 April 29, 2016 next two weeks. I told her that at the end of next week I will make a site visit and meet with her as well as the people they hired, go over everything -- because I'll have them for another week -- show them exactly what else needs to be removed so they can remove it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, they imposed it, so their next step is to either appeal ours or go to the County Commissioners. MS. McGONAGLE: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The next case is the same folks. MS. McGONAGLE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We'll swear you in again. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It wears off. It's only good for one order. This one is for the fence. Do you want to read that into the record? MS. McGONAGLE: Yes. This is actually a separate address as well. This is for 2432, which is next door. Same owners. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. MS. McGONAGLE: Violation: 2010 Florida Building Code, Chapter 1, Part 1, Section 105.1, as required. Location: 2432 Florida Avenue, Naples, Florida; Folio 7576016008. Description: Chain link fence installed around the property with a privacy fence in front without a valid Collier County permit. Past order: On October 22, 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, OR5210, Page 57 April 29, 2016 Page 286, for more information. The violation has not been abated as of April 29, 2016. Fines have accrued at a rate of$200 per day for the period between December 22, 2015, to April 29, 2016, for a total fine amount of $26,000. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of$65.01 have not been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing, $63.33. Total amount: $26,000 -- $26,063.33. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any motions from the Board? MR. ASHTON: Motion to impose the fine. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion and a second to impose. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Your last case before your vacation. Okay. You want to read this one into the record. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 12, Tab 26, Case CELU20140025168, Bradley Goodson and Leigha Wilson. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. McGONAGLE: Violation: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, Section 2.02.03. Page 58 April 29, 2016 Location: 2432 Florida Avenue, Naples, Florida; Folio 75760160008. Description: Outside storage consisting of, but not limited to, numerous household items, washer, dryers, metals, plastic, wood, glass, siding, tires, et cetera. Past order: On October 22, 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, OR5210, Page 284, for more information. The violation has not been abated as of April 29, 2016. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of$200 per day for the period between December 22, 2015, to April 29, 2016, 130 days, for a total fine amount of$26,000. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of$65.01 have not been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing, $63.33. Total amount: $26,063.33. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motions from the Board? MR. MARINO: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. MARINO: These are two separate addresses both with the same violations on them? MS. McGONAGLE: Yes, sir. MR. MARINO: Or was it properties -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Garbage. I guess they littered both parcels. MR. LEFEBVRE: Garbage sprawl. MS. CURLEY: Same address, different folio number? MS. McGONAGLE: There's two separate folio numbers, two separate addresses, but they are all enclosed within the same fence, and Page 59 April 29, 2016 that's part of what one of the -- the fence permit is for. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anyone like to make a motion? MR. ASHTON: Motion to impose the fine. MR. LEFEBVRE: 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? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 13, Tab 27, Case CEAU20150003345, Bradley Goodson and Leigha Wilson. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is the last one before your vacation. I'm sorry. I can't count. You want to read this one into the record. MS. McGONAGLE: Yes, sir. Violation: 2010 Florida Building Code, 105.1 as required. Location: 2448 Florida Avenue, Naples, Florida; Folio 75760120006. Description: Altered the fence permit by enclosing both properties and adding privacy fence in the front without a valid Collier Page 60 April 29, 2016 County permit. Past order: On October 22, 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, OR5210, Page 282, for more information. The violation has not been abated as of April 29, 2016. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of$150 per day for the period between December 22, 2015, to April 29, 2016, 130 days, for a total fine amount of$19,500. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of$65.01 have not been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing, $63.33. Total amount: $19,628.34. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody want to take (sic) a motion or -- MR. ASHTON: Motion to impose the fine. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to impose the fine. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you, Michele. Enjoy your vacation. Page 61 April 29, 2016 MS. ADAMS: The next case, Letter B, motion to rescind previously issued order. Case C -- it's Tab 28. Case CEN20150022700, Heritage Square Real Estate, LLC. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'll take two minutes to talk to this, and then we'll go from there, and Jeff can correct me if I'm wrong. But basically on -- the last time we heard this was a noise case. They were suspending his amplification permit. We believed at that time that the amplification permit belonged to the property owner when it really belonged to the business owner. So you can't do that. That's why, I guess, this case is being rescinded; is that correct? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes, sir. That's one of the reasons. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. LETOURNEAU: There was some -- attorney's office thought there might be some due process issues with that particular amplified music permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This could come back if they violate it again, only the application would probably be going against the business owner rather than the property owner or both or whatever. MR. LETOURNEAU: I think that if it comes back again, it's going to go against both the business owner and the property owner at this time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. It's a good reason not to disturb the people who live there. MR. LEFEBVRE: So the whole order's rescinded, so the permit's not been suspended; is that correct? MR. LETOURNEAU: That is correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: So we're back to -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, no. Actually, what is correct is that the County Attorney's Office advised us to reissue a new permit right away after we realized that the due process issue came up right after the hearing, so we -- a new amplified sound permit was issued to the Page 62 April 29, 2016 Beach Tavern. MR. LEFEBVRE: So we're back to square one? MR. LETOURNEAU: We are pretty much back to square one. If it continues, we will obviously cite both entities next time, both the business owner and the property owner. We have been in contact with both continuously over this last month, and we hope the issue is resolved at this point. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, there's no case against them. There hasn't -- this is -- if we rescind it then, it's going to erase the case, basically. Has there been any complaint since this? MR. LETOURNEAU: There has been one complaint from a business next door. There hasn't been any complaints from any of the residents around the -- around the -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Regarding noise level? MR. LETOURNEAU: Regarding -- yeah, one complaint that -- one noise complaint from the bridge club next door, but none -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has anybody been out to measure the noise since? MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, we got the one complaint. We had our investigator take the noise meter with him. I told the bridge club if it happens again, we'd be right over there to take a reading, and they haven't had another incident since then. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MARINO: What type of business is next door to them? MR. LETOURNEAU: The bridge club. They have a bridge club right next door to them. MS. CURLEY: What is that; cards? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They play bridge, yeah. MR. LETOURNEAU: Cards, yeah, yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Okay. So you need a motion from the Board here to rescind this? Page 63 April 29, 2016 MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to rescind. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to rescind this case. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. LETOURNEAU: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Chairman, if it's okay with the Board, there's two cases under reports where the Board requested an update after two months. If we can take those two first before we get to the imposition of fines discussion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. Motion to amend the agenda. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 64 April 29, 2016 MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay, fine. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. MUCHA: For the record, Joe Mucha, Supervisor of Collier County Code Enforcement. As of today, there has been no permits obtained. The owner has been working with Jonathan Walsh and the Department of Health. I guess the issue is -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you refresh our memory on this particular case? This is the one that Mr. Walsh -- MR. MUCHA: This is out in Big Cypress or -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. MR. MUCHA: -- way out there where the gentleman -- there was a home, and then he had some sheds on the property, some solar panels. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. MR. MUCHA: I think there was a garage, a whole litany of stuff that -- without permits. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MUCHA: So the gentleman's been working with Jonathan Walsh. I guess right now there's an issue -- I'm reading notes here -- with the septic system out there. So he actually has a contractor out there that's doing an evaluation on it now. And I think once -- if that gets approved, then he can move forward with the permitting process. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MUCHA: So he's been working, you know, and he's hired an attorney, Patrick White, so he's been in touch with us and the health department. So he's working on it. I don't know -- he might have to Page 65 April 29, 2016 come and ask for more time, though. I think he's got about a little over three months, and I don't think -- I don't know if everything will get done in that time, so we'll, I guess, cross that bridge when we come to it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think that's why the Board wanted an update on it, to see if something was happening. MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Is that both of those cases? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you a lot, Joe. MR. MUCHA: All right. Thank you. MS. ADAMS: Okay. That brings us to -- the next item will be new business, imposition of fines discussion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We kind of had a lot of the discussion regarding that today and kind of followed sort of the plan that we had originally subscribed to, which was when a person is not here to request something, it doesn't get requested. We don't request an abatement of fine. That's number one. We also -- and chime in if somebody disagrees with what I'm saying. We also -- that's for the abatement there. If they don't pay their, quote, court costs, we generally don't entertain an abatement either. So those are two cases when there -- we go to the imposition of fines where we always have in the past negatively addressed that. The cases that we heard today, when there's a fine that's accruing for whatever amount and that's accruing because it's a major violation or a safety and health -- whatever it happens to be, and they do request an abatement -- and I think Mr. Lavinski pointed that out. He came up with reasons why he was in favor of not abating the entire fine, as a matter of fact, assessing a particular dollar amount. And there's no set rule that I'm aware of that we could ever come Page 66 April 29, 2016 up with. You know, if the guy wears a red shirt, you fine him $100. A blue shirt, you can't do that. You have to have a reason and state the reason on the record. And I think that it was actually handled very well today. Comments? MR. LAVINSKI: Yes, yeah. I believe that's a step forward in a direction that I've been hoping we'd take for some time now, because I really don't think that just because a situation is remedied and abated that the total fine should be abated. I think there is some -- some penance that the respondent should pay for the additional work. Like that one case I mentioned, there were four continuances. I mean, let's face it, that obviously is a lot more work and a lot more taxpayer dollars that Code Enforcement is putting into it. So I think what we did today is a firm step in the right direction. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: On that particular case that you're referring to where you had four different continuances, the actual fees that were involved in that were 64 or $65, whatever it was; it certainly doesn't cover the cost based on those fees that are imposed. MR. LAVINSKI: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So I agree with you. And I think that, Sue, you had some comments on this as well. MS. CURLEY: Well, I think your -- I think we should say what we're -- we should be more precise in our word choice, because the fine that -- the cost was $65 and 1 cent today. That's an average cost that the county produces for us depending on the costs that are accrued through the whole month or whatever their parameters are. So that's the cost. Anything over that is a fine, and we have to state it as a fine. We can't say, well, Joe -- you know, Joe Mucha was out at a property 16 times. That doesn't mean that we fine -- that we have to charge him Page 67 April 29, 2016 more. The $65 and 1 cent on the violations today were the hard costs. So we should make sure that we separate what we're saying is a fine, a violation for your bad behavior, and what is a true county cost. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think that that was done today, actually. The cost was discussed -- MS. CURLEY: Everybody didn't reference it that way. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. But I think that in the particular case, Mr. Lavinski did say that -- and the one particular case there, I think that -- it was $44,000, and they paid a fine of-- fine of $500 plus their costs. It's not included in that. MS. CURLEY: We should just be mindful of the language we use. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And once you explain on the record what -- why you are doing what you're doing, I think that all comes out in the wash, and I think that if anybody were to relook at what we do going forward, as long as we had the proper reasons for doing what we do, I don't think we would be reversed. Mike, do you have any comments on this as well? MR. OSSORIO: Yeah. For the record again, Mike Ossorio. I just wanted to -- just to bring it back into the perspective is this Board is a quasi-judicial board, and it's governed by the Board of County Commissioners, and you sit to impose penalty. And I think it's good policy that you hear the case, the gravity of the violation, what steps you took for the violation, what the investigator told you when you sit on this commission. So I think it's just good policy that you debate it. And if you do impose penalty, just make sure you use the right verbiage, using -- it's not a -- it's a fine, it's a penalty, or the violation. So that was my thought. It's good policy that you take each case on a case by case, and I Page 68 April 29, 2016 think today showed that you did hear testimony on the record, and your thought process was right on target where it should be. So I commend it. I think it was a good meeting. I think you imposed the penalty. I think the gravity of the violations, the steps that you showed or we showed to get the violation abated was where it needed to be today. So I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I also believe that in that particular case where you had four violations with one person, the reasons for abating three out of the four were also stated, and maybe that's what should be done in the future when you abate or not abate, that you make that part of your reasoning before you make your motion. MR. OSSORIO: Yeah. With that, I think it's just good policy. I mean, I think this board does good work, and the Board of County Commissioners put this faith into you to make sure that we impose penalty to our citizens. So with that, I appreciate it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Anybody else have any -- MR. LAVINSKI: Well, I think that's covered in Article 10, Section 3 of our rules and regs that we have. There's A through I reasons for reduction or abatement of fines. And H specifically says the time and cost incurred by Code Enforcement to have the violation corrected. So we have, what is that, 10 or 11 possibilities or different reasons, and all we have to do is just keep this handy and state those on the record for not abating the total fine. If we're going to do partial abatements, we've got 11 reasons why we can do that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: There were several cases that came before us also today where they're all imposed, and that's where we will not abate anything as long as a violation still exists. So that's kind of what those four -- as I recall that came up one, two, three, four at the end with Michele. If it's not abated, you can't -- if it -- if the situation hasn't been abated, then you can't abate the fine. Page 69 April 29, 2016 MR. MARINO: Especially if the respondent doesn't even show up. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well -- yeah, they have to make their case. And we covered that also -- good point -- that when the respondent didn't show up, we didn't have anybody asking us to do anything. So what we had before us was a case with a fine that we imposed. There was nobody here asking to abate it. You would think that if you had a case coming up where there were, in most cases, thousands of dollars involved, that this would be a nice place to stop off in the morning to make it worthwhile your coming here. MR. MARINO: Unless there was, you know, a medical reason or something like that that they could not be here then, you know, you have to look at it differently. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: In that case, then I think that they should be contacting the Code Enforcement department to let them know, I can't get here or I have to take my dog to the vet or whatever it is. MR. OSSORIO: Just to leave you with a final note is, is that doesn't preclude this board from waiving or dismissing the imposing the penalties if there was no respondent. If you hear testimony and it's good faith from the investigator and you hear those exhibits I through -- through the Florida chapters of 162, you can waiver the -- you don't have to impose penalty. No one here is telling you that you have to request it, but it's up to the Board to decide -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Correct. MR. OSSORIO: -- through that public policy and the good procedure through your debating this policy and procedure when you're doing these particular cases. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: For the past several years I don't Page 70 April 29, 2016 think we've had any problem whatsoever on the Board coming to a consensus. Rarely was there a tie on whether to do a particular motion or not, whether to enact a particular motion or not. So I don't think that's a problem. And, you know, going forward, I think if we follow the same direction that we've been in, we'll do great. Any comments from anybody else on the Board? MS. NICOLA: I just want to make one comment. I think it's bad policy to say -- and I agree -- I can't remember your name. I just met you last time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mike. MS. NICOLA: I agree with Mike that I don't think we want to make a policy that simply because you fail to come into Code Enforcement to present your case on an abatement that you should summarily say we're going to impose the fines. We've gone over the statute. I think, in hearing from some of the investigators today, there were some good reasons why people weren't here, and there were also some good reasons to abate, if not all of the fine, most of the fine. So I think that, you know, we shouldn't be punitive to people who have complied by saying that if you're not going to be here, we're not going to consider an abatement, because there's certainly an ability to do so by this board under the law. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, I disagree with you, because I think that if there's not somebody here that's asking for something, how can you do it? It's not the Board's position to ask for an abatement. MS. CURLEY: Wait. I have a -- MS. NICOLA: Because the statute doesn't say that a motion has to be made. The statute says that the Board has full discretion to abate the fines based on several different factors, and it doesn't require that the respondent come in and make a motion to the Board in order for Page 71 April 29, 2016 you to make those considerations. Some of those considerations today, from me sitting here, were made by the very people that have been working these cases and saying, this is what these people have done to abate, you know, the situation. Some more egregious than others. And I think if you looked at the legislative history behind that particular statute, you probably would find that the reasons behind that particular statute was to empower the Board with the authority to make those decisions with or without people present. That's just my thought. MR. LAVINSKI: Well, I would disagree with that also because Section 4 of Article 10 states, the respondent shall have -- "shall" have the burden of proof to show why a fine or lien should be reduced or abated. MS. CURLEY: The word "shall" is the key word there. MR. LAVINSKI: So if they ain't here -- MS. CURLEY: If it was "will," it would be different. "Shall" means can -- shall -- shall is not hard and fast. You're misinterpreting that. She stands correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I disagree with you, Sue, and I disagree with Tammy. "Shall" means shall. MS. CURLEY: "Will" means will. MR. LAVINSKI: Well, "shall" just popped up at the last commission meeting, and they said shall is a -- that it must be done, period. MS. NICOLA: I just think that it's treading very dangerous ground to take a position as a board that should be addressed by the legislature. I mean, if there's going to be a provision in the Code Enforcement Board that requires a respondent to be present in every situation where the fines are being abated, in all honesty, I think it should be part of the statute, and also if it's going to be the position of this board, I think it should be included in the notice for the hearing Page 72 April 29, 2016 that your failure to appear if your fine -- you know, if your case is coming up for an imposition of fine, could be held against you, because I don't think these people know it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think that's up to the Code Enforcement agent to notify the customer, number one. Number two, we went through -- we went through these rules several years ago when it came up "shall" and "may," and they told us -- the county attorney that was here at the time said "shall" means shall. "May," you can go either way. So if you want to take this back to the County Attorney and ask him -- or you can send it to Bill Clinton, what "shall" means versus what we're discussing here. MR. MARINO: What is the difference -- what's "shall" and what's "will"? MS. CURLEY: So we're saying that we want our rules in the county to be -- to let the legislative rules be subservient to Collier County? You want the county to have more -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I want the County Attorney to tell us when the rule says that the respondent shall, what does that mean? That's very simple. MS. CURLEY: What I actually said was rhetorical, because we can't do that. We have to follow the state. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We follow all the rules, Sue. MS. CURLEY: You can't make up harder rules that our state doesn't -- MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to get off track, but that's fine. We'll bring that next meeting. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the comment -- the part of the rule that says what Mr. Lavinski read is what's in question now. MR. OSSORIO: We'll take a look at that for you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good. Page 73 April 29, 2016 MR. OSSORIO: But I want to make sure we're on the same page, and I think I've heard, through a consensus, is that Code Enforcement needs to do a better job communicating with the respondent. I'm not saying that we're out there telling these respondents that, hey, they don't have to show up. Maybe they're assuming since the violation's been abated, maybe they're not being here present; maybe the communication's lacking, and maybe we need to put that in our notice, or when we finally close out our case, we'll let the respondent know that if they want to request these fines, they -- you know, it's in their best interest to show up. But I don't want to tie the Board's hands. If you feel that you need to impose or not impose a penalty, it should be debated on this, and I think it's good policy in general. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, but we debate that -- MR. OSSORIO: I think you do a good job, and I think it just shows that today you did. But we need to do a better job with communicating with the respondent, and I can tell you that's going to improve. MR. LEFEBVRE: We also have had where respondents have sent letters in saying, I can't make it to the meetings, but can you abate my fines. MR. OSSORIO: Exactly. And I think that's where we're going to be going, too, in the future. Not saying that you're not going to get a warm body here, but these investigators are going to get some kind of form of an email, letter, or something to the fact that -- letting the Board know that I did comply, please let me have another bite at the apple. So with that said, I think that's where we're going to be going in the future. MS. CURLEY: In addition, we have, a lot of times, when they're here and when we give them 30 more days and say you'll have to come Page 74 April 29, 2016 back one more time, we do -- we do almost always tell the petitioner that, you know, you have to come back, you'll ask us -- we know the fines are still accruing, but we've set that stage also, so we've been proactive enough in that way, mostly. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: So we want to make sure that it's their responsibility, the respondent's responsibility to come in and -- come in or write a letter asking for something. You can't just give -- give it to them. And we -- again, we do state -- most of the times we tell them, when you complete -- get everything abated, please come back. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me stop you. Read that sentence again. MR. LAVINSKI: Which one? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The one that the respondent is responsible. MR. LAVINSKI: The respondent shall have the burden of proof to show why a fine/lien should be reduced or abated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It doesn't say "may." MR. LAVINSKI: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It says "shall." And in all of the times that we have gone through the rules, that's what was explained to us at the time, that "shall" means shall, and "may" means you may or may not. So it will be interesting to see what the County Attorney says about that. MS. NICOLA: We could debate this all day long. I don't see any provision in that statute that says the respondent shall be at the code enforcement -- at the code enforcement hearing else the fine shall be imposed. I just think we're treading dangerous ground creating a policy that legislates that this person should be here when it's not part of the statute. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, it doesn't say that, but doesn't Page 75 April 29, 2016 not say it either. MS. NICOLA: Again -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It is what it says. MS. NICOLA: -- reading into a statute is dangerous grounds. When judges do that, they get reversed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, I don't think we have many lawyers on the Board here, but we do have a bunch of people that know how to read, and -- MR. OSSORIO: Well, Mr. Kaufman, I just wanted to -- I'll just leave you with, if the burden of proof is on the respondent and he did come into compliance, you can take inference that he wants this vote -- he wants to be (sic) imposed penalties waived. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I agree. MR. OSSORIO: So when he's looking for compliance and you're hearing testimony from the investigator, just because this person's not here, but you're hearing debating testimony from the investigator out in the field that he's communicating with the homeowner, the respondent, and they're getting compliance, that is a burden of proof that this respondent wants to get in compliance. So do we pose (sic) a $50,000 fine on a property that's worth 20,000? So that is something that should be a good-will faith on the Board communicating with our staff. But we're going to do a better job communicating, and I think we're going to probably narrow the gap a little bit when we have -- we're going to come up with a form that they sign, they understand they want to abate the violation, and we're going to make them sign, and so there's going to be a little more communication with our office and the respondent in the future. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This will probably be a continuing issue going forward. Any other comments on that? Page 76 April 29, 2016 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, I shall ask -- MS. CURLEY: You're killing me. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You want us to vote on sending those two cases? Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Make a motion that we forward the two cases listed on the foreclosure for collection action. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ASHTON: I will second that. MR. MARINO: I shall second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You shall second it? MR. ASHTON: I shall second it. MS. CURLEY: I will go with the flow. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. I shall accept a motion to -- MS. CURLEY: We're done, right? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes -- to adjourn. MR. MARINO: You're still on speaker. MR. ASHTON: Make a motion to adjourn. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? Page 77 April 29, 2016 MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :14 a.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD C7 ,,---- O :ER JAN , CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on _,6-- 2 c,- - , as presented or as corrected . TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC/COURT REPORTER. Page 78