Loading...
CEB Minutes 05/26/2016 May 26, 2016 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, May 26, 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 Kathleen Elrod Sue Curley (Alternate) Lionel L'Esperance (Excused) 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: May 26,2016 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. April 29,2016 Hearing 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. Motions Motion for Continuance 1 Motion for Extension of Time 1. CASE NO: CESD20150017447 OWNER: DANIEL HERRERA AND GLENDA GONZALEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JUAN SERNA HERRERA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A).INTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS ON A WOODEN STRUCTURE CONSISTING OF ELECTRIC,DRYWALL,INSULATION,FRAMING,TRUSSES,AND PLUMBING,ALL CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PERMITS,INSPECTIONS,AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AS REQUIRED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING DEPARTMENT. FOLIO NO: 30733560007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1316 ORANGE STREET,IMMOKALEE 2. CASE NO: CESD20140010232 OWNER: MANSOLILLO IRA LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A).AND 2010 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE CHAPTER 1,PART 2,SECTION 105.1. COMPLETE REMODELING OF THE INTERIOR OF THE HOME AND GARAGE BEING CONVERTED TO LIVING SPACE INCLUDING PLUMBING,ELECTRIC AND STRUCTURAL WORK AS WELL AS A FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD ALL WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 37161440006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 120 7TH ST SW,NAPLES 3. CASE NO: CELU20100021891 OWNER: KENNETH R TANNASSEE SR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 1.04.01(A)AND SECTION 2.02.03.ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY WITHOUT A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE ON THE SAME LOT. FOLIO NO: 37925940001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4790 PINE RIDGE RD,NAPLES 4. CASE NO: CESD20120013716 OWNER: BRANISLAVA CIRAKOVIC VUKOVIC,GINA RADENKOVICH,AND ALEKSANDAR H. RADENKOVICH OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ART FORD VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTIONS 10.02.06(B)(I)(A), I0.02.06(B)(1)(E),AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(E)(I).OBSERVED ALTERATIONS/IMPROVEMENTS TO STRUCTURE/PROPERTY AND NO COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS OBTAINED. FOLIO NO: 62578800000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 10580 6TH ST,NAPLES B. Stipulations 2 C. Hearings 1. CASE NO: CESD20150014619 OWNER: PETER WESSEL 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)AND 10.02.06(B)(I)(E)(I).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: CEROW20150023030 OWNER: PATRICK J.BROWNE AND BEATRIZ Z.PEREZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 110 ROADS AND BRIDGES,ARTICLE II CONSTRUCTION IN RIGHT OF WAY,DIVISION 1 GENERALLY, SECTION 110-31(A).THE CULVERT/DRAINAGE PIPE HAS FAILED,THAT IS,IT HAS COLLAPSED OR RUSTED THROUGH.ORDINANCE 2003-37 REQUIRES THAT NECESSARY REPAIRS ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROPERTY OWNER. FOLIO NO: 164960002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 203 WILLOUGHBY DRIVE,NAPLES 3. CASE NO: CEROW20150023031 OWNER: VERONICA TRESSLER,BARBARA DETHLOFF,AND ELIZABETH LUCKY OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 110 ROADS AND BRIDGES,ARTICLE II CONSTRUCTION IN RIGHT OF WAY,DIVISION I GENERALLY, SECTION 110-31(A).THE CULVERT/DRAINAGE PIPE HAS FAILED,THAT IS,IT HAS COLLAPSED OR RUSTED THROUGH.ORDINANCE 2003-37 REQUIRES THAT NECESSARY REPAIRS ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROPERTY OWNER. FOLIO NO: 161080008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 231 WILLOUGHBY DRIVE,NAPLES 4. CASE NO: CES20160003214 OWNER: JERILYN NEUHAUS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 5.06.04(C)(3)AND 5.06,06(A)(7).MINIATURE EIFFEL TOWER STANDING ABOUT 8-10 FT TALL WITH LED LIGHTING. FOLIO NO: 52501840005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 365 CAPRI BLVD,NAPLES 5. CASE NO: CELU20160001564 OWNER: ROBIN OKOLSKI OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 1.04.01(A). OUTSIDE STORAGE OF PODS AND A DUMPSTER ON A RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 52399800008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 145 CAPRI BLVD,NAPLES 3 6. CASE NO: CELU20160000342 OWNER: BEN F.JONES AND APRIL T.JONES OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 1.04.01(A) AND 4.05.02(K).OFF-SITE PARKING LOT LOCATED ON UNIMPROVED PROPERTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING ALL COUNTY APPROVALS INCLUDING A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. FOLIO NO: 52501320004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 285 CAPRI BLVD,NAPLES 7. CASE NO: CELU20160000346 OWNER: BEN F.JONES AND APRIL T.JONES OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 1.04.01(A) AND 4.05.02(K).OFF-SITE PARKING LOT LOCATED ON UNIMPROVED PROPERTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING ALL COUNTY APPROVALS INCLUDING A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. FOLIO NO: 52501400005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 289 CAPRI BLVD,NAPLES 8. CASE NO: CELU20150022434 OWNER: BEN F.JONES AND APRIL T.JONES OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 1.04.01(A) AND 4.05.02(K).OFF-SITE PARKING LOT LOCATED ON UNIMPROVED PROPERTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING ALL COUNTY APPROVALS INCLUDING A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. FOLIO NO: 52501360006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 287 CAPRI BLVD,NAPLES 9. CASE NO: CESD20150004083 OWNER: ELBA SERRANO MORALES OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE,TO INCLUDE A NEWLY ATTACHED ADDITION AT THE REAR OF THE RESIDENCE WAS OBSERVED.THE RESIDENCE HAS BEEN CONVERTED INTO THREE DWELLING UNITS EACH WITH SEPARATE BATHROOMS AND KITCHENS.EACH UNIT HAS ONLY ONE DOOR FOR INGRESS/EGRESS.ALL IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PERMITS,INSPECTIONS,AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY/COMPLETION. FOLIO NO: 30734120006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1316 APPLE STREET,IMMOKALEE 10. CASE NO: CEROW20150021347 OWNER: CWABS INC.,CERTIFICATE HOLDERS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 110 ROADS AND BRIDGES,ARTICLE II CONSTRUCTION IN RIGHT OF WAY,DIVISION 1 GENERALLY, SECTION 110-31(A).EXPIRED PERMIT NUMBER PRROW2014082232201. FOLIO NO: 37987760009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3610 WHITE BLVD,NAPLES 4 11. CASE NO: CESD20150011320 OWNER: KELLY BAKER OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOE GIANNONE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).A SINGLE WIDE MOBILE HOME AND UTILITY SHED STAGED ON IMPROVED UNOCCUPIED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE REQUIRED PERMITS,INSPECTIONS,AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY/COMPLETION. FOLIO NO: 01132480005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 259 GLADYS CT,COPELAND 12. CASE NO: CELU20150022253 OWNER: LA SORIANA INC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 2.02.03. USING VACANT LOT AS OVERFLOW PARKING WITHOUT AN APPROVED SDPA. PL20140001643 IS IN REJECTION STATUS,NOT YET APPROVED BY COLLIER COUNTY TO USE AS ADDITIONAL PARKING LOT. FOLIO NO: 25631080005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: NO SITE ADDRESS,IMMOKALEE B. Motion for Reduction of Fines/Lien. 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. CASE NO: CESD20140010232 OWNER: MANSOLILLO IRA LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A).AND 2010 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE CHAPTER 1,PART 2,SECTION 105.1. COMPLETE REMODELING OF THE INTERIOR OF THE HOME AND GARAGE BEING CONVERTED TO LIVING SPACE INCLUDING PLUMBING,ELECTRIC AND STRUCTURAL WORK AS WELL AS A FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD ALL WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 37161440006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 120 7TH ST SW,NAPLES 2. CASE NO: CELU20100021891 OWNER: KENNETH R TANNASSEE SR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 1.04.01(A)AND SECTION 2.02.03.ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY WITHOUT A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE ON THE SAME LOT. FOLIO NO: 37925940001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4790 PINE RIDGE RD,NAPLES 5 3. CASE NO: CESD20150011591 OWNER: JOSE G.CUEVAS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A)AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(E)(I).A VACANT UNOCCUPIED HOME WITH NO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. FOLIO NO: 39592820002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4230 8TH ST NE,NAPLES 4. CASE NO: CESD20120013716 OWNER: BRANISLAVA CIRAKOVIC VUKOVIC,GINA RADENKOVICH,AND ALEKSANDAR H. RADENKOVICH OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ART FORD VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTIONS 10.02.06(B)(1)(A), I0.02.06(B)(1)(E),AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(E)(I).OBSERVED ALTERATIONS/IMPROVEMENTS TO STRUCTURE/PROPERTY AND NO COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS OBTAINED. FOLIO NO: 62578800000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 10580 6TH ST,NAPLES 5. CASE NO: CESD20140000965 OWNER: MARICELA PEREZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).AN ADDITION WITH ELECTRIC,AND A CARPORT WITH A WOODEN DECK ALL ATTACHED TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE,ALL CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PERMITS,INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY/COMPLETION AS REQUIRED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING CODE. FOLIO NO: 34750000025 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4755 VIREO LN,IMMOKALEE 6. CASE NO: CESD20150003265 OWNER: WILLIAM T.CABAL OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR VICKI GIGUERE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A). UNPERMITTED STRUCTURES AND EXTERIOR LIGHTING IN THE REAR YARD. FOLIO NO: 38166040002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5941 COPPER LEAF LN,NAPLES 7. CASE NO: CESD20150013679 OWNER: LIN LIN WANG OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHAEL ODOM VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,SECTIONS 10.02.06(B)(1)(A) AND I0.02.06(B)(1)(EXI).UNPERMITTED STRUCTURAL,PLUMBING,ELECTRICAL AND HVAC ALTERATIONS TO THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. FOLIO NO: 193560004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1747 ACREMAKER RD,NAPLES 6 B. Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order C. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order 7. NEW BUSINESS 8. CONSENT AGENDA A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. 9. REPORTS 10. COMMENTS 11. NEXT MEETING DATE- June 23,2016 12. ADJOURN 7 May 26, 2016 Good morning. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board to order. Notice: The respondent may be limited to 20 minutes, 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 this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and, therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. If you could all turn off your cell phones and stand for the pledge. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Let's start out with the roll call. 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. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Robert Ashton? MR. ASHTON: Here. Page 2 May 26, 2016 MS. ADAMS: Ms. Sue Curley? MS. CURLEY: Here. MS. ADAMS: And, Ms. Kathleen Elrod? MS. ELROD: Here. MS. ADAMS: And Mr. Lionel L'Esperance has an excused absence. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And using the term after the name as alternate, I think Sue was the alternate that voted as a full member at the last meeting. We'll move that to Kathy for this meeting. MR. MARINO: Oh. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I heard a sigh from Tony down there. MR. MARINO: Can I vote? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you vote on what? MR. MARINO: On anything. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, we'll let you vote since you're a full member. MR. MARINO: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have changes to the agenda? MS. ADAMS: Number 5, public hearings, motions, Letter A, motions, motion for extension of time, No. 3, Tab 15, Case CELU20100021891, Kenneth R. Tannassee, Sr., has been withdrawn. And just for clarification, that's the motion for extension of time only that's being withdrawn. Letter B, stipulations, we have four additions. The first is No. 12 from hearings, Tab 13, Case CELU20150022253, La Soriana, Incorporated. The second is No. 11 from hearings, Tab 12, Case CESD20150011320, Kelly Baker. The third is No. 2 from hearings Tab 3, Case CEROW20150023030, Patrick J. Browne and Beatriz Z. Perez. Page 3 May 26, 2016 The fourth is No. 9 from hearings, Tab 10, Case CESD20150004083, Elba Serrano Morales. Letter C, hearings, No. 4, Tab 5, Case CES20160003214, Jerilynn Newhaus has been withdrawn. Number 6, Tab 7, Case CELU20160000342, Ben F. Jones and April T. Jones, has been withdrawn. Number 7, Tab 8, Case CELU20160000346, Ben F. Jones and April T. Jones, has been withdrawn. Number 8, Tab 9, Case CELU20150022434, Ben F. Jones and April T. Jones, has been withdrawn. Number 6, old business, Letter A, motion for imposition of fines/liens, No. 6, Tab 19, Case CESD20150003265, William T. Cabal, has been withdrawn, and that's all the changes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Can I get a motion to approve the agenda as modified. MR. DOINO: Motion to approve. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. The minutes. Any changes on the minutes from last meeting? Page 4 May 26, 2016 MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to approve. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. MS. ADAMS: The first -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We begin. MS. ADAMS: The first motion for extension of time, No. 1, Tab 1, Case CESD20150017447, Daniel Herrera and Glenda Gonzalez. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. Could you put your name on the mike so we all hear it? Your name. MR. DANIEL HERRERA: Daniel Herrera. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you're asking for a 90-day extension. MR. DANIEL HERRERA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Your letter. MR. DANIEL HERRERA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You want to give us a little history on this? MR. DANIEL HERRERA: Yeah. Well, I've been working on Page 5 May 26, 2016 the house, and I need more time because I need to do the drywall and insulation and, of course, I need the more time because I'm going to divorce, and I need to fix my house because I need to have my kids in there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. In February, we heard this case, and there was a stipulation that was agreed to. Since that stipulation in February was done, what has been done on the house? MR. DANIEL HERRERA: Well, I had to hire a contractor for -- he can pull up the permits and everything, so I let him do the -- pull the permits and all that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So permits were pulled; is that what you're saying? MR. DANIEL HERRERA: Yes, sir; yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Permits for the whole house or just drywall or what? MR. DANIEL HERRERA: The drywall and the insulation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the permit been approved? MR. DANIEL HERRERA: He's working on it, the contractor. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's -- my question is, has the permit been approved, yes or no? MR. JUAN HERRERA: Can I speak? For the record, Collier County Code Enforcement, Juan Serna Herrera. Right now the permit's under rejection, but the contractor did submit -- or under -- yeah, rejection, but the contractor did submit corrections on Tuesday, May 24th. So we're waiting on that, but they are -- he is trying to move forward with the permit. MR. LEFEBVRE: When were the permits applied for? MR. JUAN HERRERA: The permit was applied for on April 27th. MR. LEFEBVRE: Wow. And this came before us in January. So it took all of February, all of March, and nearly all of April to Page 6 May 26, 2016 submit for permits. Seems like a long time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Was the $65.43 paid? MR. JUAN HERRERA: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any additional questions from the Board? (No response.) MR. LAVINSKI: Seems like a long time in between what should have been done. I'll make a motion to deny. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion to deny. Any second on that motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'll second it for discussion purposes. Would you like to talk to your motion? MR. LAVINSKI: Excuse me. It just seems, yeah, like my learned colleague over there was saying, that it took a long time to get the permit in process, and I would think after a stipulation of 120 days, that we certainly would have been on top of that permitting process. MR. JUAN HERRERA: Well, when I went in the home, the electric and the plumbing were done. The only thing that needed to be done is just to install the insulation and put up the drywall and that's -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Was the electrical inspected? MR. JUAN HERRERA: It's part of the permit -- yeah. Part of the permit was for the insulation, the framing foundation, and plumbing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm a little confused. So the permit was approved? MR. JUAN HERRERA: No, it wasn't approved. They needed a little bit more information, so that's what the contractor turned in for that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Here's my confusion. When I ask if the permit was applied for and was it approved, you said no. Page 7 May 26, 2016 MR. JUAN HERRERA: No, no. It's under rejection as of right now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So if the permit wasn't approved, could you please help me understand how you could have the plumbing and the electrical approved when you have no permit. Joe? MR. MUCHA: For the record, Supervisor Joe Mucha, Collier County Code Enforcement. I think that what he's trying to say is this was previously done, hasn't been approved yet, obviously. The permit hasn't been approved, so it hasn't been inspected. So, no, it hasn't been approved by the County. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Has Joe been sworn? (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Now, Joe, you want to the say something? No, I'm only kidding. We heard you. Okay. So the permit wasn't approved. The other work was done prior to the permit. MR. MUCHA: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hence, the code hearing? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. This was, like, he was working on the house, he got busted. That's why we're here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Now I understand. MR. MARINO: You understand? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Now I understand. Okay. You know, I'm getting old, and sometimes you have to dig in there. Okay. Any other comments from the Board on the motion to deny? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. Page 8 May 26, 2016 MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we're going to hear this case. The extension is not approved. Let me just see where I am on this. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Chairman, his compliance date isn't actually until Saturday, so this isn't -- this is not on the agenda, and he won't start accruing fines till Sunday. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Okay. Jeff, you wanted to say something? MR. LETOURNEAU: No, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: So if it's completed by next meeting, he would come here, probably ask for an abatement. If it isn't completed, then he would still come here and possibly ask for another extension at that point, correct? MS. ADAMS: That's correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just -- MR. DANIEL HERRERA: Yeah. MR. LEFEBVRE: So you understand. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You understand that? MR. DANIEL HERRERA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MR. DANIEL HERRERA: You're welcome. MS. ADAMS: The next motion for extension of time, No. 2, Tab 14, Case CESD20140010232, Mansolillo IRA, LLC. Page 9 May 26, 2016 MR. MANSOLILLO: I feel like this is an anniversary. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You're here to request an extension. MR. MANSOLILLO: Yeah. If I may approach? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. MANSOLILLO: I took pictures yesterday. MR. LETOURNEAU: Here. You want to put them up on the overhead. MR. MANSOLILLO: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We need a motion to accept the -- MR. DOINO: Motion to accept the pictures. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to accept the exhibit. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. MANSOLILLO: That's the carriage house. All we're waiting for is odds and ends at this point. Everything's done. All the rough inspections were done. It's all closed in. That building, though, Page 10 May 26, 2016 is the cause of my time problem, because what was designed for the air conditioning unit in there was no good for it, and the county guy agreed with us. So we went back to the engineers, redesigned it. Trouble is, that's a custom-made unit, because you know how you have a unit inside, a unit outside? This is all in one, and it goes, like, through the wall in the attic. And we're waiting for that to come in. When that comes in, he can finish the air conditioning installing, and then the electrical guy can finish the tie-ins to the electricity. Everything else is in. And then we're waiting for -- you see in another picture -- I don't think he has it up there yet -- the kitchen. We're waiting for the granite guy who has the granite right now to cut -- to put in the sinks so the plumber can finish, and he'll call for final inspection. The place came out beautiful. I'm sure your inspectors will concur with me. But it was neither fast nor cheap. We lost two air-conditioning systems to thieves. We lost two water systems to thieves. We lost -- believe it or not, we lost our main cable from the house to the street to thieves who got it down for copper. So to avoid that happening again, I trenched from the house all the ways out to the street and put an underground line in. You can see there's a permit for it. It was done and inspected. We'll finally connect it. It took me almost six months to get that done with Florida Power & Light so that we could have electricity to work on the job. It's been a task. But, you know, I'm a retired disabled veteran. This is what I'm doing. And, like, I don't need to sell the house tomorrow to live. But we're on it every day. Your guys have been out there with us. And, you know, when I -- before I put the drywall on that house, I wrote my name, spray painted it on all the walls because I sign my work. And that house is perfect. Not fast, not cheap, but perfect. Page 11 May 26, 2016 So that's why I'm back here again. I just need to wait to get the inspections. It might take 90 days. I don't know how fast the system's going to come in. That's what worries me. It's a weird system. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me ask you a quick question, because I don't remember this -- we hear a lot of cases. I don't remember this specific case, but this goes back to 2014. MR. MANSOLILLO: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So from 2014, we're closing in on a couple years. MR. MANSOLILLO: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Was there one big thing that held this up for so long? MR. MANSOLILLO: No. It was 90 small things. Like, we thought we could redo the roof, and the roofs were no good. So when we finally pulled them off, I said, they're so bad, let's do it right. Let's rip everything out, go right down to the trusses, rebuild the roofs. You could see where the roof permit was approved, you know. Just everything -- the only thing I saved on this house were the studs. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MANSOLILLO: The whole exterior's been redone but, you know, you find it a piece at a time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You're asking in your request for a 60-day extension. Do you think -- I understand you don't know when the unit is going to come in. MR. MANSOLILLO: I just picked a number, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MANSOLILLO: I don't know. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sort of like a lotto? MR. MANSOLILLO: Yeah, you know, I'm telling you like it is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MANSOLILLO: I don't know if you remember, but I've Page 12 May 26, 2016 been here a couple of times. You and I served on the same base in Vietnam. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's right. MR. MANSOLILLO: That's right. Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Come over here and I'll hit you. No. Questions from the Board? MR. MARINO: What does the county say? MR. LETOURNEAU: He's got -- for the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. He's got a couple active permits right now. Hasn't been any recent inspections, but he did just recently reactivate the permits, so it appears that he is trying to move along. We have no objection at this point for an extension. It's -- he's got it fenced off. There's really no health or safety issues at this point. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anything else from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: Are there any complaints been filed on this? MR. LETOURNEAU: No, sir. No. MR. LAVINSKI: I'll make a motion to extend 60 days. MR. DOINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. Page 13 May 26, 2016 MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. MANSOLILLO: Thank you so much. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If 60 days goes by and the air conditioning doesn't come in, we'll probably see you again. MR. MANSOLILLO: Yeah, probably so, sir. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. ADAMS: The next Motion for Extension of time, No. 4, Tab 17, Case CESD20120013716, Branislava Cirakovic Vukovic, Gina Radenkovich, and Aleksander H. Radenkovich. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: When I lived in New York, I used to listen to a radio station that had all the oldies on it. That's what we're hearing today, oldies. This one goes back to 2013. So, I think we've seen you a few times before. MS. VUKOVIC: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning. You're here to request an extension -- request the Board for an Extension of the Stipulation Agreement. I don't think you specified in there how much of an extension that you were looking for. MS. CIRAKOVIC: I believe -- my name is Branislava Cirakovic. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CIRAKOVIC: It really depends on the county because we -- at the last meeting I already had hired the contractor at the advice of the committee. So I hired a contractor, we hired the architect, we hired the engineer for stamps, and they submitted the plans to the building department; however, building department had some changes requested to be done on the plans because this dwelling is little bit older so it -- something wasn't really matching. Page 14 May 26, 2016 And basically, at this point, once when the building department approved the plans, we'll call for inspection and have the case closed. How long it is going to take, I really -- it's up to the building department. So whatever you can do, you know, at this point; you know, I'm appreciative, but it's a certain procedure that we follow. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This is -- if I'm not mistaken, I add up all the -- SPEAKER: Extension. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- extensions, I think it's seven times, plus today is eight. MS. CIRAKOVIC: To honest with you, you know, it's a different procedure when we started for rezoning, and now it's for building department. So it's totally different. And I understand, yes, you're correct, but initially it was for a zoning -- rezoning, and now it's for building and code, so it's a total different, basically, case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And the county says? MR. SANTAFEMIA: For the record, John Santafemia, Collier County Code Enforcement Board Investigative Supervisor. There have been numerous extensions granted by this board. My understanding is that they attempted to get a variance from multifamily for this dwelling. That is a very long process, which is why it needed to be extended prior to today. Their variance was denied by the county. They were -- it was recommended to them that they permit it, the extra space as an in-law suite. They have hired an engineer, and they are working with the county on the drawings, and I have a letter from the engineer basically saying that they're working on submitting for the permits and everything. So we don't think that they will have a problem moving forward permitting it as an in-law suite at this point. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Once it's permitted, is this a permit Page 15 May 26, 2016 by of-- MR. SANTAFEMIA: It's going to be a permit by affidavit, by engineering affidavit, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. It's hard for the Board to grant an extension without knowing how much of an extension. So I understand that the respondent doesn't know. MR. SANTAFEMIA: My understanding is that the engineer has actually submitted the plans to the planing department once. They were sent back to him for revisions. He's working on those revisions at this time. And once he gets them submitted back to the county with those revisions, that it should be -- should move along quickly after that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Would you think that these plans would happen within weeks? MR. SANTAFEMIA: I don't know. How long have they been with the engineer at this point? MS. CIRAKOVIC: One week. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have any idea on the scope of it; how long that would take? MR. SANTAFEMIA: It's difficult to make that determination. If the engineer submits them back to the county and the county accepts that and moves forward, it should move quickly. You know, I'm thinking 60 days max. If there are further revisions that the county wants and has to send them back to the engineer, it could go on longer. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any other comments from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: I was just wondering, you know, this has been around -- matter of fact, it had a birthday a couple of days ago of three years. And I keep watching almost every Collier County Commission meeting, and they get accolades for processing these permits and doing, I guess, whatever they have to do. Page 16 May 26, 2016 Is the problem here on the respondent that they're not pressuring whoever this dude is that's supposed to be doing what they need to get done, or does it go to that person and then lie there for 60 days before we realize, wow, we haven't got this permit or whatever ready? MR. SANTAFEMIA: And I apologize. I'm not the original person that started this case, and I'm not sure how long the time frames were when they were trying to get the variance through that process. In reading the case myself, there does look like there may have been some delays. They had to have a public hearing and everything on this. So I don't think that the respondent's been not pursuing an avenue to resolve this issue. It's just the whole process just takes a long time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Three years is not a long time. It's actually too long. I would -- to quote my friend Mr. Lefebvre, you can build a high-rise in less time than it's taking to do this. I would say one last continuance and -- for 30 days, and if it's not done by then, we're going to impose the fine probably because enough time is enough time. And somebody, obviously, needs to light a fire wherever the fire needs to be lit. Is it possible for us, not us, the county to go to the people who are holding onto this review and -- MR. SANTAFEMIA: At this point the drawings are still with her engineer, and he hasn't resubmitted them to the county, so there's nobody for me to light a fire. That would be up to her to do that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CIRAKOVIC: Okay. So as soon as he have them, I should, basically, personally bring it to you, and hopeful it's going to be resolved quickly? MR. SANTAFEMIA: No. It's going to be a permit by affidavit, so the sooner he gets those revisions back to the county -- MS. CIRAKOVIC: I understand. Page 17 May 26, 2016 MR. SANTAFEMIA: -- the quicker that this process will move. MR. MARINO: How long is it going to take to get that to the county? MR. LEFEBVRE: She doesn't know. MS. CIRAKOVIC: I can go to his office. It's -- you know, it's engineering office and, actually, my contractor was handling that part, so I have to check with them. But it really depends, how big is that revision, because, you know -- but it's a drawing, so -- MR. MARINO: I agree with my colleague that maybe you should light a fire under them and find out exactly how long -- MS. CIRAKOVIC: Trust me, I totally agree with everything you say, and -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me give you another suggestion. MS. CIRAKOVIC: Please. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If it's not done by the next meeting, I would suggest that that engineer -- you bring him here. MS. CIRAKOVIC: Bring him here, yeah. I will. I pay him, so... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Because this is just -- this is just going on and on and on and on. There doesn't seem to be a resolution forthcoming. Yes, Bob? MR. ASHTON: No, I think 30-day extension, that's it. Build a fire under him, and next time go after him. MS. CIRAKOVIC: Thank you. MR. MARINO: Is that a motion? MR. ASHTON: I make a motion for 30-day extension. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Not extension. Continuance. MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Lefebvre? MR. LAVINSKI: Once it's submitted to the county, what is the turnaround time at that point? Because that figures in, I mean, to the 30 Page 18 May 26, 2016 days or not. MR. MARINO: I don't know. MR. SANTAFEMIA: That's difficult for me to predict. MR. LAVINSKI: On average. I mean, I don't -- I'm not trying to give you a -- MR. SANTAFEMIA: If everything is in order, you know, it should be within 30 days. I can't imagine it wouldn't be. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Just for clarification. They submitted plans. The county said they need to be revised. Do you know when those plans were returned to the engineer from the county? MS. CIRAKOVIC: Week ago. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One week ago, okay. So now the engineering firm has had a week to -- MS. CIRAKOVIC: Make the revisions. MR. LEFEBVRE: Fix those. MS. CIRAKOVIC: They're submitted, and from that point there will be, like he said, up to 30 days, hopefully, if there is not another revision. So I just wanted to mention, in case -- because I have to go overseas with my children, so in case I'm not here, is there somebody I can send or can I -- for next meeting or something because -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Your engineer. MS. CIRAKOVIC: Pardon? Yeah, engineer can represent me. MR. ASHTON: Give him authorization to represent you. MS. CIRAKOVIC: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So would someone like to make that motion? MR. ASHTON: Make a motion we give them a 30-day continuance. MR. MARINO: Second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And second. All those in favor? Page 19 May 26, 2016 MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MS. CIRAKOVIC: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Enjoy your trip. MS. CIRAKOVIC: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is from Letter B, Stipulations. It's No. 12 from hearings, Tab 13, Case CELU20150022253, La Soriana, Incorporated. MR. ESQUIVEL: Good morning. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name on the mike so -- MR. ESQUIVEL: David Esquivel. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You're the owner? MR. ESQUIVEL: Yes; yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You want to read the stipulation into the record, Joe. MR. MUCHA: Yes. For the record, Joe Mucha, Supervisor of Collier County Code Enforcement. I'm here on behalf of Investigator Steven Lopez-Silvero who couldn't be here today due to a Family Emergency. But he met with Mr. Esquivel back on May 13th, and they agreed -- Mr. Esquivel agreed to pay operational costs in the amount of Page 20 May 26, 2016 $64.59 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; To abate all violations by ceasing and desisting all prohibited use for overflow parking on unimproved property within one day of this hearing or a fine of$100 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Number 3, obtaining an approved site development plan of such use for overflow parking is to be taking place, and obtaining any and all required Collier County building permits, inspections, and certificates of completion/occupancy for proposed overflow parking lot within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of$200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Four, respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of the abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; And the last part, 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. So stop using the lot as a parking lot. MR. MUCHA: Which has occurred. He's stopped. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Because -- and then he has to give 24-hour notice, which, if it's tomorrow, the notice should be given today. MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Sir? MR. ESQUIVEL: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You understand the agreement that you entered into? Page 21 May 26, 2016 MR. ESQUIVEL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No problem meeting those requirements? MR. ESQUIVEL: Well, in my behalf no, but I have no control where people park. But, anyway. I submitted for a permit a couple years ago. I've hired three engineers. I've paid them 8,500. I'm in a similar situation as her. And I'm submitting for creating a parking lot. And I got three rejections every time we submit to the county. The last one they gave me something new saying I have to build a wall. And the gentleman at the zoning/reviewing, all he said, oh, I'm sorry. I missed it on the first review. We've been -- it's -- we've been three times that we submitted for the permit. We're in process. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: In this particular case the stipulation is no parking on there starting tomorrow. MR. ESQUIVEL: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the $64.59 to be paid within 30 days, and then anything else that you need to do as far as getting with the county or getting something done, that's outside of this stipulation. MR. MUCHA: Well, if you look at No. 3, though, we are also giving him 120 days if he wants to go that route, which he is. He's going that route. He wants to get this approved for a parking lot. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MUCHA: Yeah. This -- really, the crux of this was about the parking on the unimproved lot. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, this came in from a complaint? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. It was the Sheriffs Department. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So if people are parking there now that you have no control over, I'm sure your friends at the Sheriffs Department will be able to make those people an offer that they can't Page 22 May 26, 2016 refuse by giving them a summons of some sort. MR. ESQUIVEL: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is this a lot next to a restaurant you own or what's -- MR. ESQUIVEL: Yes, kind of, sort of. So I'm going to -- I'm going to -- I think I'm going to tape it off so I guess people won't park there, or I wanted to put some rocks or something in there; I don't know, a fence. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think what would help you is, if somebody parks there and you see it, you call the cops. MR. ESQUIVEL: But I don't live here. I can't be guarding it all the time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is there somebody near the property that -- MR. ESQUIVEL: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- that can act in that behalf? MR. ESQUIVEL: Yes, maybe. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MARINO: Is the property adjacent to the restaurant? MR. ESQUIVEL: Yes. MR. MARINO: Why don't you get a towing company to put tow-away signs up? MR. LEFEBVRE: It's up to him to do what -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Whatever needs to be done. MR. MARINO: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: I guess -- so do you have an engineer that you hired? MR. ESQUIVEL: I've hired three engineers. MR. LEFEBVRE: Three engineers to try to get this permitted? MR. ESQUIVEL: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: And he has to go through and get a Site Page 23 May 26, 2016 Development Plan; is that the proper -- the process? MR. MUCHA: He does -- he is in -- has an application for a Site Development Plan. MR. ESQUIVEL: I've been going on for three -- two years with the county back and forth. MR. LEFEBVRE: Will he need access to 41, direct access from the parking lot? MR. MUCHA: Forty-one? MR. ESQUIVEL: This is Immokalee. MR. LEFEBVRE: Oh, it's Immokalee, sorry. MR. MUCHA: Can I just show an aerial so you guys can get an idea? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah. What I'm trying to get at is will he need any state permits or anything for access to any kind of road? MR. ESQUIVEL: No. MR. MUCHA: Well, he would need a right-of-way permit to access this lot. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. But it's not going to be through any state level or anything? MR. MUCHA: No, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: Which will take probably months and months and months. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Joe, can you describe what we're looking at? MR. MUCHA: Okay. The highlighted lot is the property in question, and what it is is on the lot right across the street they have a flea market -- his flea market, and on the weekends that's where the parking becomes really bad. People park all over the place, and the sheriffs, they've been working with us to try and get this resolved, and it just took a little time. I think we got it kind of nipped in the bud. I mean, I think people are realizing not to park there. But, yeah, he's Page 24 May 26, 2016 right. I mean, you can't police it 24/7. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. MUCHA: You can't stop people. But we just wanted to make sure that he's doing everything -- he's exhausting every means that he can to prevent it until he gets his approval by the county for a parking lot. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ESQUIVEL: Sir? What's stopping me from finishing this? The county. We submitted -- we keep on submitting, and we get objection and comments. We answered all the comments, and now they want us to build a wall, which is fine. And, like I said, oh, all he said, oh, I'm sorry. I missed it. Now, next time they're going to want me to build a bridge or a lake. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is not the purview of Code Enforcement. This is -- if you want to point the gentleman in the right direction on who to go see there, that probably would resolve his concerns. MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. MR. ESQUIVEL: What do you mean by that? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We don't control the land development folks who issue permits, et cetera. MR. ESQUIVEL: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're just here to hear the case that's before us. So if you have a concern with a wall or whatever goes on, you need to go to the right people, and we're not the right people in this particular case. MR. MARINO: I would start with a towing company. MR. LEFEBVRE: This use is permitted for this property, too, a parking lot? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Page 25 May 26, 2016 MR. LEFEBVRE: Is four months enough for a Site Development Plan? Typically it takes six-plus months. MR. MUCHA: He's had one in place, though, since 2014. It's just every time he's had to do these revisions and -- MR. LEFEBVRE: He had what in place? MR. MUCHA: He applied for a Site Development Plan back in 2014, it was, David? MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. ESQUIVEL: Everything approved. All we just got to get it and submit it and we'll work on it. We'll build to -- MR. LEFEBVRE: What do you mean by everything's -- you already went -- MR. ESQUIVEL: The plans. I've got two, three engineers working on it. I've got a landscaping architect. It's just the county, every time we submit, they give us rejections, new rejections, new comments. MR. LEFEBVRE: But what I'm trying to get at is, by the time you get into the Planning Commission to review -- or to approve you or deny you, you have to then go to, if I'm not mistaken, the Board. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yep. MR. LEFEBVRE: Commissioners. MR. ESQUIVEL: No, no. It's just through zoning. It's just making sure all the setbacks, the plans, the elevation, the calculations MR. LEFEBVRE: Is that correct that he will not need to go in front of a hearing? MR. ESQUIVEL: No. MR. MUCHA: I don't want to say no on that. MR. ESQUIVEL: I did it before I went to -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me stop this. We have a stipulation in front of us. Let's dispose of the stipulation. Page 26 May 26, 2016 Joe will help this gentleman, David, to go to the right people in the county to get done whatever needs to get done. MR. LEFEBVRE: What I'm worried about, in our stipulation says a Site Development Plan. Does he need that or not is what I'm asking? MR. ESQUIVEL: Sir, it's been approved. I've had a pre-meeting application a year -- before you build anything or rezone anything, you have to get it approved. Mine was approved. I've paid 1,500, 2,500 for that application. That's why I went forward with engineers to do what I wanted to do, build what I want to build. Make sense? All we need is just minor stuff, but they keep on bringing little stuff. It's not nothing big. For an example -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me -- MR. ESQUIVEL: It's just little stuff CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm going to cut the discussion on this off MR. MUCHA: If you'd like, I mean, I can strike the thing about the site development. This really was coming here about the parking. That was the main thing that we wanted to prevent. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MUCHA: We can strike that part out of it, and he can continue working on his Site Development Plan as long as nobody's parking there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MUCHA: Is that fair? MR. ESQUIVEL: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. NICOLA: So, Joe, are you taking out the part up to the word "and"? MR. ASHTON: Number 4? MR. MUCHA: Basically, I think just No. 3. We could just strike Page 27 May 26, 2016 the whole thing. MS. NICOLA: Don't you think you want to leave in obtaining all required building permits? Isn't that -- he doesn't have one yet, right? Don't we want to just take out the first part of that sentence up through "and" and start with "obtaining"? Am I wrong? MR. LEFEBVRE: I don't have a problem with the Site Development Plan being in there but, realistically, four months is not enough time to get a Site Development Plan. That's what I'm trying to get at. MR. ESQUIVEL: It could be years. We're in the middle of history. There are so many permits being pulled. They say there's so many thousands and thousands of houses. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Go ahead. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we approve stipulated agreement, and then in four months we'll see what happens. MR. DOINO: I'll second that. MR. MUCHA: That's fair. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) Page 28 May 26, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you, Joe. MR. ESQUIVEL: Be back here in four months? MR. LEFEBVRE: Hope not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hopefully it's all resolved in four months. MS. CURLEY: Don't curse yourself. MR. MARINO: Get some tow-away signs. MS. ADAMS: The next Stipulation is No. 11 from hearings, Tab 12, Case CESD20150011320, Kelly Baker. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. GIANNONE: Good morning, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Looks like the respondent is not present. MR. GIANNONE: No, sir. For the record, Investigator Joseph Giannone, Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't you let us know what this is and what the stipulation reads. MR. GIANNONE: It's an unpermitted trailer and shed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. GIANNONE: And it has been agreed upon between the parties that the respondent pay all operational costs in the amount of $65.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of the hearing; Number 2, abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits, demolition permits, inspections, certificate of occupancy/completion within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Three, respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours Page 29 May 26, 2016 of the abatement of the violation or request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; Four, 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. This was signed when? MR. GIANNONE: This was signed yesterday, sir, 5/24 (sic). CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Since the respondent is not here, it's up to the Board to approve or not approve it. Any motions from the Board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to approve the stipulation. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. GIANNONE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next Stipulation is No. 2 from hearings, Tab 3, Case CEROW20150023030, Patrick J. Browne and Beatriz Z. Perez. Page 30 May 26, 2016 (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. BALDWIN: For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: One, pay operational costs in the amount of$65.01 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Two, abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County right-of-way permits and inspections through final approval and/or remove all offending material from the right-of-way for an activity not permitted with a valid Collier County right-of-way permit within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of$150 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Three, respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; Four, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Sir? MR. BROWNE: Yes. Patrick Browne. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Patrick, you've agreed to this? MR. BROWNE: Yes. The only thing I'd like to have is 180 days instead of 120. We're in rainy season. I'm a firefighter/paramedic. So if we do have any tropical storms, hurricanes, I get called back to duty. Could be whenever. We get cleaned up, I get back on, so that could delay it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. What we'd have to do then, since this was the stipulation, you and Patrick get together, initial whatever, and then we'll take it from there. Page 31 May 26, 2016 MR. BALDWIN: I'd agree with that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So the stipulation, you want to change the -- MR. BROWNE: Dates, the amount of days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Gerald? MR. LEFEBVRE: I think it's more important to get it fixed as soon as possible with the rainy season here, or nearly here. So instead of extending it, I'd like to see it shortened. But I think it should be fixed as soon as possible. MR. BALDWIN: The homeowner stated he's going to do it himself. He's going to pull a homeowner builder permit. MR. LAVINSKI: What's happened since December 3rd? MR. ASHTON: December? MR. BALDWIN: Sir? Mr. Browne. MR. BROWNE: School and work. MR. LAVINSKI: What was that? MR. BROWNE: School. I'm going to become a registered nurse, and just work, full-time job. MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, but you've got a code violation standing out here. Doesn't that come -- MR. BROWNE: I understand. MR. LAVINSKI: -- somewhere in your priorities? MR. BROWNE: Yes, it does. It's a matter of the culvert being galvanized pipes that rust, and I've seen others in the neighborhood of Willoughby Acres where I live. Mine is minute compared to those. Rust doesn't happen overnight. This is probably approximately 20 years of or longer. It will get done. MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. I just got a problem with this even -- even the -- what are you asking for, 120 days, since nothing has been done since December 3rd. You know, I know we all have other priorities in life and other issues, but you've got a code violation here Page 32 May 26, 2016 which could affect your whole neighborhood, not just you or your driveway. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Patrick. MR. BALDWIN: The county is comfortable with 120 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to accept the stipulated agreement. MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That means it's accepted at 120 days? MR. LEFEBVRE: That's correct, sir. MR. ASHTON: Hundred and twenty days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Carries. MR. BALDWIN: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next Stipulation is No. 9 from hearings, Tab 10, Case CESD20150004083, Elba Serrano Morales. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. Could you state your name on the microphone. MS. SERRANO: Elba Serrano. (Christopher Bances, Interpreter, was duly sworn to translate from English to Spanish and Spanish to English to the best of his ability.) Page 33 May 26, 2016 (The respondent was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Joe, you want to read the stipulation? MR. MUCHA: Yes. For the record, Joe Mucha, supervisor of Collier County Code Enforcement. I met with Ms. Morales this morning. She's agreed to pay operational costs in the amount of$65.01 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Number 2, to abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permits, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy within 180 days of this hearing or a fine of$200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Three, respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; Four, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I have a couple of questions. MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This goes back 14 months ago. This is where a single-family residence had an addition to the rear of the residence? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Was that occupied? Is that occupied? MR. MUCHA: The house is currently vacant, and there was another building that was at the rear of the property that has been torn down. That was part of the original complaint. It took them a long time to get the permit approved. It kept Page 34 May 26, 2016 getting rejected, the application did. It's finally been approved. It's ready to be issued. So that's why I thought, well, let's go ahead and do six months just to make sure they have enough time to -- because I think all of the work still needs to be done, correct? So -- but the house is vacant. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And it's a single-family -- MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- situation? Okay. Any questions from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: Make a motion to approve the stipulated agreement. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? MR. LAVINSKI: Does that -- Joe, where it says each unit has only one door for egress, is that going to be solved by taking it back? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. That's part of the -- the permit is actually -- is to return the multifamily dwelling back to a single-family, so that's the permit, yes, sir. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Page 35 May 26, 2016 MR. MUCHA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How are your fingers doing? THE COURT REPORTER: I'm okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're okay? Okay. MS. ADAMS: Actually, Mr. Chairman, we have one other change to the agenda. There's been a Stipulation added. The next stipulation will be No. 5 from hearings, Tab 6, Case CELU20160001564, Robin Okolski. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept the change. MR. DOINO: Second. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This looks like it was a storage POD on a residentially zoned property. MR. MUSSE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You want to read the stipulation? MR. MUSSE: For the record, Investigator Jonathan Musse, Collier County Code Enforcement. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Pay Page 36 May 26, 2016 operational costs in the amount of$65.01 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 (sic) days and abate all violations by removing any and all offending commercial equipment being stored on this residentially zoned property within 60 days of this hearing, or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed until the violation's abated. Alternatively, obtain a valid Collier County building permit to repair the damages caused by the flood which would allow the storage of PODS and a dumpster on the property while the permit is active within 30 -- within 60 days of this hearing, or a fine of$100 per day will be imposed until the violation's abated. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using the methods 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 that all costs of abatement shall be assessed to property owner. I think I made a mistake on the first part. I think I said 30 days, and I meant 60. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think you said 30 days to pay the operational costs. MR. MUSSE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sixty days. MR. MUSSE: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that it was 60 to come into compliance with both sections. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Could you give us a quick overview of what this was? There was a flood or -- MR. MUSSE: Yes. Mrs. Okolski's water heater broke. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MUSSE: And she was -- while she was at work, and she Page 37 May 26, 2016 came home to a mess. And she had to remove some of her belongings and store them in these PODS. And then for -- the dumpster was for the damages that had to be removed. It was a long period of time because she was waiting for the insurance company to make an assessment of the damages, and -- but as I -- if I'm understanding correctly, with the insurance company, it's all done? MS. OKOLSKI: Now I'm dealing with the mortgage company to release the funds so that I can start work. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So it's to remove -- the damaged stuff goes into a dumpster? MR. MUSSE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the POD is the storage for the stuff that's going to eventually go back into the house? MR. MUSSE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And what you're saying -- because it's a little confusing -- 60 days for the first part to remove the PODS? MR. MUSSE: Yes. The first part is she could either remove the PODS and the dumpster within 60 days; second part is if she obtains a permit, which I think she's in the process of obtaining a permit, the PODS and the dumpster would be allowed there because she's doing repairs to the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MUSSE: I got a photo if you want to see. I mean, it's just PODS and a dumpster. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't think that's necessary. MR. LAVINSKI: Which of these two items do you plan to do, 2 or 3? MS. OKOLSKI: Two. I'm actually applying for a permit. I need to repair the walls now before anything can go back in. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. Once you have a building permit, then you can have the dumpster there, et cetera, et cetera. Page 38 May 26, 2016 Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: So, really, 2 is not an issue. It's 3? MS. OKOLSKI: I don't know. I don't have it in front of me. MR. LEFEBVRE: It's right up there. On the screen. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Eye test. MS. OKOLSKI: Three. MR. LAVINSKI: Two is to remove, but you don't intend to remove. You intend to get your permit and try to get livable again. MS. OKOLSKI: As soon as the walls are out, the dumpster will be gone. It's just I have to -- I've been waiting. You know the process. So the contractor was taking a day off yesterday and today to apply, so there should be one in; probably some by today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have enough time to submit -- get the permit going? MS. OKOLSKI: It's a -- even though it's my residence, it's a duplex, so I won't get a residential permit. I guess it's a commercial permit, so it might take a little longer. But I would think that 60 -- I don't know. I've never done it. I would think that 60 days is sufficient to get the permit, but I don't know how it works. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you agree to the writeup here? MS. OKOLSKI: (Nods head.) MR. LAVINSKI: What's the extent of the damages? MS. OKOLSKI: I lost almost everything. The whole inside has to be ripped apart, and all the walls have to be redone. MR. LAVINSKI: They have to be done from floor to ceilings or just four feet -- MS. OKOLSKI: Four feet up. MR. LEFEBVRE: Four feet up. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Typical. MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. That's what I wanted to make sure. Page 39 May 26, 2016 Is 60 days going to be enough? That seems like a -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's for the permit, not for the repairs. Once the permit is in place, then you are permitted to have the PODS. MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. And then that would alleviate the violation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Oh. A permit to repair the damages. Okay. Very good. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: If we leave No. 2 in there, is she going to be caught in a Catch 22 if she can't get her permit in 60 days? Because 2 will kick in in 60 days, and she'll be fined for having the stuff there while she's still working on 3. MR. LEFEBVRE: She said that permits were being applied for yesterday or today, you said -- MS. OKOLSKI: Uh-huh. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- by your contractor. So it sounds like -- 60 days sounds quite sufficient. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't think that will be a problem going forward. The worst case, it comes back to us again. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to approve the stipulated agreement. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 40 May 26, 2016 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. MUSSE: Thank you. MS. OKOLSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is from Letter C, hearings, Number 1, Tab 2, Case CESD20150014619, Peter Wessel Trustee of the Peter Wessel Irrevocable Trust under trust dated February 14, 2006. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Respondent's not present? MR. WESSEL: I am present. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He is. Oh. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Jeff, you're up. MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20150014619 dealing with the violations of the Collier County Land Development Code 2004, as amended -- excuse me -- 2004-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). The violation description is a shed-type structure in the rear yard built without obtaining a Collier County building permit, inspections, and certificate of completion. The violation location is 6 Derhenson Drive, Naples, Florida, 34114; Folio No. 49582200004. This property is located in a mobile home zoning district. Service was given on July 29, 2015. I would now like to present case evidence in the following Page 41 May 26, 2016 exhibits. I've shown these exhibits to Mr. Wessel, and I believe he has no objection to these. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any objection to the pictures? MR. WESSEL: I have no objection. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Could we get a motion to -- MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to accept the pictures. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. The first photo is going to be taken on July 29th, and the seven following photos will be taken on -- excuse me -- July 29, 2015; the following seven photos were taken on November 19, 2015. All these were taken by Investigator Michael Odom. The ninth photo will be a photo taken off the Collier County Property Appraiser website, and the 10th photo was taken by me yesterday to prove that the violation still remains. Okay. On July 21, 2015, Code Enforcement received a complaint that there was an unpermitted shed in the rear property being used for living purposes. On July 22, 2015, Investigator Odom conducted a site visit and Page 42 May 26, 2016 observed structure from the street. No one was home at this time. Investigator Odom then proceeded to do some extensive research, including looking at the property card, going through all our data banks and our computers, the CD Plus, CityView webs, and no valid Collier County permit could be found for this particular structure. We presented the issue to the Collier County building official, and he determined that this was a violation. Investigator Odom and I had numerous conversations with Mr. Wessel regarding this issue; however, as of today the structure remains, and a building permit has not been issued for it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Was this structure occupied at the time? MR. LETOURNEAU: I don't think it was being occupied. I just think that it was kind of like a hangout maybe more than being occupied. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It doesn't matter either way, but okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: And that's pretty much it. We're just here because we want Mr. Wessel to obtain a building permit, inspections, and certificate of completion for this structure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you know whether or not this is zoned for this? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes, you can have sheds in this particular zoning; however, I'm not sure if this particular structure meets setbacks. It might be an issue. I haven't been out there measuring it myself, but it looks like it's going to be really close to the back rear setback. MR. MARINO: Did you say that there are people living in the shed? MR. LETOURNEAU: I don't believe at this time anybody's living in that shed. Page 43 May 26, 2016 MR. MARINO: But they were? MR. LETOURNEAU: I think at one point over the past 12 years or so there might have been people living in here, but I think at the time Mr. Odom went out there, I think it was more of just a hangout or something rather than people actually living and sleeping in the structure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me point out on this photo that's before us, the red lines are not a true indication of the property lines, so just -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. They're notoriously off on the property appraiser's. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Peter, you're up. MR. WESSEL: Thank you, sir. I guess, first, I want to submit into evidence photographs I printed off of Google Earth. I have copies for everybody. Is that how I do that? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't you give those to Kerry. I need a motion from the Board to accept the evidence -- MR. DOINO: Motion to accept. MR. MARINO: I make a motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Page 44 May 26, 2016 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you want to put the pictures up right now? MR. WESSEL: Yeah, I can, actually. They're -- they're -- basically I heard one of the gentlemen say it affects the whole neighborhood. And what these photographs show, I printed off of Google Earth, is my house is 6 Derhenson Drive, and five houses to the left and five houses to the right and the 10 houses that abut the property in the back, so there's 20 houses. Out of those 20 houses, probably 10 to 12 of them have sheds as close to the property line as is mine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The problem with that argument, I'll mention it, is Johnny threw a rock at me and I threw a rock back at him doesn't make -- you understand? MR. WESSEL: That's not my primary argument. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. WESSEL: It's just -- I know that that's an interest of the state. They weigh -- they like people to have free access to their land, but the state has some interests, and that's one of the interests of the state is how are you affecting the neighborhoods, that's why I took these photographs. And another interest of the state is safety. And we hang out in there, as he said. I offered him to go in and take more pictures yesterday. He didn't feel the need to. He believed me, I guess. The building has a foundation. It's safer than any of the mobile homes out there, any of them. So it's safe. My primary argument is that -- and this is the third time I've been here. My primary argument is that I was a tenant in the property 12 years ago when the shed was rented out to somebody. It was a rented, occupied dwelling illegally at the time, and the man got evicted. I lived in the big house. This man lived in the shed. It was an apartment. Page 45 May 26, 2016 It had walls. It had plumbing. It had -- it was an apartment, and full kitchen and everything. And the guy got evicted and called Code Enforcement. Code Enforcement went out, talked to the prior owner, Mr. Valenta, and had him gut the building. I had an offer to buy the property at that time. I withdrew my offer. We weren't going to close anyway until he had listed it with a real estate agent, and he wanted to wait until his contract with the real estate agent was up for commission purposes, but we had an agreement in principle, and I'd given him some earnest money. And I was going to buy the place, and then all of a sudden Code Enforcement shows up. And Code Enforcement had him gut the entire building, everything out, everything out. It's a shell. There's no walls. There's no plumbing. And so I'm going to rely on some affirmative defenses of equitable estoppel as one, and laches as the other. And what I need to prove -- first, I'll stipulate that there's not a permit, and I'll even stipulate that it's probably too close to the property line. I'll stipulate that. But equitable estoppel is an affirmative defense to that if I meet four conditions. One, there has to be conduct on my part giving rise to a notice of violation, and that's obvious. I've been given notice of the violation. I am -- I own the offending property. The second requirement is a -- for me to assert effectively equitable estoppel, I have to prove that there's an reasonable delay by Code Enforcement despite knowledge or imputed knowledge. And as he said, 10 years ago, and as I said, 10 or 12 years ago Code Enforcement was out there. And the courts have imputed knowledge for such behavior. And I was in an accident -- not in an accident. I-75 was closed down this morning because of a fatal accident, and I didn't get a chance to photocopy some case law that I got as just a convenience for Page 46 May 26, 2016 everybody. I will photocopy and give it to everybody if you don't decide today, you want to look into this a little further, but the case law supports imputed action. They should have known. They were looking at this shed 10 years ago; they should have known then. The third thing I have to prove is a lack of knowledge by me that Code Enforcement would proceed. Well, I lacked the knowledge they would proceed, because I literally asked Code Enforcement officer 10 years ago, is this a done deal? Is it good? I lowered my offer to buy because I wasn't going to get rental income, but I still had the shed. And the Code Enforcement officer said, yes, it's a done deal. Mr. Valenta has done -- the prior owner has done everything we have asked him to do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any other pictures that you want to show, or just that overhead shot there? MR. WESSEL: Well, yeah. That's two of them, and what they are -- it's my street. And almost everyone has a shed, basically, is all I'm proving. With that -- and I have no other pictures to show. I took several on my phone yesterday, but they -- he doesn't think anyone's living in there. There's nobody living in there. Going back to equitable estoppel, a lack of knowledge on my part. I was literally told Code Enforcement was done, so I proved lack of knowledge. And then the fourth thing I have to prove is injury to me, and the injury to me is that I paid to get the shed. That was part of the purchase price. I paid to furnish the shed, and I would have to pay to tear the shed down or get a variance. So that's my defense of equitable estoppel. The other one is laches, and that's just merely a -- a statute of laches is kind of like a statute of limitations, just unreasonable delay on the part of the Code Enforcement in this case. And, again, I'll state that Page 47 May 26, 2016 there's unreasonable delay given they were on the property looking at that very structure 10 years ago. So I think I have two affirmative defenses. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Tammy, do you want to comment on MS. NICOLA: Well, I am familiar with equitable estoppel and laches, and I have successfully used that argument in court. He's right about the law. I mean -- MR. LETOURNEAU: I would say the county has a good counterargument to this. MS. NICOLA: But he's correct about the law on laches and estoppel. I mean, those are the requirements and, you know, if you walk into a courtroom, a judge can decide that there was an unreasonable delay that caused harm to the litigant. And in my practice, which I think most of you know, outside of here is in divorce court, it usually has to do with somebody who comes after child support 10 years later, and a guy's coming in to, you know, the Department of Revenue, and they're saying you owe $54,000. And the mother says, well, you know, I never went after it, but now, you know -- now I'm going to seek it even though he's been seeing the kids, he knows where the children are, he's been paying for clothes, those kinds of things. So -- but they're used in civil cases, too. I'm sure that if the county did some research on it, we could probably find something that would apply. Maybe not right on point with his situation, but in a civil situation where there was a delay that everybody knew about and it caused harm to the litigant. So I thought when he had addressed it last time that we were going to have a county attorney, I was hoping, maybe coming in here today to, you know, have point, counterpoint on it, because -- truthfully, I would be much more comfortable about it if we had a Page 48 May 26, 2016 county attorney who was taking a position on this. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Jeff, you have comment that you'd like to make on this? MR. LETOURNEAU: I have many comments I'd like to make on this. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: First, I'd like to submit as evidence the original complaint about the case that Mr. Wessel was talking about, so... MR. LEFEBVRE: Has he seen that? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has he seen that? MR. LETOURNEAU: I don't think so. MS. CURLEY: That's the case from 10 years ago? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you have any problem with him submitting that? MR. WESSEL: I do not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could we have a motion from the Board to accept? MR. ASHTON: Motion to accept. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Motion to accept and seconded. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Page 49 May 26, 2016 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay, Jeff. MR. LETOURNEAU: The complaint for this case that Mr. Wessel is referencing is actually two-part. It was one -- weed use to have a rental registration, and there was no rental registration for this particular structure, and also that they had modified a garage into living space. So I did some research on this case, and there are some following cases on this over the years that dealt with people actually living in this structure. But I can safely say at no time did I see that any county employee had any reason to believe that this structure was unpermitted. I find no record that any county employee mentioned that this was an unpermitted structure. Every time they went out there they dealt with the actual complaint. And I would say that this is not a glaring violation, and it's not apparent that this is a violation. You'd have to do a ton of research just to make sure that this is a violation. It wasn't required for any of the complaints that we had out there. And Mr. Wessel is relaying something that happened 10 years ago. The county contends that we believe that the investigator told him everything was clear as far as the rental registration and the living in this garage right here. I don't believe the investigator ever looked into whether the structure was permitted, and I don't believe any investigator that went out there on this property afterwards looked into whether this structure was permitted. You know, he could have been out there -- it was Mr. -- Larry Schwartz was the investigator. He could have said, yeah, everything's all clear. Does that assume that there was some other electrical violations in the main houses? I mean, he was just saying everything Page 50 May 26, 2016 was all clear as far as the rental registration and the garage conversion. And that's pretty much our contention is that I don't think any county employee knew that this was a violation until we did the research for this particular case we're here for today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: And I have discussed it with the county attorney and, you know, we -- we're on the same page as far as this testimony. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Tammy, are you okay with that? MS. NICOLA: I'm actually not okay with that. I -- this just -- this particular case doesn't sit well with me, and here's why: Well, we've got this, right? We don't have somebody who was -- who investigated at the time here to testify about what he or she did or did not do to tell this gentleman. The fact that -- you know, if we take what he says as true, that a code investigator said you need to rip out the entire living area of this particular structure in order to be in compliance concerns me because here we've got this guy that's living there and he hears, oh, rip it out and you're fine. Get rid of your tenants, and you're fine, and then 10 years later he buys the property and he pays good consideration for it probably because it has an additional structure on the property; to me it fits right within that laches and estoppel argument. I, as the attorney for Code Enforcement, would not recommend finding a violation. I'm not personally comfortable with it as a lawyer because it just rings true to me what he's saying, and unless we had an investigator who came in here -- and I understand -- I understand the position that Code's taking, but unless we had the investigator that was in here (sic) that came in and said, I did not tell Mr. Wessel that, he was misinformed, then I have a problem with that. I do. I just think -- I think the evidence that he's providing right now is uncontroverted. Page 51 May 26, 2016 That's my problem. Even though the county's saying we have -- we have this paperwork, but what we don't have is we don't have investigative notes, and we don't have an investigator. We don't have anybody that was involved in this matter from the county's position back when it happened. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Wessel? MR. WESSEL: I do have six cases from the Florida courts involving code enforcement decisions that are pretty much on point where they -- if what Jeff is saying is true, that they only investigated the rental registration, the courts impute the knowledge to them that they should have known that it was too close to the property line, that there wasn't a building permit. So even if I never talked to the investigator, my equitable estoppel defense, according to these courts cases, would still hold. But I, in fact, did talk to the guy. I had an offer to buy the house at the time. MS. NICOLA: Mr. Wessel, can I see those, please? MR. WESSEL: Yes, you may. MS. NICOLA: Thank you. I'll give them back to you. I'd just like to look at them. MR. WESSEL: I provided Mr. Odom -- or maybe you, Jeff. Was it you I provided these to? MR. LETOURNEAU: Is that the laches cases? MR. WESSEL: I have six cases that are all here. MR. LETOURNEAU: I think I got one from you. I wasn't sure about six, though. MR. WESSEL: Yeah, I have six. I provided all six of them to someone in Code Enforcement just to let them know where I was going to be coming from. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It looks like we have a new player? MR. NOELL: Good morning, Board. My name is Kevin Noell. I'm an assistant county attorney. I'd be happy to participate in the Page 52 May 26, 2016 closing arguments. I would just -- I just want to make sure that our Code Enforcement personnel is done presenting the evidence for it. So is there any more evidence that you wanted to present before -- MR. LETOURNEAU: As far as the structure being not permitted, no. I'm not sure -- depending on Mr. Wessel's further testimony, I'm not sure if we want to do any more of the laches and estoppel, though. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Tammy, you said that you wanted to -- you would feel better if you had an attorney from the county, and it looks like -- MS. NICOLA: I would. And in all honesty, I would feel more comfortable if I had some time to review these cases. I mean, he's provided some code cases which may or may not be on point, and I'm not comfortable with giving an opinion on them at this point. But I would prefer it if we could withdraw this case and bring it before the Board in 30 days. And I hate to ask you to come back, but for me to be able to look at this -- and I would -- I don't want the Board to make the wrong decision. I think that we should be informed about what these cases say and for me to be able to give you an opinion as to whether they're on point and whether I can advise you what I think, you know, about this truthfully. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, sir. MR. NOELL: And the county's position, we don't have an issue if we want to continue it for 30 days for that purpose. What we would like to do, though, is put all of the evidence on the record and be done from that perspective. And then if we want to do -- even if they want to do arguments in 30 days, that's fine. We're prepared to do arguments today, but I just want to get the evidence on the record this morning and be closed out from that perspective. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have any comments from the Board regarding this? I know that -- I mean, if time goes by, Page 53 May 26, 2016 if somebody built a structure on my property that violated the setbacks, it was actually on my property and 20 years goes by, what difference does it make? It doesn't belong there. So I'm assuming that your argument is somebody came out here and saw that it was on my property and chose not to do anything, and that's your defense. MS. CURLEY: I have a question or a comment. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MS. CURLEY: I think that the gentleman didn't own the property at that time. MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct. He had a contract. MR. WESSEL: I was a tenant with a contract to buy. MS. CURLEY: But the gentleman didn't own the property at that time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. MS. CURLEY: So what occurred before his ownership has nothing to do with this case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I agree with you. MS. CURLEY: And it is his own due diligence to buy a survey to survey what documents are included in the purchase and to hire a home inspector to check permits and do all that. So that is his due diligence to do at the time of his purchase. What occurred, what hearsay or what evidence occurred, before really is nothing to do with this case. MR. NOELL: And at some point when we want to close the hearing, before we do that I would like to ask some questions in followup. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you do that now. MR. NOELL: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And then we'll come back. We'll close the public hearing and then listen to the Board. How's that? Go Page 54 May 26, 2016 ahead. MR. NOELL: Sir, you had mentioned you had a conversation with a code enforcement employee several years ago? MR. WESSEL: I don't think I did. I know for a fact I did. MR. NOELL: Okay. What was -- what was said in that conversation? MR. WESSEL: This -- that was an ongoing case. I didn't get to see what Jeff just handed me. I just said it was okay to submit it into evidence. But it went on for a while. Mr. Valenta was kind of contentious. He missed several deadlines. MR. NOELL: And, sir, what I want to do is I want to be respectful of your time, so I'll just ask you very specific questions. What do you recall being mentioned in that conversation with you and the Code Enforcement officer? MR. WESSEL: I let him know that I was going to be a buyer of the property, and I wanted to know, was the shed good to go. MR. NOELL: Okay. Is that exactly what you asked him? MR. WESSEL: In those words. The words might have been a little bit different but the same intent, yeah. MR. NOELL: And what was his response? MR. WESSEL: His response was "good to go." MR. NOELL: Okay. Anything else that he said in that conversation? MR. WESSEL: Not that I recall. MR. NOELL: Did you have any other conversations with any other Code Enforcement personnel before you bought the structure? MR. WESSEL: No. MR. NOELL: Okay. And just to make sure I understand, your position that equitable estoppel applies in this matter is based off that conversation you just testified to; is that right? MR. WESSEL: Not totally; not totally. It also applies from the Page 55 May 26, 2016 mere fact that -- or maybe this would fall under laches, either laches or equitable estoppel. The mere fact that the county has knowledge imputed to them by them having been there and should have known. That's their job. MR. NOELL: I understand, and I know the Board will let you, you know, present your argument. But my question for you is a specific question. As far as the equitable estoppel that you're raising today, is -- that conversation that you just testified to, is that the sole basis for that conver -- was that conversation that you had with the Code Enforcement officer several years ago? That was the extent of the conversation? MR. WESSEL: No, sir. MR. NOELL: There was another conversation? MR. WESSEL: No, that wasn't the question you asked. You asked me a specific question. You want to repeat the question? MR. NOELL: Sure. You had a conversation with a code enforcement investigator several years ago about the property, correct? MR. WESSEL: Correct. MR. NOELL: And in that conversation he told you that you were "good to go," correct? MR. WESSEL: Correct. MR. NOELL: Other than that conversation, is there any other conversation you had with anybody else from Code Enforcement regarding the property that you are relying on for your defense here today? MR. WESSEL: I didn't have another conversation. MR. NOELL: Okay. And I understand your other position that it's been there for a while and things of that nature. I'm just trying to find the extent of the conversations that you had. So that was the conversation? MR. WESSEL: Correct. Page 56 May 26, 2016 MR. NOELL: Okay. About how many years ago was that conversation? MR. WESSEL: I closed in '06. So I think it was in '05; '05,'06. Let me see if I have a copy. MR. LEFEBVRE: You closed on June 26, 2006. MR. NOELL: Is that about right? I'm not looking for the exact date, but is that about the right time frame of that conversation? MR. WESSEL: No. It was pretty much well prior to that, I believe. I think it was closer to '05. MR. NOELL: Okay. So about 11 years ago from today, right? MR. WESSEL: Yeah. I'm basing that based on a cashier's check for my earnest money. MR. NOELL: I understand. MR. WESSEL: Dated in February of'06. MR. NOELL: Okay. MR. WESSEL: So I believe the conversation happened in '05. MR. NOELL: Okay. Thanks. And then back then, do you know why the code enforcement investigator was there, what violation he was investigating specifically? MR. WESSEL: Yes. Well, to my knowledge, the tenant worked for the owner, Mr. Valenta. He was an employee of Mr. Valenta, as was I. And they had a fight over some hours that one party claimed got worked, one party claimed weren't worked. So they had a fight, and the tenant was evicted. And then the tenant apparently called Code Enforcement and said this building is not up to code. MR. NOELL: Okay. And where did you get that knowledge from; talking with the owner of the building back then? MR. WESSEL: No. Well, with Code Enforcement, the owner, and the tenant, all of them. I was very well -- I was trying to find out everything I could, because I was buying the property. Page 57 May 26, 2016 MR. NOELL: Did you talk to the code enforcement investigator on what specific violations he was out there investigating 11 years ago? MR. WESSEL: Well, I knew -- I don't know if I asked him, but I knew he was investigating the rental of it, and I saw -- in fact, I participated in the demolition of the property. MR. NOELL: And what I'm asking you is a different question. I'm asking you a more specific question. MR. WESSEL: Okay. MR. NOELL: I'm asking you if you talked with the code enforcement investigator and asked him why he was out there investigating. MR. WESSEL: I don't recall if I asked him that specific question. MR. NOELL: To your knowledge, did you ever hear him make any statement as to what violation he was out there investigating back then? MR. WESSEL: The only thing I can say for certain was that he told me everything was "good to go" in regards to my being a potential purchaser of the property. MR. NOELL: Okay. So is that a no? MR. WESSEL: I forget -- MR. NOELL: I'll ask it again. So do you know why the code enforcement investigator -- what specific violation he was out there investigating 11 years ago? MR. WESSEL: I don't remember if I knew -- if he told me what specific -- no. The answer's no. MR. NOELL: I don't have any other questions. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Wessel, do you have any other comments? MR. WESSEL: Yes, I do. I had a couple of thoughts on my mind and kind of got off track Page 58 May 26, 2016 here. But I wanted to address the chairperson's (sic) concern about I didn't own the property at the time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. WESSEL: And that, according to the case law, doesn't matter. According to the case law, that doesn't matter, but even if it did matter, I was in privity of contract, is what it's called, to purchase the land, which does give me an interest in it. I do have -- I think she was saying I had no interest in what Code Enforcement was doing 11 years ago, but I did because I was in privity of property. It doesn't matter according to case law. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Just for -- I'm looking -- in a summary look that I'm looking at, what you're saying is if you knew about this thing not being permitted 10 years ago, whatever the date is, 10 years ago, then that 10-year delay, that's what you're citing; is that correct, more or less? MR. WESSEL: What I'm citing is the affirmative defense of equitable estoppel, which is when courts look at what's equitable, what's fair. Would it be unfair to make me tear the shed down? Yes, it would be unfair to make me tear the shed down given what has happened. That's what I'm saying. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, we -- MS. NICOLA: Can I chime in a minute? I just want to tell the Board, I did a little bit of research while everyone's been talking, and there is a brand new March 2, 2016, Second District Court opinion in the case of Siegel versus Lee County, which appears to be directly on point on the issue of laches and equitable estoppel. Not having time to review this case -- it's brand new; it's not even released for publication yet -- respectfully, I think we should adjourn this matter until the next. I mean, I understand the county's position that we took all the evidence today, but I'm not comfortable giving an opinion. I'm happy to write a memorandum of law on this to the Board Page 59 May 26, 2016 before the next meeting, but with a brand new opinion, which has been issued within the last several weeks, I'm not comfortable making a decision on this yet to give to the Board on where I would advise you on the law. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Gerald, you said you have some comments. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah, regarding equitable defense, estoppel defense. First of all, the respondent just stated that, No. 1 -- I didn't get what No. 3 was, but I'll go through the one -- the three that I have: Notice of violation. He stated that he didn't know what the violation was, in fact, so he wasn't noticed of the violation. And the violation was different 10 years ago, 11 years ago, than what it was now. MR. NOELL: Respectfully, if I just -- if I just may, because I just want, from a procedural standpoint, if this is elevated from this forum, I just want to make sure that procedurally everything was done as it needed to be done. So at this point, I want to be clear on if we're still in the evidence phase where he's providing testimony, and we're providing testimony. And I totally and respectfully -- I totally agree that when we get into the legal opinion and the argument phase, you know, I think that's a phase that obviously we're going to get into it, but I think we're kind of jumping ahead of that phase to make sure -- I don't know if he has more evidence to put on, because I don't want to -- that to affect what his testimony is going to be as far as the legal arguments that are -- you know what I mean, the positions that the Board's taking -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You would feel more comfortable if I closed the public hearing? MR. NOELL: I think we need to make sure that he has given all of his evidence, we've given all of our evidence -- Page 60 May 26, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. NOELL: -- and then the public hearing's been closed, and then we can go into the arguments, the legal arguments. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Wessel, you said you have a comment? MR. WESSEL: Ido. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. WESSEL: The gentleman asked the question about conduct on my part giving rise to notice of violation. The violation that we're here for today, the conduct on my part is I'm the owner. So to answer his question, the first element of the four requirements for equitable estoppel is met by my mere owning the property today while we are here litigating it today for a violation that was issued in my name. It has nothing to do with the other violation from 10 years ago. That just gave the county notice. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. WESSEL: And the attorney for the county mentioned that -- because he had mentioned coming back in 30 days and hated to make us do that. I'd hate to do that, too. He said he was ready for closing arguments. I'm ready for closing arguments. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any other evidence that you'd like to present? MR. WESSEL: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you have any other evidence that you'd like to present? MR. NOELL: We have no further evidence. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The public hearing is now closed. Okay. Now we can open it up for discussion. MR. NOELL: Would you like closings first, or whatever the Chair's -- the Board's pleasure is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'd like to hear from the Board first Page 61 May 26, 2016 and then -- actually, from your closing statement first, and then the Board can comment on that. MR. NOELL: Okay. The county's position is very clear. What -- the evidence you have before you at this point is essentially just a self-serving hearsay statement from the violator, and that statement was by a code enforcement investigator about 10 years ago who simply said everything's okay. If the argument then is because he said everything's okay I can no longer be in violation of anything ever that has to do with the code because I was told everything's okay, just think of the irrational position that would allow him to go into as far as with violations, things like that. So I would first submit that. And, obviously, the Board has the ability to weigh evidence and discredit any or all of the evidence they found lacking in credibility, and I would first argue and submit to the Board that a simple statement by a code enforcement investigator of "everything's okay" doesn't rise to the level of equitable estoppel in the argument he's making. The other point to make, just based on the evidence, is you heard from Mr. Letourneau, our investigator, who went out there -- or who testified that the investigator at the time went out there based on an entirely different violation that we are here for today. In fact, the violator did not even know why he was out there and what he was investigating at the time. So, again, it would be a different situation if he was out there a few years ago -- this investigator was out there a few years ago investigating this very violation and then two years later we cite him for the very violation when he relied on the earlier investigator saying that he's okay. That -- that's certainly a very different argument. Here it's kind of apples and oranges. The investigator from 11 years ago was out there to investigate a totally different violation, and everything was okay in regards to that violation because the steps were Page 62 May 26, 2016 taken to correct it. So it's really an apples and oranges kind of argument that he's trying to make to assert that, therefore, I can't have any violations on this property because about 11 years ago I was told that everything was okay. In regards to some of the cases -- and I think it may even have to do with the case that was cited by the Board's attorney, there's certainly a distinction between violations that are open and obvious where a code enforcement officer walks by an area and can tell on the face of either a building, a structure, or land that a violation exists, and there's a difference between that type of a violation and a violation where investigation needs to take place. And you heard from Jeff Letourneau, our supervisor of investigations, that in order to find a violation, the violation that's before the Board today, it took extensive investigation going to property receipt cards and all the different things they had to do to determine whether a violation existed. So the argument in regards to laches of it being an unreasonable amount of time before I was cited for this violation, well, the violation that we're here to talk about today and that he's been cited for is not an open and obvious violation that someone would know by just walking by the structure. It is one that requires investigation and research of records. So that's an entirely different -- different sort of violation than the open and obvious type of violations. So, in sum, I think that the only evidence the Board has before them in support of the equitable estoppel argument is a self-serving statement by a person who certainly has a huge interest in this matter, and that statement is "everything was okay," and that -- it's the county's position that doesn't give rise to an equitable estoppel defense. And in regards to the type of violation itself being more of a hidden violation that took investigation to uncover, that would explain the delay and, certainly, our position is that the laches defense wouldn't Page 63 May 26, 2016 apply in this case either. Thanks for your time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. What I'd like to do is to have Mr. Wessel give us his summary, and at that time we're going to go to the Board, and we're going to solicit comments from the Board as to whether they want to complete this case or give our attorney 30 days to research the case that she brought up. Okay. So, Mr. Wessel, why don't you give us your summary. MR. WESSEL: I will. And thank you for calling it a summary as opposed to a closing argument because new evidence was introduced. When he says a code officer does not rise to the level of whatever, that's his testimony. That's not the way the courts see it. The courts see that the code officer does, indeed, rise to that level, and the -- he mentioned me -- or to anyone, just imagine the violations you could get away with. Equitable estoppel doesn't win every case it's asserted in. If the state has an interest that outweighs the litigant's rights -- for example, if I were making bombs in there or something like that, then my equitable estoppel defense probably wouldn't hold water because the state would have an overriding interest. That's why I mentioned the safety of the structure, and that's why I mentioned the whole neighborhood is full of these things all on the property line. So I don't think the state has an overriding interest to the equitable estoppel defense. And he mentioned something about new violations I can do because now I'm carte blanche and some officer was out there 11 years ago and didn't notice something. Well, that's not true either. I can't cause any new violations because they weren't there to have been discovered. They can't have been imputed if they didn't exist. He's saying things that are just -- I don't do this for a living, so bear with me, please. Due diligence. Somebody mentioned due diligence, and I think I Page 64 May 26, 2016 conducted due diligence when I spoke to a representative of the code enforcement agency or board, was the shed okay, and I was told yes, the shed's okay. I think I conducted due diligence as to the shed. Now, if there was a fire issue inside the main building, the wiring's faulty or something like that, I have nothing to stand on, okay? Also that would be a state interest; safety issue, too. The violation's imputed. It's just -- that's just the way the law is. It's -- the whole defense, affirmative defense of equitable estoppel is to come in place of the law when the law would treat someone unfairly. And that's what's happening to me if I'm told to take my money and tear that shed down when the whole neighborhood's full of these sheds. And I can't make an equitable estoppel defense for them, but it's just unfair to do it to me. And I think that my arguments of equitable estoppel and my argument of laches stand. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. What we will do now -- are your fingers okay? THE COURT REPORTER: I could use a break, but if you're almost done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We're almost done. We're going to have discussion from the Board, and part of the discussion should be whether we want to continue this till next month's hearing and give the parties a chance to present written response to either the case that Tammy's referring to or something else. So why don't we open it up to the Board. MR. LAVINSKI: I think -- MR. ASHTON: I think what we ought to do is continue it and let Tammy go over all the evidence that Mr. Wessel has given her, and she can do an opinion. I think that the county should also have copies of that so that they can have their opinion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Mr. Chairman, I disagree with that position. I Page 65 May 26, 2016 think that this has been around long enough. We've got enough facts here that when we get into the discussion I'd like to bring up a couple of things. And I think just to kick this down the road is an injustice, and we ought to bite the bullet and address it today. MR. LEFEBVRE: I agree. And I started talking about a few items which the county attorney touched upon, and I'd like to further those statements that I have. So I feel that we should put this to rest today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any other comments? Sue? MS. CURLEY: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Tony? MR. MARINO: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Ron? MR. DOINO: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. My comments on this, I agree that we should finish it up today. There's always a recourse after this. This is not the end-all. So I think that we should weigh the evidence that's been provided and make a decision whether the respondent is in violation or not. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Could I say something in his defense? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The public hearing's closed. Sorry. Kathy? MS. ELROD: As a realtor, it doesn't matter who built it. It's in violation, period. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Go ahead. MR. LEFEBVRE: First of all, what was touched upon, again, to reiterate, is the county attorney stated that it was a different violation. The defendant, or I should say the respondent, did say that he didn't know what violation it was, but he did say he was under contract, and because the tenants had to move out because that was the violation, he Page 66 May 26, 2016 had his price of the contract reduced. So No. 4 of estoppel defense is injury to the parties. There is no injury because you got a reduction in the purchase price, number one. Number two, again, the notice of violation you're saying you didn't know what the notice of violation was, but you had to be noticed. Number 2 of equitable defense, estoppel defense, delay by Code Enforcement. There wasn't delay in this case because it was a totally separate case. And the other thing is, you're putting the responsibility on Code Enforcement to further -- do further research to find if there's another violation on the property. But if I know I was buying a property, and I am right now, and there's a fence that was built, and I asked if there was a permit, there isn't. There will be prior to me taking possession of that property, and I'll make sure of that. I'll see a permit. I asked that question. I followed up. That's part of doing due diligence. It's your responsibility. If you know that there is a violation, some kind of violation, I'd want to get something in writing stating that that violation's been corrected and how -- what was done to correct it. I feel that the responsibility is upon the buyer to do that. There are avenues to do that, and that wasn't taken on your part. So that's one of the reasons why -- or these are the reasons why I feel that the case should move forward. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The Code Enforcement has a process that they go through to look at properties to see if they are -- if there are any code violations on them, and their response is in writing. So if they had looked at this property way back when and made a determination that it was not in violation, that would have been provided, using today as an example, of what it is in writing. Page 67 May 26, 2016 There is nothing in writing. As was said, it's -- this is what I believe he said. And when you put the listings up there of what the violation was 10 or 11 years ago, I mean, it could have been that the lawn was too high. That doesn't mean that there was a permit on the building, and that is what I see here as the violation. The violation as stated is a shed structure located in the -- it says a year, but it's rear of the property with no permits on file, and that's the facts. There is a building in the rear of the property, and there are no permits on file. So I think we should go forward, determine whether a violation exists or not. MR. LAVINSKI: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to add a couple things. A lot of dates have been thrown out; 11 years, 12 years. If I can rely on Mr. Brock's recorded deed, the respondent didn't even have -- he's the owner of this property. He didn't even have a revocable trust until February the 14th, 2006, less than 10 years ago. The warranty deed transferred the title to him on the 29th day of June 2006. Mr. Brock recorded it on 8/8/2006. So the respondent has owned this property less than 10 years. I'd like to put that on the record. So we're not talking 11, 12, 14. It's right here in the county records that says less than 10 years. The second issue is the respondent keeps saying he did a due diligence. If he did his due diligence, which I assume he did, he would have known nine years and eight months ago that that shed was a violation. He knew it. So he can't say that he didn't know about it and that nobody told him about it. He knew it if he did his due diligence. And I think the -- and based on that -- and the shed, obviously, based on the county's research, the code investigator's, it is in violation. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: I'll make a motion we find a violation does Page 68 May 26, 2016 exist. MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second that a violation exists. Any comments on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Now, do you have a suggestion, Jeff, as far as where we go from here? MR. LETOURNEAU: We do. The county recommends that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$65.85 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Number 1, obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank per day will be imposed until this violation is abated; Number 2, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to Page 69 May 26, 2016 bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. One of the things that was put out there was that he has to rip it down. That's not the case. He needs to get a permit, so it's not just a -- I know that the respondent has said that several times. It's not -- nobody's asking you to rip it down. Part of this is to get a permit, which is what the violation originally was. So would anybody on the Board like to take a shot at filling in the blanks? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, I would. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: I'll make a motion that the $65.85 be paid within 30 days, and that if I go by our guidelines, I'd like to deviate a little bit from it. Building permits, to obtain a permit, inspections, and a CO for a shed or a fence, et cetera, it says 30 days or a fine of$100. I'd like to make that to be corrected within 90 days or a fine of$150 a day be imposed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. MR. MARINO: I'll second that one. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. Page 70 May 26, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Mr. Wessel, you understand the motion? MR. WESSEL: I understand that he said -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, thank you. You have the right to repeal (sic), et cetera, et cetera. I'm sure you're aware of that. MR. WESSEL: I just wanted to technically -- I don't know if it matters or not. Technically, I admitted the violation. There is no permit. There -- it is too close to the property line. I was looking for a ruling on my affirmative defense. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We took that into consideration. MR. WESSEL: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. We're going to take a break till 11 :00, or 11 :02. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board back to order. MR. MARINO: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you, Tony, for your permission. I'd come down there and slap you, but you're older than I am, and they could put me in jail for that. Okay. MR. MARINO: I'm older than you know, but I look good. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's a matter of opinion. MS. CURLEY: Moving on wisely. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Kerry. MS. ADAMS: Okay. The next case is No. 3, Tab 4, Case CEROW20150023031, Veronica Tressler, Barbara Dethloff, and Elizabeth Lucky. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) Page 71 May 26, 2016 MR. BALDWIN: Good morning. For the record, Patrick Baldwin, code enforcement investigator, Collier County. This is in reference to Case No. CEROW20150023031 dealing with the violations of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 110, road and bridges; Article II, construction in the right-of-way; Division 1, generally, Section 110-31(A). The violation is the culvert/drainage pipe has failed, that it has collapsed or rusted through. Ordinance 2003-37 requires that the necessary repairs are the responsibility of the property owner. This violation is located at 231 Willoughby Drive, Naples, Florida 34110; Folio No. 161080008. Service was given on December 3, 2015, via posting. I would like to present some case evidence in the following exhibits. Four photographs taken and one aerial photograph taken from the Collier County Property Appraiser's website. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen the photographs? MR. BALDWIN: Yes, she has. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any objection to those photographs? MS. TRESSLER: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We need a motion to accept the photographs. MR. ASHTON: Motion to accept. MR. DOINO: Motion to accept. Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 72 May 26, 2016 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. BALDWIN: I would like to present the following case details: On December 12th -- December 1, 2015, an email was received by Code Enforcement from Senior Field Inspector Matt Graham of the Growth Management Department informing us of a violation. On December 3, 2015, I posted the notice of violation on the property and the courthouse. I have spoken to one of the owners, Veronica, Ms. Tressler, on a few occasions and another man, Mike Slade, about the violation. Mr. Slade was trying to help the owners obtain a permit, but to this day no permit has been applied for and no work has been done to fix the problem. These pictures here that Mrs. Adams is showing you are the culvert in question and of the collapse of the driveway. You can see the cracks in the driveway that are done by the roots or the rusted culvert. Regardless, the transportation department has deemed this a violation. Prior to this, we had an earlier case dealing with this on the same street. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What am I looking at in this photograph? MR. BALDWIN: That's generally the posting. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. BALDWIN: You can just barely see -- you can't really see the culvert in that. And that's the aerial photo. It looks a little dark, but it's -- it's right in the middle, right in the middle, the big parcel there on Page 73 May 26, 2016 Willoughby. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you -- is this the last picture? MR. BALDWIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you go back to the first picture? I've seen a lot of culverts. This one has sticks in it, but it doesn't look any worse to me, looking at the picture, than any other culverts that I see. It doesn't have the concrete around it that they are putting in now, but this says it's rusty. Naturally, it's rusty, but is it rusted through? Collapsing? MR. BALDWIN: The transportation department has a test where they did go out and they push the thing down -- push a device down and, yes, it has collapsed, and it's rusted through. So that's why they're required to fix the problem per Ordinance 2003-37 where the property owner is required to fix the damage to the culvert, the pipes. MR. MARINO: There was one picture that looked like it had a concrete end on it. MR. BALDWIN: Excuse me? MR. MARINO: There was one picture that shows a concrete pipe. Is that the other end of the driveway, the other end of the culvert? Kerry, if you could go back. MR. BALDWIN: No, that's still the same side. That was just after Collier County cut some of the roots out of problem to try to create more of a water flow. There was a -- there were more sticks preventing water, I guess, from flowing there, per the transportation department. MR. MARINO: But that doesn't look like metal. That looks like concrete to me. Could be wrong. MR. LETOURNEAU: It looks like they probably took -- it's concrete and they took the metal off the end of it while they repaired the roots. Page 74 May 26, 2016 MR. MARINO: Probably. MR. BALDWIN: Yes. They were only repairing the roots around it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. BALDWIN: This has been an ongoing issue in the Willoughby Acres area and Palm River Estates area as well. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All right. Could you give us your name. MS. TRESSLER: Yes. Veronica Tressler. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. TRESSLER: I never really saw, you know, the sticks or anything until they came and cut it and did the inspection and never had -- even last year with all that rain, we never had sitting or standing water, or I probably would have realized there was something wrong. The problem is, I don't have the money to do it, you know. That's my biggest -- I mean, there is no standing water. I haven't had any complaints from my neighbors stating that there was a problem, and I didn't see, you know, the sticks or anything. It's a very -- property full of trees, so I never saw that until they came and did the inspection and cut it back. And without having had any standing water there, there was really no evidence to me that there was a problem. I'm not saying there isn't a problem, or I'm not refusing. It's just a matter of finances. I live on Social Security. I've had a lot of medical issues lately, and, you know -- and I just need time to -- time to address it. MR. MARINO: What is the cost to repair something like this? MR. BALDWIN: From the 30 cases that I've been around in this area, probably, I've heard anywhere from $4,500 to $12,000. MS. TRESSLER: Yeah. What I've checked has been anywhere from 12- to $15,000. I don't -- you know, I mean, the property's old. The house is old, so there's been -- I've just recently had to replace the Page 75 May 26, 2016 air conditioner, so there is a lot of issues. It's just addressing them one at a time, whichever one is more needed at the time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. If you had sufficient time to budget for this going forward, would that be hopeful? MS. TRESSLER: It would certainly be helpful. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The first thing we need to do is to determine whether a violation exists or not. MR. LAVINSKI: I'll make a motion a violation does exist. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Being as this -- do you have a suggestion for us? MR. BALDWIN: Yes, I do, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. BALDWIN: That the Code Enforcement Board order the respondent pay all operational costs in the amount of$65.85 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: One, obtaining all required Collier County right-of-way permits and inspections through final approval and/or remove all offending material from the right-of-way for any activity not permitted with a Page 76 May 26, 2016 valid Collier County right-of-way permit within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Two, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. When I look at this pipe and no standing water around it, you haven't -- have you been out there? MR. BALDWIN: Oh, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you seen any obstruction to the water flow, et cetera? MR. BALDWIN: We've had a couple rains since December, really, that were significant, and I -- no. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So this isn't something that — MR. BALDWIN: You can clearly tell that it's one of the worst ones that I've seen. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So it needs to be fixed. MR. BALDWIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: "When" is the question that we're working on now. Anybody have any comments? Suggestions? MR. MARINO: Is the pipe collapsed? I mean, is it to a point where there's no water flow going through it at all? We haven't had any rain for a while, so we really can't tell. MR. BALDWIN: Most of the transportation -- when they come, most of the pipes that are collapsing, they're determining that they're collapsing underneath the concrete or the pavers of the driveways. The ends on any of these don't really appear to have been collapsed. It's the Page 77 May 26, 2016 driveway portion that has failed. This one just, in particularly, had a lot of roots out of-- coming out of it, so the transportation department and the road and bridge department removed most of the roots coming out of each end of this. But the collapsing is really the driveway and where it comes. I could have showed some other -- better angles of pictures, and I have angles on cases where you actually see the dip in the driveway coming out rather than just the angle that I took the pictures today. If you actually saw, there is a little bit of dip in the driveway that indicates that the driveway is collapsing and that it needs a new pipe. MR. MARINO: If the driveway collapsing -- if the driveway is collapsing, is it collapsing because the pipe is collapsing also? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Probably. MR. MARINO: Probably. MR. BALDWIN: That's what the transportation department is stating, yes, sir. MR. MARINO: Has anybody complained in the neighborhood of flooding or the water's just standing there, or is this just something the transportation department picked up on? MR. BALDWIN: The transportation department picked up on this with their field supervisor. This isn't the -- again, this isn't the only one. There are many in this area. From my hearing of this -- of this whole process why they're in this area, many of the property owners in this area, or the homeowners association or a small group of people have been complaining about water in this area, and the county is going through it now trying to clean it up, along with the Palm River area. Kind of like what they did years ago in the Naples Park area. MR. MARINO: How old is this development or the house? MR. LEFEBVRE: Seventy -- late '70s when they first started. MR. MARINO: Seventies? Page 78 May 26, 2016 MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah. MR. MARINO: So we're looking at 40 years. MR. LEFEBVRE: Almost. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: My concern is giving the respondent sufficient time to budget for this. MR. MARINO: I agree. MR. LEFEBVRE: We just had a case on the same street this morning, and I think we gave 120 days or a fine of$150, if I'm not mistaken. MS. CURLEY: However, that first case had already been notified. MR. BALDWIN: They were both notified on the same exact day by me. MR. LEFEBVRE: Same exact day. So I'm hard-pressed to deviate from that. He had an argument that he's working, and he's emergency personnel, and if there's a storm, he's going to have to go out. Again, my argument is, we need to get this done. If it's going to cause a problem, we need to get it done prior to the heavy rains that we're going to have in a month or two. So I'm hard-pressed to give more time than we did with the other -- Mr. Browne. MS. CURLEY: Is it required? MR. LAVINSKI: Right, I agree. MR. DOINO: I agree, too. MS. CURLEY: Does it require a permit? MS. TRESSLER: He's a working gentleman. MR. BALDWIN: Yes, it will require a permit. MS. TRESSLER: He's a working firefighter. I'm a single woman with, you know, Social Security I live on, and he's never complained about standing water on his property. My other neighbor has never Page 79 May 26, 2016 complained. Last year we had a lot, a lot of rain, and we didn't have standing water in the property. Like I said, I'm not not wanting to do the thing. For me it's a financial thing. I live on 800-and-some dollars a month Social Security. I have a lot of medical bills, a lot of medical issues. I think there is a difference between the firefighter who has an income coming in and my situation. I think they are -- I agree. MR. LEFEBVRE: His argument was -- his argument was he was going to do it himself, so he wanted extra time. MS. TRESSLER: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: So there was a circumstance there that we said, no, we want to get this fixed as soon as possible. So I understand there may be a financial hardship, but there could be a greater financial hardship on everyone if this floods and this causes a problem. So that's -- MR. LAVINSKI: Right, I agree. MR. LEFEBVRE: That's where I'm coming from. MR. LAVINSKI: And I think that if we put out the same type of time frame and violation dollars that we did in the last case, it's not unheard of-- I know the City of Naples, they'll even end up -- the county, or the city in that case did it and put it on your tax bill so you don't have to worry about it unless you pay a small piece over the next 10 years or something. So I don't think a nonfinancial position right now sways me either way. There's a violation, and it's affecting not only your house but every other house on the street, and I think it ought to be corrected. So I'd like to make the motion -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: -- that the 65.85 be paid within 30 days; that the violation be corrected within 60 days or a fine of$150 a day. MR. ASHTON: We gave 120. Page 80 May 26, 2016 MS. TRESSLER: Sixty days is -- MR. LEFEBVRE: We gave 120 on -- MR. DOINO: Hundred and twenty days. MR. LAVINSKI: Did we? Okay. I'll change the 60 to 120. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. MARINO: Nay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Nay. Okay. I suggest you call the county and tell them what your financial situation is and ask them if there's anything that can be worked out. MR. LAVINSKI: Right. That's what I thought, if you and your neighbors, if there's eight or 10 or 12, whatever the number is, I'm sure if you went to the streets and stormwater, whatever department it is, pleaded your case -- I know the City of Naples has done it. They've done it, put the charges on your ad valorem tax bill, and the issue in 10 years, 15 years -- MS. TRESSLER: Sir, does that mean that they fix it and they add it to my tax and I pay so much every time I pay my taxes quarterly? MR. LAVINSKI: That's what happened in the City of Naples. I don't want to speak for the county department. But what happened Page 81 May 26, 2016 there was the city came in, did the repairs, said, okay, it cost us -- and they're probably going to do it cheaper than a contractor. MS. TRESSLER: Yeah. MR. LAVINSKI: It costs us $10,000. We'll add that to your ad valorem over 10 years. I think they gave them 20 years because -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I think you're talking about -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's an MSTB, B, as in boy. That's for MR. LEFEBVRE: Special tax district. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. There's an MSTU, and there's an MSTB. And the B -- Jeff, correct me if I'm wrong -- you can get five or six people together and agree to that, and that's how a B works. An MSTU is you get a 50 percent plus one of the group together, and that takes care of-- that's an MSTU. MR. LETOURNEAU: I believe you're generally correct on that, yes; yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We went through this. MS. TRESSLER: Sir, who do I find out about that? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think that Patrick should give you a hand in pointing you in the right direction. Will you do that, Patrick? MR. BALDWIN: Certainly will. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. TRESSLER: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 10, Tab 11, Case CEROW20150021347, CWABS, Incorporated, Certificate Holders. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. BALDWIN: I believe this gentleman would like to speak first on behalf of the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. Page 82 May 26, 2016 MR. WALKER: Yes. Here on behalf of CWAB (sic) Bank of America. We are just requesting -- THE COURT REPORTER: Your name? MR. WALKER: Oh, sorry. Tyler Walker. Requesting 45 days to come in compliance with the violation. Basically, the client here took the property subject to a mortgage foreclosure. Two weeks prior to the certificate of sale from the foreclosure, the prior owner applied for a permit to expand the driveway, I believe. And it still sits there as it is, unfortunately, so the Bank of America took it subject to that, and now they're trying to rectify it in order to turn around the property and sell it themselves. So we're just asking for another 45 days to clear that up. They have a plan in place right now. They did not relay the details to me, unfortunately, but they said that they have a plan, so... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I would suggest that you -- your request go in multiples of 30. We don't know how to count by 15 on the Board. MR. WALKER: Sixty days then. MR. LEFEBVRE: Are you their counsel? MR. WALKER: I'm standing-in counsel for their lead counsel, so I was asked to -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the answer is yes? MR. WALKER: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: That's simply the question, yes or no. MS. NICOLA: What firm are you with? MR. WALKER: I'm with Lindsey and Allen. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So what you're asking for is a continuance on this for 60 days? MR. WALKER: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you think that everything will be taken care of by then? Page 83 May 26, 2016 MR. WALKER: Yes, I believe so. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Most likely. Okay. Comments from the Board? Motions from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: Does the county agree with that? MR. BALDWIN: The county would have no objection to that, sir. MR. DOINO: Make a motion, 60 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. BALDWIN: Thank you. MR. WALKER: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case from No. 6, old business, Letter A, motion for imposition of fines/liens, No. 2, Tab 15, Case CELU20100021891, Kenneth R. Tannassee, Sr. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just let the record be known that I'm going to recuse myself due to a business relationship. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You're up first in this Page 84 May 26, 2016 particular instance because you're requesting something. MR. TANNASSEE: Ken Tannassee, for the record. MS. CORNEAL: Barbara Corneal. MR. TANNASSEE: We have our CO, so I guess we're asking for a waiver of the fines, abatement of fines. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: And what's the reason for abatement that you're requesting? MR. TANNASSEE: We completed -- we purchased the property in 2014, and we've worked diligently to get the house built. I know there was a case open since 2010 on the property, but we spent a little over a year and, you know, the idea was to bring it in compliance, and we did, so -- fines being imposed, you know, to get this done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. I went through the numbers on this property. In March of 2011 the Board granted 360 days; in January of'12, the Board granted 360 days; in March of 2013, the Board granted 270 days; and January of 2014, the Board granted 180 days, which comes to 1170 days at the fine of$150 a day, or the Board has, really, given $175,500 abatement on this property to date. That does not include the $82,000 -- $82,800 that's before us. Okay. Comments from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. I think where this case has recently celebrated its fifth birthday, that there's an awful lot of extra work that has gone in from the county. And I certainly appreciate the perseverance of the respondent to get this corrected in the long run, but during that time the county taxpayers have spent numerous dollars re-inspecting, double-checking, going back, back and forth. Anyway, to make a long story short, I'd like to make a motion that we abate all the fines except $10,000. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have a second? Page 85 May 26, 2016 MS. PEREZ: Board members, if I may add. Just in the time frame of the case, Mr. Tannassee -- Mr. and Mrs. Tannassee did purchase the property in 2014. When they purchased the property and they came before you, they were no longer granted extensions of time. They were only granted continuance -- continuances. They have worked diligently in the last few months that I've been in touch with them to abate -- you know, abate the violation. It was a property that only had an accessory structure, and they had to build a whole house in order to be able -- you know, a house in order to be able to keep the accessory on this lot. So that's the investment that they did make. You know, they did build a home, an entire home, and went through the whole permitting process to get to where they are today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Well, there were a couple of extensions in 2014. One in January, one in July. MS. CURLEY: I have a -- MR. TANNASSEE: It was difficult. I mean, we -- to go through the permit process and revisions and get contractors. I mean, you have a construction boom right now. It's very, very difficult to get performance out of anyone. We paid extra money to get overtime hours, you know, to get to this point. MS. CURLEY: I have a comment. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sue? MS. CURLEY: I mean, I think most of us remember this case. We've sort of lived through this. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, we remember. MS. CURLEY: And I just want to make a comment directly on the comment about that the county has paid fees. This gentleman, every time he gets an inspection or he puts a permit in, he's paying those fees that are associated with these documents, and he's paying his Page 86 May 26, 2016 $68 today. Those fees are the fees that he's paying that are averaged or calculated by the county for those services that the county has provided him, period. MR. TANNASSEE: The impact fees were over $26,000. I mean, it's -- MR. LAVINSKI: Well, I disagree, having somewhat familiarity with other local code enforcement boards. They look at the time that these investigators spend going out to your property to re-inspect or to -- whatever the case may be. And it's certainly within the Florida Statutes to allow for this time and expense that the county -- obviously, the county has spent, I don't know, 50 times more time on this case than they would on a case had it been solved the first time it came before us, so they're going back and back. Their cars are wearing out, their fuel is being spent, and it's a little more than the fees that you pay for a permit. It's costing us money to have these folks run around and do their job. And I don't think it's fair that other people who come in compliance after one notice or two notices are treated the same as someone who has eight or nine -- MR. MARINO: I have a question. When did you purchase the property? MR. TANNASSEE: In 2014, May 2014. MR. MARINO: 2014. So the extensions that were given before, starting in 2011, really have nothing to do with this gentleman, do they? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: These -- they're all part of the case. What's happened -- what happened is -- let me scoot you back a second. Originally this case was BQ Concrete, if I'm not mistaken, and Page 87 May 26, 2016 they came before us. They were in violation. MR. MARINO: You're right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They said we'd take care of it. They didn't. We give them a year. They came back after a year. We gave them another year. And what they did to get out of it is they eventually sold the property. The respondent purchasing the property had to know about these problems with the property. It was all over the newspaper. So this is not a surprise that this thing was in violation at the time of purchase. And I don't bring this up knowing anything, but I'm sure that if I was purchasing a property and there were multiple issues with that property, I would expect some consideration from the seller as to what I'm paying for the property. That was even brought up earlier today in a different case. MR. MARINO: Were you aware of these violations when you bought the property? MR. TANNASSEE: Yes, we were. We came before the Board prior to purchasing the property during our due diligence phase, and we asked if-- you know, we didn't want to purchase the property if we knew we weren't going to be granted the time to build the house. We asked, and you agreed in a year. I think it was written in the minutes that we asked for a year, and we were granted a year to build it. We worked within that year's time, ran out of a little bit of time, came and asked for some additional time, I think three months, and were granted the time to get it done. It's -- and it's -- we built -- I mean, it improves the property. All the surrounding areas are horrible. Some of the houses down Pine Ridge are not very nice homes. This raises the value for the entire community, so everyone benefits from this house being done. It's a beautiful home. So, I mean -- Page 88 May 26, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think that's why -- MS. CURLEY: There's not a second on that motion, right? MR. MARINO: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'll second the motion. What we're talking about is dropping the fine from 82,000 to 72,000, abating $72,000 after all of this time. MR. LAVINSKI: Right. MR. TANNASSEE: Yeah, but we're being penalized for the time prior to purchasing it. MS. CURLEY: And before that the property was a larger parcel where that original structure that was -- it became a violation structure was part of a bigger parcel. It had a house and then a garage in the back. So that property, until it was split, didn't become a problem. Before 2011 it was a legal property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any other comments from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all in favor of the motion? MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: (Abstains). MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. MARINO: I'm opposed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes 3-2 (sic); is that's correct -- MR. LAVINSKI: 5-2. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: 5-2. Gerald's out. One, two -- you? MS. CURLEY: I don't vote. Page 89 May 26, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Three, four. MR. ASHTON: It's 4-2. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, 4-2. Okay. You have the ability to go before the County Commission and request additional abatement if-- that's up to them. MR. TANNASSEE: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 3, Tab 16, Case CESD20150011591, Jose G. Cuevas. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Kerry, what was that tab again? MS. ADAMS: Tab 16. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. SHORT: Good morning. For the record, Senior Investigator Eric Short, Collier County Code Enforcement. I believe Mr. Cuevas would like to speak before we get started. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. CUEVAS: Okay. I'm here because I already got the CO, and I know I have fees on this case, and I want to know if you guys can void out the fees. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you're asking for an abatement of the -- MR. CUEVAS: Void out the fees I have on this case, because when they give me an extension, and I'm not finished on the very first time because of LCEC, and I put the power in there, and they gave me another 30 days. But I'm finished it now in 30 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Comments from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: What's the county's position on this? MR. SHORT: We have no objection to the abatement of the costs. The biggest holdup in this case was he is the last house on the street. Lee County Electric -- there was a little holdup in time to install Page 90 May 26, 2016 the power pole to supply power to that home. Once that was done, he was able to get his final inspections done and obtain the certificate of occupancy for the home. MR. LAVINSKI: Which he has now? MR. SHORT: He does have. He is in compliance. MR. LAVINSKI: And it's occupiable? MR. SHORT: Absolutely. MR. LAVINSKI: I'll make a motion we abate the fine. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. MR. SHORT: Thank you. MR. CUEVAS: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 5, Tab 18, Case CESD20140000965, Maricela Perez. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning. You have -- you're here for a peculiar reason, to request something? Page 91 May 26, 2016 MS. PEREZ: Correct. I need a little bit more time due to I just got my final response letter from my engineer, and the Alimar (phonetic), the Code Enforcement already has all my other papers. All he needed is my response letter from him so they can submit it in. So she can submit it in. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This was an addition with electric. MS. PEREZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: A carport with a wooden deck, et cetera, et cetera. MS. PEREZ: A deck, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It has not been abated yet, so what you're looking for is an extension of time or a continuance? MS. PEREZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Joe? MR. MUCHA: For the record, Joe Mucha, Supervisor Collier County Code Enforcement. The county would not have an objection to a continuance or -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And how much time do you think you'd need to get this all resolved? MS. PEREZ: If she gets -- when she gets it in today, and it takes a week for -- they'd approve it or -- and then I'll know, and then we could start doing the repairs that we need to do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So you think 30 days, maybe, or 60 days? MS. PEREZ: Sixty would be more reasonable. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. PEREZ: We can attack the problem. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Comments or motions from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: I'll make a motion for a continuance of 60 Page 92 May 26, 2016 days. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MS. PEREZ: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 7, Tab 20, Case CESD20150013679, Lin Lin Wang. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. WANG: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Your name, for the mike. MS. WANG: Lin Lin Wang. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you have a request of the Board. MS. WANG: We all -- my job's almost done. Just wait for the building department to finish, the inspector. But they asked me to more paperwork for not under my control. We need to find a different company to do the survey papers. So we're asking little bit more time. Page 93 May 26, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. County? MR. ODOM: Good morning. For the record, Michael Odom, Collier County Code Enforcement. The county has no objection to that at this point. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And how much time do you think you would need to get everything done? MS. WANG: For my job, I complete that already. So for much I try to call the county to get a schedule, but they asked me more time -- they asked me more paperwork. It's not under my control. I try to find the company to do the floor plan for me, and they help me to find someone to do what's called a survey papers, something. It's been -- already take me four week. I just get a paper for last -- this is Sunday. This last -- this Monday. So the county tell me they already have the paperwork, and so I can call that schedule, try to get a schedule on Monday. I just talked to the gentleman. He told me I have two more paperwork will need to provide, but that's not under my control. So I don't know what kind of paperwork -- who can help me out with that. I say couple more months or just waiting for the building permit finish, I guess building expires September. MR. ODOM: Yes, ma'am. If I may interject just to kind of clarify. The per -- the last hearing was in January. There were 11 pending activities. There are now four. It is moving forward. The permit was slated to expire in June. It is now slated to expire in September. It needs four more inspections and an elevation certificate, so we're getting there. And last activity was actually last Friday, which was a spot survey that was accepted. So we're moving forward, just not as fast as the order had said. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: An elevation certificate, that's a telephone call. Somebody comes out; boom, boom, boom, done. Page 94 May 26, 2016 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That's that. MR. ODOM: We need that as well. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The other things that are required are what, specifically? MR. ODOM: Specifically, final electrical, final building, final plumbing, and final footings. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So the final on those, will they issue a CO? MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. And, moving forward, in early March, footings were inspected. It failed. So that's what's taking time. Some of the work needed to be redone. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is there a GC that's doing this? MR. ODOM: No. It's owner/builder. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So are you the one that's doing this, or you're having somebody -- MS. WANG: Most of the thing, I do it myself. But when the county reject, I have problem, so I need to find and pay for someone help me with that. If the thing under my -- do myself is no problem. I can do that. And this only thing not under my control. It's not from my knowledge. So I need find the people to help me; that be not under my control. I need the time can find the right person. I'm not even understand what they're for. So I want to -- need to find someone can help me. I try to get more information for that, what footing for, what the certificate element for. I try to fix -- get right person to help me out. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: My concern is that the -- I guess the September 2016, when the permit expires -- I thought they expire after -- if you do an inspection, doesn't that -- MR. ODOM: You're supposed to get six months, I think. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. Page 95 May 26, 2016 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. That doesn't quite mesh. I see what you're saying. But the new date, as of yesterday when I checked, was 9/7. So she may actually have more time. It might just not be recorded yet. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. DOINO: Plenty of time, plenty of things moving forward. There's just some -- maybe some communication problem, and -- but I think we're getting there, really. MR. LAVINSKI: So the work has been done? MR. ODOM: Yes, the work has been done. Now we're working on corrections. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Final inspections. MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. "Inspections commenced" status. That's the status. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to continue for 90 days. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. MR. MARINO: Second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. You have 90 days -- MS. WANG: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- three months. Hopefully you get it all done and we won't see you. Page 96 May 26, 2016 MS. WANG: Me too. Same for you. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are we getting close to the end, Kerry? MS. ADAMS: There's nothing else on the agenda. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let's see. MR. DOINO: That's the end? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Nothing is the end. Let me just get to the last page. Okay. Next meeting date is June 23rd. For those of you who got the email about the class -- MR. MARINO: I'm going to be in Orlando. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. The class we will be attending will be next year. The class this year is the same information that we got when we went last year. MR. MARINO: Oh. Thank you for that information. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All right. Hearing nothing else. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to adjourn. MR. ASHTON: Second. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We are adjourned. ***** Page 97 May 26, 2016 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :46 a.m. •D ENFOR EMENT BOARD "ow" 4_ O ER 0,A 1 MAN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on r e 2_5, 2 o \ co , as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC/COURT REPORTER. Page 98