Loading...
CEB Minutes 06/23/2016 June 23, 2016 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, June 23, 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 Kathleen Elrod James Lavinski Lionel L'Esperance Tony Marino Sue Curley Gerald J. Lefebvre (Excused) Ron Doino (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Jeff Letourneau, Manager of Investigations Tamara Lynne Nicola, Attorney to the Board Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA AGENDA Date: June 23,2016 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. May 26,2016 Hearing 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. Motions Motion for Continuance Motion for Extension of Time 1 B. Stipulations C. Hearings 1. CASE NO: CEPM20160004343 OWNER: 12323 UNION TRUST OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVE ATHEY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 22,ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22-231(12)(B),22-231(12)(I),22-231(12)(C). ROOF IN DISREPAIR. WINDOWS AND DOORS MISSINGBROKEN.EXTERIOR WALLS IN DISREPAIR. FOLIO NO: 1058920513 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 12400 UNION ROAD,NAPLES 2. CASE NO: CEPM20160006427 OWNER: PORT OF THE ISLANDS TRUST OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVE ATHEY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 22,ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22-236.DANGEROUS BUILDING. FOLIO NO: 1058920500 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 12323 UNION ROAD,NAPLES 3. CASE NO: CEPM20150021043 OWNER: PORT OF THE ISLANDS TRUST OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVE ATHEY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 22,ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22-231(12)(B),22-228(1),22-242,22-231(12)(I),22-231(15),22-231(12)(C).EXTERIOR WALLS IN DISREPAIR,WINDOWS AND DOORS BROKEN/MISSING, STRUCTURE IS UNSECURE,POOL IS NOT MAINTAINED,ROOF IS IN DISREPAIR. FOLIO NO: 1058920500 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 12323 UNION ROAD,NAPLES 4. CASE NO: CELU20150014365 OWNER: MASSIMO MAFFEI OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DEE PULSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 1.04.01(A) AND SECTION 2.02.03. OUTDOOR STORAGE OF NUMEROUS MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO SCAFFOLDING,REBAR,BUCKETS OF MISCELLANEOUS PLYWOOD,PLASTIC TUBES/CULVERTS,METAL,BLOCKS,BRICKS, TRAILER FULL OF PLASTIC BOTTLES,HOT WATER HEATERS, LADDERS, PLASTIC CONTAINER FULL OF STAGNANT WATER,ETC. FOLIO NO: 38336640009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5960 GREEN BLVD,NAPLES 2 5. CASE NO: CESD20150019659 OWNER: FILIPPO MASTROCOLA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ART FORD VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A). INTERIOR/EXTERIOR RENOVATIONS,WINDOWS, KITCHEN, BATHROOM,PLUMBING AND ELECTRICAL WORK WITHOUT REQUIRED PERMITS, INSPECTIONS,AND CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION/OCCUPANCY. FOLIO NO: 70921360008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1171 RAINBOW DRIVE,NAPLES 6. CASE NO: CEOCC20150022849 OWNER: PEE-WEE'S DUMPSTERS,INC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DEE PULSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 5.02.03(A), 5.02.03(D),5.02.03, 5.02.03(F),5.02.03(I),5.02.03(G),AND THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,ORDINANCE 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 2.02.03 AND SECTION 2.03.01(B).PROHIBITED BUSINESS ACTIVITY TAKING PLACE ON PROPERTY WHICH INCLUDES BUT NOT LIMITED TO: DELIVERING AND REMOVING DUMPSTERS. EXCESSIVE NOISE. REPEAT VIOLATION OF DUMPSTERS ON PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 38280090006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 721 LOGAN BLVD S,NAPLES B. Motion for Reduction/Abatement of Fines. 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. CASE NO: CESD20140004241 OWNER: BENJAMIN DMD FLA HOLDINGS LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JON HOAGBOON VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ORDINANCE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(E).MAJOR RE-MODELING TO INTERIOR OF STRUCTURE INCLUDING FRAMING,PLUMBING,ELECTRICAL RENOVATION AND/OR REPLACEMENT WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 62760840001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 795 102ND AVE N,NAPLES 2. CASE NO: CEVR20140018858 OWNER: MICHAEL T JOHNSON& LORI R JOHNSON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR COLLEEN DAVIDSON VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 3.05.01(B); AND COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 22,ARTICLE IV, SECTION 22-108. REMOVAL OF NATIVE AND NON-NATIVE VEGETATION BY HEAVY MACHINERY WITHOUT REQUIRED COUNTY PERMIT;PLACEMENT OF LIME-ROCK FILL AND MULCH/CHIPPED MATERIAL ON CLEARED SITE WITHOUT REQUIRED COUNTY PERMIT OR AUTHORIZATION,EXCAVATION OF EXISTING GROUND MATERIAL TO A DEPTH GREATER THAN 3 FEET OVER A LARGE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY,THEN REPLACEMENT OF THE REMOVED MATERIAL WITH FILL BROUGHT IN FROM OUTSIDE WITHOUT REQUIRED COUNTY PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 00341440002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: NO SITE ADDRESS,NAPLES 3 3. CASE NO: CESD20150013948 OWNER: JACK O'CONNOR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN 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).TWO UNPERMITTED STRUCTURES,A STEEL BUILDING AND TED SHED TYPE STRUCTURE WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 37164160008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 230 5TH ST SW,NAPLES B. Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order C. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order 7. NEW BUSINESS 8. CONSENT AGENDA A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. None 9. REPORTS 1. CASE NO: CEAU20150020251 OWNER: WILLIAM ROBERT ANDREWS JR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: 2014 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE,CHAPTER 1, SECTION 105.A FENCE INSTALLED ON IMPROVED CONSERVATION PROPERTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE REQUIRED PERMITS,INSPECTIONS,AND CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION. FOLIO NO: 374240004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1516 PANTHER RD,COLLIER COUNTY 2. CASE NO: CESD20150021350 OWNER: WILLIAM ROBERT ANDREWS JR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A).OBSERVED SEVERAL PERMITTING VIOLATIONS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: LARGE SOLAR PANELS,TWO STORAGE SHEDS,DETACHED GARAGE,A LARGE COMMUNICATION TOWER/ANTENNA,A SCREENED WOOD DECK ATTACHED TO THE DWELLING,AND TWO POLE BARNS ON IMPROVED CONSERVATION PROPERTY ALL WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE REQUIRED PERMIT(S),INSPECTIONS,AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY/COMPLETION. FOLIO NO: 374240004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1516 PANTHER RD,COLLIER COUNTY 10. COMMENTS 11. NEXT MEETING DATE- July 28,2016 12. ADJOURN 4 June 23, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, everybody. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board to order. Should I have them stay after school? 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. Number one, if anybody has a cell phone and it's turned on, it would be a good time to turn it off. And would you all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Let's start out with any changes to the agenda. MS. ADAMS: Did you want to do the roll call first? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. Do the roll call first. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Robert Kaufman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKI: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Tony Marino? Page 2 June 23, 2016 MR. MARINO: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Robert Ashton? MR. ASHTON: I'm here. MS. ADAMS: Ms. Sue Curley? MS. CURLEY: Here. MS. ADAMS: Ms. Kathleen Elrod? MS. ELROD: Here. MS. ADAMS: And Mr. Gerald Lefebvre has an excused absence, and Mr. Ronald Doino is absent. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And for voting today, Sue Curley will be the member of the board. Let's jump into the agenda. MS. ADAMS: Number 5, Public Hearings, Motions, Letter A, Motions, Motion for Continuance, we have one addition. It's No. 4 from Hearings, Tab 4, Case CELU20150014365, Massimo Maffei. Letter B, stipulations, we have one addition. It's No. 5 from Hearings, Tab 5, Case CESD20150019659, Filippo Mastrocola. Letter C, Hearings, No. 2, Tab 2, Case CEPM20160006427, Port of the Islands Trust, has been withdrawn. And that's all the changes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Get a motion to accept the agenda as changed. MR. L'ESPERANCE: So moved. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. Page 3 June 23, 2016 MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. As far as the approval of the minutes, anybody have any comments on the minutes from the last meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none... MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. ASHTON: Second. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second to accept the minutes. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. So far so good. We'll be out of here by 9:30. Okay. Well, I guess we're ready to start out. MS. ADAMS: Letter A, Motions, Motion for Continuance, No. 4, Tab 4, Case CELU20150014365, Massimo Maffei. MR. BALLENGER: Good morning. Glenn Ballenger. I'm the attorney. I represent Mr. Maffei. We are requesting a continuance in this matter for 30 to 45 days. We've made substantial progress in Page 4 June 23, 2016 getting the mess cleaned up. And the other -- two other issues were that, one, there's a tenant living in the property, so a lot of the mess was attributable to the tenant. He's moving out, and the property's for sale. So the owners really have an incentive to get this cleaned up. And I think Dee will tell you that they've made progress. And we're hoping that this is going to be resolved with -- I'm hoping that it could be done within a week, but we'd really like to go outside with 30, 45 days to get it continued, and maybe we won't -- we probably won't be back here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This began almost a year ago. MR. BALLENGER: That's correct. MS. CURLEY: Excuse me. Did he need to be sworn in? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He's an attorney. MR. MARINO: All the more reason. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have a ruler I can slap him with? The -- so July -- this dates back to July where -- I'm just looking at the description of the violation. Outdoor storage of a bunch of stuff and a remodel without the proper -- not limited to scaffolding, buckets; it said plywood. MR. BALLENGER: Well, the owner of the property has a construction business, so they thought that they could leave stuff or store stuff, you know, coming in and out, you know, in terms of the business, so -- and they were also kind of relying on their tenant who was working for them to take care of everything, and they kind of-- they -- admittedly, they dropped the ball on it. MR. L'ESPERANCE: In your estimation, how much of the material has been removed, percent? MR. BALLENGER: I'd say pretty much -- you know, maybe half of the -- half of the material has been removed. MR. L'ESPERANCE: It's all fenced in, or is it a -- Page 5 June 23, 2016 MR. BALLENGER: It's fenced, but it's more like a, I want to say, chain link or -- yeah, chain link fencing on three sides. I don't know what's in the back of the property, but definitely the two adjacent properties, there's a chain link of a type of fence. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is there any attractive nuisance involved? MR. BALLENGER: I don't believe that I could -- I mean, there's some construction -- you know, the small construction trailers you'd attach to a pickup truck. I mean -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: For children and such. MR. BALLENGER: Yeah. There's, I assume -- I mean, there is some construction rebar. I guess that could, you know -- possibly. But other than that, it's more like a lot of wood for concrete forms. So it's, like, the big two-by-sixes, two-by-fours, that kind of thing, piled up in stacks and things like that, so... MR. L'ESPERANCE: No open chemicals? MR. BALLENGER: I don't -- there may be some gas, you know -- that they've got some gasoline cans or something on a trailer and -- so... MS. CURLEY: Does the county have any photographs? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, we'll get into that. MS. CURLEY: So is it being used as a storage facility for this builder's supplies? MR. BALLENGER: To the extent that what -- they have a big, like a -- there is a building. So to the extent that they are going to be storing any materials in the future, they would be using that. But, again, the property's up for sale, so they're not going to be using it for that -- for anything going forward. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: My question to you is: This was identified in July of last year, so we're 11 months into it. What has been done -- I'll ask the county next, but what has been done to clean up this stuff since last July? Page 6 June 23, 2016 MR. BALLENGER: Well, I know that when -- I was out there on Saturday, and they had a -- there was a Bobcat that they had with a front-end loader. I mean, and earlier this week they had a construction dumpster so they were actually taking anything that was there on the property and putting it into a construction dumpster. And I guess the dumpster has been removed, so I know that they had taken at least a dumpster load full of materials. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So it sounds as though that they started cleaning this up recently? MR. BALLENGER: Well, I was addressing this with them back in March, and the problem was that they were relying on the tenant to take care of the property, the owner was, because a lot of material was the tenant's, and they were -- they -- the tenant kind of telling them to do -- telling them things that probably weren't true. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. From the county's perspective, were you out there originally in July on this? (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. PULSE: I did not start this case. Oh, for the record, Investigator Dee Pulse, Code Enforcement. I did not begin with this case. I inherited it, so I was not there in July. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. When did you first go out to this site? MS. PULSE: I probably was first out there in January with the associate of the law firm, Tracy. She went with me, met me there, and we went onto the property. She thought it was going to be cleaned up at that time, but it was not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did you inform them that it's the owner of the property's responsibility, not the renter? MS. PULSE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any other questions from the Page 7 June 23, 2016 Board for the county? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Now, this is -- we're talked about picking up stuff. MR. BALLENGER: Yes, picking up stuff and, to be honest, there's actually some piles -- I think that -- they were trying to scrape things to get it -- to clear off the lot for vegetation, so there is some soil that they'll have to re-grade -- some piles of soil that they'll re-grade. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You think you need 45 days? MR. BALLENGER: That would be an outside estimate. I mean, believe me, I'm putting the pressure on my client to get this done, you know, sooner than that, and I think, at my urging, that's why the dumpster was out there this week. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Ballenger, if we do approve this, would you make an effort to ensure that there are no attractive nuisances for -- MR. BALLENGER: Absolutely, absolutely. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One last question for the county: Was it a -- I would say, anonymous complaint, but we don't have those anymore. Was this a complaint from one of the neighbors originally; do you know? MS. PULSE: Honestly, I can't say. MR. BALLENGER: I mean, I believe it may have been the next-door neighbor. There was -- when they -- the clients bought the property, they took out some vegetation that was along the fence line because they were clearing out a lot of underbrush, and I think once that vegetation was cleared out, it became a little bit more obvious as to what was going on. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. My concern on this is simply if I live next door to a house that had a bunch of stuff there and I Page 8 June 23, 2016 reported it and the report was accurate, I would expect it to be cleared off, especially in less than a year. MR. BALLENGER: Understood. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It looks like May there was a -- we had a meeting. This was up, and it was found that they were in violation in May, so -- MR. BALLENGER: I was unaware of that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- I suspect that that's when the activity began. MS. PULSE: Yes. Mr. Kaufman. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. PULSE: It was reported by a neighbor, and the neighbor would allow access to see the property from his property, so... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It was reported by -- I didn't hear the last part. And they gave access to view it? MS. PULSE: And he would allow, yes, using his property to see the violation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the Board? MS. CURLEY: I think it's been a very long time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I agree with you. If we do not grant an extension on this or a continuance on this, we will hear this later. Was that the Board's will, or do you want to grant a minimal extension on this? MS. CURLEY: May we see the pictures? MS. PULSE: Sure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen those? MS. PULSE: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you show them to him, please. MR. L'ESPERANCE: And, Mr. Ballenger, you can make comments when the pictures are shown also. Page 9 June 23, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm actually reluctant to show the pictures. If we're going to hear the case, we'll show the pictures, depending upon whether you want to hear this case today or not. Comment? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. Why don't we do that; rather than do the extension, hear the case. And if it's found in violation, we can still give Mr. Ballenger the 30 days he's requesting to clean it up. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: At least we get it on record that it is a violation rather than just keep kicking it down the road. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So would you like to make a motion on the extension; yes or no? MR. LAVINSKI: I'll make a motion that we deny the extension. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have a second? MR. ASHTON: Second. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to deny the extension, which means it will be heard today. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. It carries unanimously. We'll hear this in the normal flow of business. MR. BALLENGER: Okay. Thank you. Page 10 June 23, 2016 MS. ADAMS: The next case is from Letter B, Stipulations, No. 5, Tab 5, Case CESD20150019659, Filippo Mastrocola. MR. MASTROCOLA: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. FORD: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Would you like to read the stipulation into the record? MR. FORD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Tell me who you are, first. MR. FORD: Good morning. Investigator Arthur Ford, Collier County Enforcement. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Pay operational costs in the amount of$67.11 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permits, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed until the violation's abated. The respondent must notify Code Enforcement 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 property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You agree to that stipulation? MR. MASTROCOLA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You think you can get everything done in 120 days? Page 11 June 23, 2016 MR. MASTROCOLA: I think so, yeah. And we did talk about if we're getting to that point and -- you know, I'll call him and have him see what's going on. And if I need a little bit more time, he said it shouldn't be a problem. But I think 120 days is a sufficient amount of time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the Board? Any motions from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: Make a motion to accept the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Good luck. MR. MASTROCOLA: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. ADAMS: The next case is from Letter C, Hearings, No. 1, Tab 1, Case CEPM20160004343, 12323 Union Trust. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This is one of three cases, right? MR. LETOURNEAU: The first one -- they're related properties, Page 12 June 23, 2016 but they're -- the first case is a different folio number than the third case, and we did withdraw the second case, I believe. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we'll hear them individually anyhow. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Your name, for the record. MR. SHAPIRO: My name is Marc Shapiro. I'm the attorney for the properties and also a trustee of one of the properties. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. By the way, we don't need to swear in attorneys. They tell me that they're trustworthy and they're not supposed to lie, so... MS. NICOLA: I was just going to ask you that, why you swore the -- didn't swear the other guy in but then Mr. Shapiro -- maybe you felt differently, like you needed to have him sworn in for some reason, maybe. THE COURT REPORTER: I didn't swear him in. MS. NICOLA: Oh, you didn't? THE COURT REPORTER: No. MS. NICOLA: Oh, okay. So he's fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That goes for you, too. MS. NICOLA: I was sworn in at the beginning a long time ago. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning, Steve. MR. ATHEY: Good morning. For the record, Steve Athey, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CEPM20160004343 dealing with the violations of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Property Maintenance Code; Section 22-231(12)(B), 22-231(12)(I), 22-231(12)(C). The roof is in disrepair, windows and doors are missing, broken, or damaged, and the exterior walls are in disrepair. This property is located at 12400 Union Road, Naples, Florida, Page 13 June 23, 2016 34114, and the Folio is 1058920513. Service was given on April 27, 2016. And I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Eight photographs and one aerial of the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen the pictures? MR. SHAPIRO: I have not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you show them? Do you have any objection to those pictures being entered into evidence? MR. SHAPIRO: No, only that I'd like to point out that the -- any of the landscaping issues that are shown on there, I think we would agree, have been taken care of. MR. ATHEY: I would agree; however, we're not addressing landscaping issues here today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. Okay. Do you want to show us those pictures? MR. ASHTON: We need a motion. Make a motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. And a second? MR. MARINO: And a second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) Page 14 June 23, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay, Steve. MR. ATHEY: This particular structure is adjacent to the Port of the Isle Hotel on a separate parcel and was historically known as the staff quarters for the hotel. On April, 20, 2016, I made a site visit to the property to photograph the violations such as the roof is in disrepair, broken, damaged, or missing windows and doors and the exterior service -- or surface is in disrepair also. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can I stop you for one second. You're talking about the entire building there in that picture? MR. ATHEY: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ATHEY: On March 30, 2016, I visited -- Supervisor Chris Ambach and the Collier County Building Official, Jonathan Walsh, visited the property to ascertain whether the building would meet the requirements of a dangerous building, and the determination was that it did not meet those requirements. THE COURT REPORTER: Can you slow down? MR. ATHEY: Slow down? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. MR. ATHEY: On April 22, 2016, I visited the Premier Properties, the office of Trustee Gordon Henke. Although Mr. Henke was not in the office at the time of my visit, I met with his office manager, Ms. Kris Martinelli, who didn't want to sign the notice of violation but accepted a copy and stated she would forward it to Mr. Henke. As of yesterday, the violations remain on the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is this property opened up where some kids could get into it? MR. ATHEY: Absolutely. Page 15 June 23, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So it's a safety -- MR. ATHEY: It would be considered a safety concern. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: Is it a multifamily building? MR. ATHEY: It's three-story building -- three stories? It was commonly known as the -- or historically known as the staff quarters where the staff for the hotel stayed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ATHEY: Staff that worked at the -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Two stories. MR. ATHEY: Is it two? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. Unless you have a story underground. Okay. So this has access to the street, road, parking lot, whatever it is there, for anybody to waltz in. MR. ATHEY: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And has there been any evidence of anybody getting into it? MR. ATHEY: Well, the Sheriffs Department representative is here today and can testify, if allowed, as to the activity that goes on out there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think this would be the time for him to come up and be sworn, or her. Depends who has the biggest -- I see you have a firearm on your hip. MS. CURLEY: She wins. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Your name, for the record. CORPORAL BOYLAN: I am Corporal Susan Boylan. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you visited this property? CORPORAL BOYLAN: I visit this property every day that I Page 16 June 23, 2016 work, at least twice a day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Wow. And what's going on there? CORPORAL BOYLAN: Okay. My initial report was in early October of 2015 is when I first noticed one of the doors broken off of the property. I do need to correct that this is the hotel that I'm talking about, not the barracks building that he was talking about earlier. MR. SHAPIRO: This is a separate property with a separate owner, so I don't want to confuse the two. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This particular property that we have the pictures of. CORPORAL BOYLAN: Okay. This particular property there is activity in where people go into that building. I do not monitor that building as closely as I monitor the main hotel because the main hotel seems to be the "in" thing for this current time. So there is evidence, and there is definitely people that have been in the barracks building. I have personally not caught anybody in the barracks building; only in the hotel. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And as far as you know the people that are in the barracks building should not be there? CORPORAL BOYLAN: No, they should not be there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Are they kids? Are they adults? MR. L'ESPERANCE: The doors are not secured? CORPORAL BOYLAN: No, it is not secured. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It looks like the doors are missing, so... MS. CURLEY: Is there evidence in the building of behavior? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is it a drug house? MS. CURLEY: Sleeping there, I mean -- CORPORAL BOYLAN: I can't say that it's a drug house. I do know that there have been squatters in there before. There is -- there is Page 17 June 23, 2016 definitely evidence of people being in there. I don't know if they're drug users or just transients going back and forth. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Steve, do you have anything else on this case? MR. ATHEY: I do not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You notified these -- the owners of this property? They've been properly notified? MR. ATHEY: Correct. I personally served the trustee, attorney, Mr. Marc Shapiro. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And has there been any activity as to plywood enclosed (sic) the openings or -- MR. ATHEY: No, sir. MR. SHAPIRO: Hold on one second. Again, I think we're confusing properties. I am not the trustee of this property. MR. ATHEY: Oh, my apologies. He is correct. The trustee is Mr. Henke, who is here today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ATHEY: Who I went to his office to serve the notice of violation. He was not present, but I mailed a copy, certified and regular, and posted the property, and the courthouse, and brought a courtesy copy to his office and left it with his property manager. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All righty. I guess we're up to you, sir. MR. SHAPIRO: Sure. And Mr. Hanke is here present if he needs to testify. But this and the other one that we'll be discussing is kind of a complicated situation. But I want to make sure we're not confusing the two properties because the hotel, there is evidence that people have broken in. To my knowledge, there is no one that has ever broken into the barracks. The barracks has a steel door on it. It's not even boarded up. It's a steel locked door. The only way anyone could ever get in this Page 18 June 23, 2016 property is by breaking and going through one of the windows. The doors are not missing; am I correct? The doors are not missing on the barracks property. They are confusing the hotel property, which is adjacent to the barracks property, which the door is missing. But, again, I think we're confusing the two properties. So I think the sheriffs testimony is correct with regard to the hotel. That's a separate legal description with a separate owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a separate case. MR. SHAPIRO: Yes, and a separate case. MS. CURLEY: Well, let's talk about this case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. All right. So let's talk about this case. So if we're talking about this case, I don't think any of the testimony by -- from the Sheriffs Office is true with respect to this property. It may be true with regard to the other. MR. ASHTON: Excuse me. Kerry, there's a picture of an open stairwell. And you're saying this building is secured? I saw a picture with an open stairwell that people could get in. MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, if you see the picture up there right now, the windows, I mean, anybody could climb through. MR. ASHTON: Yeah, but I mean -- MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. MR. ASHTON: Yeah, that picture, yeah. I mean, that's -- you know, you've got right there, people can get up. And there's no railing. Somebody could get injured. This is a health-and-safety violation. MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. But that -- even if-- that was there from the beginning of time, that -- I mean, that's -- it's an outdoor stairwell. MR. ASHTON: Where's the rail? Where's the protection off that landing? MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. So let me go in and explain a little bit Page 19 June 23, 2016 about this situation. MR. ATHEY: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. CORPORAL BOYLAN: That bottom door is not there. I was there two days ago. That door is not there on the bottom. MS. CURLEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. My client purchased this property at a foreclosure sale. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you know when he purchased it? MR. SHAPIRO: I don't off the top of my head. MS. CURLEY: November 19, 2015. MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. There was a situation where it was purchased, let go, and then repurchased, so my client could probably answer that question better than I could. So this property has been like -- in this state for about the last 20 years. When they purchased the property, they are trying to put a plan together to develop this property along with the hotel property, and it would be extremely expensive to knock this place down and even -- at this time until the plan is in effect and even more expensive to put it into habitable condition. I thought -- because I had spoken with the Code Enforcement, I thought we had come to an agreement that what's, I guess, referred to as a boarding agreement where my client was going to agree to board the place up and give them six months time to either develop a plan to tear the place down within six months or, in the alternative, to fix it. I thought that was our agreement, that we had entered into a boarding agreement. MR. LETOURNEAU: Can I get sworn in, please? (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. LETOURNEAU: I believe what I stated was that if you Page 20 June 23, 2016 were found in violation, that's what the county would recommend as one of the recommendations, that boarding would be possible to buy some time for the owner to repair the building. We don't have the authority to agree to something like that unless the Board makes a decision. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Typically, the Board, in a case like this, would require this building to be boarded up now, not next week. MR. SHAPIRO: Oh, no. We're not talking about next week. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. No, I'm saying if it's a safety and -- if we determine that it was a safety-and-health indication, that would be required immediately. So just to mention that, along to what Jeff had said. Okay. So continue. MR. SHAPIRO: No, I didn't mean that we would board it up in six months. I meant we would board it up now -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, I understand. I understand. MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. So I guess with respect to this property, the only thing I can say is that it was in this condition. It's been in this condition for the last 20 years. It seems like right after my client bought it, then they started, you know, getting some, I guess, issues from Code Enforcement. We're trying to work with them, but in the meantime we're also trying to put up a plan where this will eventually get knocked down. And so, you know, we didn't -- I guess they didn't act as diligently because from their perspective it's a very, you know, thin deal to begin with. When they -- they didn't want to put a lot of money into fixing a place that's basically a teardown. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you have any questions of the county or the sheriff? MR. SHAPIRO: I don't have any questions of the county or the sheriff. I mean, I don't know if-- Gordon, if you want to speak as to Page 21 June 23, 2016 the doors on the -- no. Okay. No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And do you have any questions of the respondent? MR. ATHEY: I do not, no, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sheriff? CORPORAL BOYLAN: No, I do not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So with that, we'll close the public hearing, and the Board can discuss where we can go from here. MR. LAVINSKI: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. LAVINSKI: I'm a little -- still confused over Item No. 2, description of the violation. It says roof in disrepair, windows and doors missing or broken, and exterior walls in dis -- is that -- the condition of this building -- I didn't see a picture of a missing door or a window. MR. ATHEY: There are photographs of-- MR. L'ESPERANCE: I saw the broken windows. MR. ASHTON: Broken windows. MR. ATHEY: -- broken windows. The door is now -- when I originally made the site visit, the door was unsecured, meaning I could just open it. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. MR. ATHEY: As of her visit yesterday or -- CORPORAL BOYLAN: Two days ago. MR. ATHEY: -- two days ago, that one particular door is now off the hinges. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: All right. So that description of violation is accurate? MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. MR. LAVINSKI: Thank you. Page 22 June 23, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any other comments from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: By the way, even though this has been in existence for a hundred years, it doesn't change the fact of today. And the Board, if we find this thing in violation, we'll talk to what the remediation could be. But the first thing we need to do, if there are no more comments from the Board -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: I do have one, please. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Go ahead. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Steve, you said that the hotel is not occupied also? MR. ATHEY: Correct. MR. L'ESPERANCE: So there's no people on site for supervision or security? MR. ATHEY: I think there's transient -- CORPORAL BOYLAN: There's transient people. MR. ATHEY: -- people in and out. MR. ASHTON: Nobody from the owners is there? He has nobody? MR. ATHEY: No one living in the dwelling. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's not fenced to secure it? MR. ATHEY: It's not fenced. It's unsecure. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. MR. ATHEY: Anyone or anything can come in and out as they please. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any other questions from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, does -- anybody like to make a motion whether this is in violation or not? Page 23 June 23, 2016 MR. ASHTON: I make a motion that this is in violation. MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. So we found it in violation. Now, where do we go from here? Do you have a suggestion for us? MR. ATHEY: I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ATHEY: That the Code Enforcement Board order the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$67.11 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days, and abate all violations by: One, repairing any cracks, holes, breaks, or loose and rotting materials from the exterior walls, repairing or replacing broken or missing windows and doors, repairing damaged roof and soffit, obtaining all required Collier County building permits, inspections, and certificate of completion or occupancy to restore the structure within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank per day will be imposed. Page 24 June 23, 2016 And number 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 property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And I would recommend that we add a number three to this or one-and-a-half where any opening that has access be boarded, and that be done soon. MR. MARINO: Immediately. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: "Immediately" is a good word. Thanks, Tony. So let's have some discussion from the Board on where we go from here. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Just a small procedural comment. The second word, of course, should be a-n-y. MR. SHAPIRO: And, Mr. Chairman, if I may comment on this also. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: Mr. Chairman, I was just wondering, if the respondent's agent or attorney here has said that their intent is to tear this down, do we want to leave the recommendation that we patch cracks and holes, or is it an issue of just boarding up the place and let his process take place to tear the building down rather than spend zillions of dollars in fixing roof leaks and all this jazz if he's admitted, which I think he has -- MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. MR. LAVINSKI: -- that the building's going to be torn down. Page 25 June 23, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It should be an option for the owner of the property to do this or take the building down. MR. MARINO: Have they even applied for a demolition permit if that was their intention? MR. SHAPIRO: No, we have not. It was not our intention to do it right now because we're in kind of negotiations on what we're going to do. But we can apply for a building permit now. I guess what -- it eventually will be torn down. The question is, how can we deal with what -- the condition it's in now immediately. And I would submit that even the roof-- the roof is not leaking, to the best of my knowledge. There's just some roof tiles missing. And I saw in the recommendation to replace all the windows. I thought what we discussed was to board up all the windows, because replacing all the windows in a place that's going to get torn down can get very expensive. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I agree with you. MR. LETOURNEAU: Can I make a suggestion? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN. Yes. MR. LETOURNEAU: We wrote this recommendation before I had a meeting with Mr. Shapiro, and I did discuss -- and we have in the past had a part two of this where they could obtain the Collier County boarding certificate, board the structure, and then the certificate's good for six months. That would buy them enough time to, you know, at least make a decision on whether to get this thing torn down or to repair it. Obviously, they want to tear it down, so -- and we've done many of those in the past. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That paragraph could be added here? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah, part two, I would say, obtain a Collier County boarding certificate within whatever days you give them, and then when the -- when the boarding certificate expires after six months, after they obtain it, then they would be on the clock to, you Page 26 June 23, 2016 know, do something with that thing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MARINO: Do you have any idea how long it would take them to get that permit to board it up, how much time they're going to need? MR. LETOURNEAU: To get it boarded up? Oh, they'd probably have to get all the windows. I don't know. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Not to actually board it but to get the permit. MR. LETOURNEAU: Oh, to get the permit. They come down to Collier County Code Enforcement, they fill out a form stating that this is what they plan to do with the structure, and we issue them a six-month boarding certificate at that time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Chris was coming down to help you out. MR. LETOURNEAU: It's, like, 10 minutes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So that -- 10 minutes to get the boarding permit, and then how much time does the Board think we should grant to get it boarded up? MR. MARINO: I think Jeff said the permit was good for how long? MR. LETOURNEAU: Six months. MR. ASHTON: I think we should give them five days to board it. I mean, I'm looking at some of those pictures. I mean, somebody's going to get hurt. Kids go over there and play and stuff like that. Somebody's going to get injured, and there's going to be a major problem. MR. SHAPIRO: Just so you know, there's no houses around there for miles. MR. ASHTON: It doesn't matter. I mean, kids will travel miles. And I also think that we should mandate that it should be a -- the place Page 27 June 23, 2016 should be fenced in. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: Can we -- oh, all right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me get to the other comments on the Board. Do you have any comment? MS. CURLEY: I just have a comment about the realistic time frame to hire a contractor to do that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: It's something we need to be considerate of-- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: -- and wondering if the owner has already looked into that if you bought this property a while ago. I mean, they knew it was the condition that it was in when he purchased. Was he going to sort of tidy it up and secure it for his own investment purposes? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: My concern is that this has been going on since they purchased the property in November, and to extend it out too long would not be fair to the public. MR. SHAPIRO: Honestly, this property is too far gone. It has been vacant for at least the last two decades. So it's really a teardown. I mean, there's -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You know, I understand that. What we're trying to figure out is what is the proper time to get the building boarded up. You probably can't have it boarded up by tomorrow morning, but sometime between tomorrow morning and sometime in the future it needs to be done. And that's what we're discussing now; if somebody would like to make a motion to that effect or throw a date out, and we can discuss it. MR. ASHTON: Like I said, originally, I mean, this -- if you look at the pictures and you said, well, there's no homes around there. But you know how kids will get. And somebody's going to get hurt, and then there's going to be a major problem with it. I figure -- I think five Page 28 June 23, 2016 days, that that place should be boarded up or fenced in. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any other comments on the dates? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is that a motion? MR. MARINO: Bob, are you talking about from the time they pull the permit? MR. ASHTON: I'm talking about when they get the permit and they're saying they can have the permit within a day or two. MR. MARINO: They can get it today. MR. LETOURNEAU: They can come and get it today if they wanted to. MR. ASHTON: Five days from when -- I make a motion that there be -- building be secured, boarded up, whatever, and a fence erected within five days of obtaining the permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me comment on the fence portion. I think if it's boarded up, that might be sufficient. To fence this whole property at this particular time might be asking for too much. MR. ASHTON: Boarded up within five days of receiving the permit. MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, how about -- because that would -- how about obtain the permit and board within five days because if-- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. Yeah, because they could wait a month to get the permit and then -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Exactly. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So that's just the wordsmithing on that. MR. SHAPIRO: If I can comment. And I don't know, but there's a lot of windows on this place. I don't think there's any issue with us beginning the process within five days, but I don't -- I'm not sure if it can physically be completed. I mean, we're talking maybe 50 Page 29 June 23, 2016 windows. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I believe, perhaps, the intention is to board the first level only. MR. ASHTON: Yes, the -- yeah. MR. MARINO: Have you been talking to any contractors about getting that done? MR. SHAPIRO: I have not, but the trustee is in the audience. I can't speak for him. MR. MARINO: Well, what I'm trying to say is has he secured a contractor with the intentions of boarding up? MS. CURLEY: He's not talking. I make a motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hold it. We have a motion on the floor right now. One motion at a time. You say five days. MR. ASHTON: Five days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That entails getting the permit -- MR. ASHTON: Permit and boarding -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- having it boarded up -- MR. ASHTON: -- the entire first floor. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: On the first floor. MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Let me continue until we get to the end of this. And then you have to fill in the blanks; within five days. That's just for this one new paragraph that we're putting in. Going back to Paragraph 1, we need to fill in the blanks there where it says, certificate of occupancy, et cetera, et cetera, within blank days, or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed. Now, if they get the ability to board it up, they're buying themselves six months. After six months, if everything holds, and we put in there six months is the amount of time, 180 days, and the fine Page 30 June 23, 2016 would be X amount of dollars. Let me just take a quick look at my guideline for fines. It probably falls between 100 and $200 a day. Your call. MR. ASHTON: And so I'll fill it in that, on the one, you have 180 days, and a fine of$150 a day will be imposed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So let me just summarize. Thirty days to pay the 67.11 ; the structure will be, as to Paragraph 1, that's 180 days, six months, or a fine of$150 a day; and then the new paragraph that's not on here is that the respondent will obtain a boarding permit and board the first floor windows and door within five days. Now, my only concern with that is, and you pointed it out, Mr. Ashton, that there's a stairwell going up to the second floor. So that door should be boarded in one face or another. I don't think anybody is going to -- unless it's Spiderman to go along to those windows on the second floor. MR. ASHTON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But that -- I'd include that door as well. Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: I just want to point out also, just for the record, that the boarding certificate's like a -- it's like a Band-Aid putting these boards on, because the violation still remains; six months later we're back to where we are here. So they still have the property maintenance issues underneath these boards. So they have to eventually either tear this building down or fix the property maintenance violations. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's Paragraph 1. Okay. So -- all right. MR. ASHTON: Yeah. But their intent, he said, within six months they're going to either tear it down or start fixing it, so we're giving them the option. Page 31 June 23, 2016 MR. LETOURNEAU: Very well. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So they're both covered. Paragraph 1 covers what happens to the building. The -- putting up the protection on the windows and the door, that buys them that six months. Okay. So we have the motion. Is everybody clear on that motion? MS. CURLEY: I just have one question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MS. CURLEY: Somebody had said that their intention was to have this building demoed in six months. Was that accurate? MR. SHAPIRO: Well, the intention is to have it demoed. If we have to do it in six months, which it sounds like we have to, I mean, then we'll have to deal with that. In fact, I thought, and I would like there to be, an alternative active that opposed to boarding it up, if we could get the demo permit and start demoing it immediately, that that at least be an option. MR. ASHTON: Originally you said you didn't know what you were going to do. It would take six months to either figure you were going to fix it or demo it. Now you're saying you're going to demo it? Changing what you're saying? MR. SHAPIRO: No. I didn't say we were going to -- I say I'd like that to be an option. If we determine that it's -- MR. ASHTON: Well, you've got the option with 180 days. You can -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You can fix it before that. MR. ASHTON: Right now we want it secured. MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. So if we find that we can tear it down within the next week, let's say, we could do that as opposed to boarding up the windows? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, that would meet it. You don't have to board a building that's not there. Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: You could just put, "obtaining all required Page 32 June 23, 2016 building or demolition permits" in the first part right there and cover that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If you get a demo on the building, a demo permit for the building, and you go back to Code Enforcement and say, I'm taking the building down, I can't take it down in five days, as the order says, but I can take it down in eight days, I'm sure that something can be worked out. MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You agree, Jeff? MR. LETOURNEAU: Definitely, yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you have the ability to do what you want to do. We have, with this motion, protected the public the best that we can, and we'll get movement on this one way or the other. Are there any other comments on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Are you going to be here for the next, Mr. Shapiro? MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're going to be for the next one, okay. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 3, Tab 3, Case Page 33 June 23, 2016 CEPM20150021043, Port of the Islands Trust. MS. CURLEY: What tab? MR. LAVINSKI: We doing 3 or 2? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Tab 3. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Steve, put your hand up. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. ATHEY: For the record, Steve Athey, Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ATHEY: This is in reference to Case No. CEPM20150021043 dealing with the violations of Collier County Code of Laws and ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Property Maintenance Code, Section 22-231(12)(B), Section 22-228(1), Section 22-242, Section 22-231(12)(I), Section 22-231-15, and Section 22-231(12)(C), roof in disrepair, windows and doors broken, damaged, or missing, which leaves the structure unsecure, exterior walls in disrepair, graffiti on the walls, and the pool and the pool area unmaintained. Property is located at 12323 Union Road, Naples, Florida, 34114; Folio 1058920500. Service was given on April 22, 2016. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Sixteen photographs and one aerial of the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen the photographs? MR. SHAPIRO: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Shapiro, do you have any comments as far as allowing those pictures to be entered into as evidence for the county? MR. SHAPIRO: No. Page 34 June 23, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have a motion to accept? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. ASHTON: Second. MR. MARINO: Second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. MR. ATHEY: I'd just make mention, in this aerial, the close proximity of the community in front of the hotel -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ATHEY: -- for the record. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you point out on that picture the building that we're talking about? MS. CURLEY: That's -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The one adjacent to the pool. MR. LETOURNEAU: The whole thing. MR. ATHEY: The whole thing, the entire -- it's the entire, with the exception of the building adjacent, which is -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The case we just heard? MR. ATHEY: That's the case you just heard. Page 35 June 23, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So excluding that building, okay. CORPORAL BOYLAN: The barracks is the back of-- MR. ATHEY: Oh, my apologies. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Chris needs to be sworn. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. ABACH: The gray building that Steven is pointing to now is the previous case. Everything in yellow, all the buildings from left to right, including the pool and the pool to the east -- the building to the east is with this case. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Can we back up and see where Tamiami Trail is, please, if that's available o the map. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think it's on the bottom, but that's a guess. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Is this on the road into that gun range? MR. ATHEY: It is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So point it out again now with Chris's -- MR. ASHTON: All the yellow. MR. ATHEY: Everything in yellow. MR. ASHTON: Everything in yellow. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I got it. Okay. MR. ATHEY: I made an initial site visit to the property on October 23, 2015, and observed an unmaintained pool, broken windows, roof damage, missing stucco, and entrance doors unsecure. A notice of violation was mailed and posted on October 23, 2015. On March 10, 2016, per Jeff Letourneau's request, I made another site Page 36 June 23, 2016 visit to the property to take additional photos. During this visit, I did observe more broken windows and graffiti. On April 20, 2016, I made another site to update the photographs and to prepare another notice of violation encompassing all the violations observed. On April 22, 2016, I met with trustee, Attorney Marc Shapiro, at his office and served the notice of violation. And to date the violations remain and continually get worse. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Was this initially cited back in November or -- MR. ATHEY: October is when they purchased the property, and it was shortly thereafter. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Okay. Mr. Shapiro? Do you have anything else, Corporal? This is the building that you -- CORPORAL BOYLAN: This is the building that I'm at at least twice a day every day that I work. I have updated photographs on my computer that was taken on Sunday. The damage to the building is severely worse than what it is now (sic). The front door is no longer secure. The door to the building that's going to be to the right of the pool, the door is off of there. There's scaffolding inside of that building. That is the only thing that is holding up the roof to that building. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you go back one picture. CORPORAL BOYLAN: On April 11th, Mr. Shapiro's trust fund signed a trespass agreement for the property. And since we received the trespass agreement back I, myself, have personally trespassed 19 young children from that building. And it's, unfortunately, the hot spot on social media to go to this building and do graffiti and all kinds of other activities. It's on abandonFlorida.com. It's also on Instagram, Facebook. So, I mean -- Page 37 June 23, 2016 and everybody that we stop there and we talk to, that is where they're getting the information from, from social media, to come to this hotel and hang out and party. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Now, when you say "children," do you mean high school, grade school, middle school? CORPORAL BOYLAN: High school children. I've caught several people from Lely High School. We've had people from FGCU come in there to film a video, and it's just a video of them partying and having a good time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that pool secure at all other -- CORPORAL BOYLAN: No, it is not. Actually, about two-and-a-half weeks ago I was there with FWC. We were trying to fish an alligator out of the pool. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So if an alligator can get in there, so could a kid? CORPORAL BOYLAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any other comments? I just wanted to see that -- we can go through the rest of the pictures. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Are there any interior photographs available? CORPORAL BOYLAN: I have them on my computer. If you're willing to let me show the photographs on my computer, I could certainly show those to you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, I don't think it's necessary. The inside is probably the same as the outside. It's probably not in really good shape. CORPORAL BOYLAN: The ceilings are falling down. The children have been in there graffitiing every inch of the property. They have taken the furniture and thrown it outside of the property from the second floor. There's broken TVs all over -- all around the property. Broken furniture. Page 38 June 23, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One question. Was this reported by somebody in the development across the street from this property, or was this reported in a different manner, just -- MR. ATHEY: Reported by the Sheriffs Department. CORPORAL BOYLAN: I noticed it back in October 15th that the French door by the pool had been pulled off the building. It was at that time that I entered the building and made my initial search through the building. There was evidence that there was somebody living in Rooms 303 and 304, because they had -- you know, out of all the rooms -- there's a hundred -- I believe it's a 100-room hotel. Out of all the rooms in the hotel, that was the only room that was neatly kept. There were empty water bottles in there, empty food containers. So, I mean, somebody was definitely living in that room. Who it was CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: There's no water and electric there; is the correct? CORPORAL BOYLAN: There is water. There is no electric. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Okay. Any other comments from the county or the sheriff? MR. ATHEY: Not from me, no. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Shapiro? MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. I'd like to point out that this property, again, has been a property that has been empty for at least two decades. There has been people in and out of that property for probably at least that long doing all sorts of stuff. It was actually -- the violation was brought by the sheriff. It was brought to the sheriffs attention because my client, who are the beneficiaries, called the sheriff to report that there were people breaking into the place. It has been boarded up numerous times only to have them rip the Page 39 June 23, 2016 boards down, and in one case they actually removed the doors because -- you know, to have easier access. So I won't deny that it is an issue with people going into the place. This, however, is significantly more complicated than the previous case we discussed because of the amount of liens on the property. We actually looked into tearing it down. We cannot tear it down at this time because of the liens that -- there's some tax certificates. And when I say "some tax certificates," we're talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax certificates. There's also approximately a $2 million lien from the CID, which is the Community Improvement District, in the area that supplies the water. And, I guess, by ordinance they won't allow it to be torn down. In fact, at one point we actually had an agreement with the fire department that they were going to do controlled burns and use it for, I guess, training and burn the place. We actually paid money to get a certificate that there was no asbestos in the place, but I guess because there's liens on the place, it's not allowed to be torn down until we can negotiate those liens. Now, again, my clients, when they bought this -- yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me just interrupt you for one second. I have a question. Jeff, if this was declared a dangerous building, this building would be torn down or whatever, is that correct, whether there are liens on it or not, or is that a question for the county attorney? MR. LETOURNEAU: That is a question for the county attorney. I'm not really sure about the legalities of us tearing it down, if what Mr. Shapiro is saying is right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Quick question. I'm sorry for interrupting you. MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. So when my clients bought this property at foreclosure, I mean, we knew it was in a state of disrepair. It had Page 40 June 23, 2016 been like this for some time, but -- and you can see from the condition of the property, it would cost hundreds of thousands to put this into habitable condition, and then it's still a teardown. We can't tear it down at this time. My clients, who are actively involved in negotiating with the Community Improvement District, with the tax certificate holders, and also with the attorney for Bruce Holecek, whose company owns -- if you look in the aerial, they own all that vacant property between the gun range and the hotel. So we are trying to get together to try and develop a joint venture property to develop all that land. I guess the issue that we have now is that until those liens are negotiated, you know, my client doesn't want to spend hundreds of thousands to put the place back into condition, and they physically, at this point, can't tear it down. And even if they could, to tear this down, you're talking about -- just to haul that stuff away, you're talking about a monumental expense that my client doesn't want to undertake unless they know that they can work out something with the lienholders. Now, we believe we can, but that's going to take some time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, this has been going on since October, November. MR. SHAPIRO: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What's been done? MR. SHAPIRO: Well, one of the options my client has considered is just walking away from this property. They don't have -- I mean, they have what I consider a lot into but not what they consider a lot into it, and there's a lot of, I guess, headaches or hoops they have to jump through to do this development, and then this code enforcement issue is just one more hoop, and at some point it just becomes too much to deal with. Now, the problem is, if they walk away from it, nobody really wants this property because -- the certificate holders don't want it Page 41 June 23, 2016 because there's a $2 million CID lien on it. The CID, Community Improvement District, doesn't want it because then they have nobody paying them for the, I guess, rights for the water. So they actually have an interest in having it developed. That's why we're trying to work with them to see if we can reduce their lien or have their lien paid off once it's developed. But, you know, all this takes some time. So I submit that, you know, us walking away from it, the problem's still going to be there and, in fact, it may ensure that it's going to be there for the next couple decades because it's really an unwanted property by anyone, and my client, I guess, took a chance buying this at foreclosure, that they could work out all the issues and eventually get a development going on this property. But it's a monumental task to do that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I could almost guarantee you this will not be here for the next couple of decades. MS. CURLEY: I have a couple questions and comments. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Go ahead. MS. CURLEY: So when you say "let it go," I mean, it looks like there was a consideration of$26,000 for this property when they bought it out of foreclosure? MR. SHAPIRO: Yes, that's probably true. They probably, with other things, have about 35,000 into it. MS. CURLEY: And then on Page 3 of the certificate of title shows all the lienholders and it identifies all the tax certificates that are outstanding. MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. MS. CURLEY: And if you were assisting them when they bought this, surely this was stuff that was discussed. MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. MS. CURLEY: Okay. So you can't really let something go Page 42 June 23, 2016 unless he -- MR. SHAPIRO: Well, when I say "let it go" -- MS. CURLEY: I don't know how he's -- is he going to deed it off to nobody? I mean, this property -- MR. SHAPIRO: When I say "let it go" -- MS. CURLEY: -- is his responsibility now. MR. SHAPIRO: When I say "let it go," it's owned by a trust. So when I say "let it go," do nothing with it, let it foreclose by whoever is going to foreclosure on it first, whoever wants it, and then it will be, you know, their issue, or potentially do a deed in lieu of foreclosure to the Community Improvement District or one of the tax certificate holders, although it seems to be unwanted by anyone until we can work through these issues. MS. CURLEY: Is the largest lien the CID lien? MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. MS. CURLEY: And are they talking to you at all? MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. MS. CURLEY: Positively? MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Keep yourselves focused a little bit here. I think we have to always remember the danger -- the potential danger that this type of property has with individuals coming onto this property doing the things that they're doing, the students. You have to keep that first and foremost for their safety. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think the first thing we need to do is vote on whether this is in violation or not. So anybody want to make a motion as to whether or not this property is in violation? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman? MR. MARINO: I'll make a motion that this property is definitely in violation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Page 43 June 23, 2016 MR. ASHTON: I would second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. I just want to go back to one of the comments you made earlier where you said there are no developments nearby, and Mr -- Lionel mentioned that kids will even travel to get to it. It looks like they've been traveling there. It's there, and it's dangerous. MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. Again, I was talking about the former case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, it's right -- it's almost on the same property. We're not here to discuss the other case. We already did that. MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This case is even more severe. And I don't hear anything from you stating what can be done, when to resolve the situation. Meeting with people and all the rest of this doesn't solve the situation as far as some kid going in there and falling into that pool and dying. MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. I guess what we're looking for is something that we can do that -- to use your words, a temporary Band-Aid to make it so that -- you know, the pool is enclosed on three Page 44 June 23, 2016 sides, so there's only one side that we can put a fence up and enclose the pool. The issue is, really, we boarded it up before. I mean, when we say see "we," I'm speaking for my client. Teenagers come in and -- or kids from FGCU and tear the boards down. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Maybe you can mine the entrance. I'm only kidding. MS. CURLEY: I have a question for Jeff. As a stipulation for this, could they hire a 24-hour security person to stand there? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Exactly, exactly. MS. CURLEY: I mean, for immediate safety of everybody? I mean, as, like -- MR. LETOURNEAU: That's not something we've done before, but I think that's, you know, something that is possible. I mean -- MS. CURLEY: It's the reality of the expense. MR. LETOURNEAU: I would ask your attorney, is that something that seems feasible or -- MR. MARINO: Did I hear they pulled an alligator out of the pool? CORPORAL BOYLAN: That is correct. FWC pulled a four-and-a-half foot alligator out of the pool. MR. MARINO: That means anybody can get into the pool and die in the pool. CORPORAL BOYLAN: Anybody could get into the pool. Anybody could get into the building. My concern is the Fire Department has a standing order that they are not to enter that building. So that leaves it to us, the Sheriffs Department. If there is a child or someone in there hurt, we have to go in there and try to get whoever that is out. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me ask another question. Has Walsh, from Buildings, declared this an unsafe structure? Page 45 June 23, 2016 MR. LETOURNEAU: He has. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, unsafe structures generally need to be demolished. MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. MS. CURLEY: I like that ideas. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Which idea? MS. CURLEY: I like assisting in the efforts of the demolition by suggesting it in a stipulation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, why don't we find from Steve what suggestion he has, and maybe we can add to it or discuss it. MR. ATHEY: That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$67.11 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: One, repairing any cracks, holes, breaks, or loose and rotting material from the exterior walls, repairing or replacing broken or missing windows and doors, securing the structure to prevent access, repairing damaged roof and soffit, obtaining all required Collier County building permits, inspections, and certificate of completion or occupancy to restore the structure, chemically treating the pool water, killing the algae growth and maintaining the filtration system to keep the pool water clean, and to provide biweekly treatments or chemically treating the pool water, killing the algae growth and covering the pool to prevent safety hazards, insect infestations, and the intrusion of rainwater, within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank per day will be imposed; 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 Page 46 June 23, 2016 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: Yeah. We need to add the same piece in there, maybe after the first paragraph or demolish -- obtain a permit to demolish the entire structure, however you want to word that. MR. LETOURNEAU: We would also, you know, recommend, just like the last case, the boarding option, but along with getting the pool secured with this one. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. So that needs to be added in here. MS. CURLEY: What about adding some immediate security to keep people off the campus? MR. L'ESPERANCE: I like that idea. MS. CURLEY: Especially since the pool -- I mean, at least the pool could have been covered with one of those foreclosure cages or something when they took ownership of it, and that that's not happened is a concern for me, because that's not an expensive thing to do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Kerry, could you put up the aerial picture first for us. And could you zoom in a little bit on the yellow highlighted area. Okay. So the -- I'm looking at the pool there. Are you talking, Sue, about fencing that entire area? MS. CURLEY: No. They lay rebar down on it and they put wood all around it and -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That -- (Overlapping speakers.) MS. CURLEY: -- where it keeps humans from falling in -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. CURLEY: -- as well as alligators, probably. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We've done that many, many times. I would like to see some way of closing that section in to begin with, Page 47 June 23, 2016 some sort of a fence, although the kids will go over that as well. So the pool has to be secured. MS. CURLEY: Stat. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. Typically, just on a pool violation, we give them a week. You have a week to either cover the pool in the proper manner -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Fill it in if you have to. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You fill it in with dirt, whatever needed to be done so nobody can fall in there. So that's one of the items. As far as this one is -- and it appears to be a bigger problem than we had on the other property. This looks like there's a lot more activity, and the corporal has stated she's there twice a day to keep the kids out. I don't -- I don't know what can be done to keep the kids out other than boarding it up, and to make as many stops as you've been doing there, to keep the kids out. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I think the suggestion for an on-site 24-hour flashing blue light on top of a vehicle with a security person is a good idea. MR. MARINO: I agree. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That can be an option for the respondent. MS. CURLEY: Well, it's -- we've all heard this, and this is a huge safety violation for kids who are playing without their parents and possibly drinking and having a variety of things happen. I don't want my name under a headline; neither does your client. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I believe this is an egregious situation; must be addressed immediately. MR. SHAPIRO: Well, my client wants to resolve this as much as anyone. And, you know, if there's something they could do, for example, boards or putting up a fence, you know, that's great. That's Page 48 June 23, 2016 one thing. But you have to understand, if this is a property that there eventually -- when I say "walk away from," if nothing can be done, you know, they're not going to want to put hundreds of thousands into it or even tens of thousands into it. You know, to have a 24-hour-a-day security guard, that can add up. And if it becomes a point where it just doesn't make sense financially for them to do that, then we have a situation where nothing gets done. So I wanted to try and get -- you know, try and come to some sort of compromise where we could deal with the safety issues without making it so burdensome on the owners that their better option is to just do nothing. MS. CURLEY: I agree with what you're saying, and I understand that there's -- the liens of such are prohibiting you from moving forward with demoing it. So I think that a lot of our good effort here is to suggest that it be, you know, managed maybe with a demo order so then you can circumvent that -- MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. MS. CURLEY: -- problem. MR. SHAPIRO: If you're saying that if there's a demo order then we could -- MS. CURLEY: I don't know that, but that's what you do for a living. MR. SHAPIRO: Yeah. Because we've actually looked into demoing it. The other issue is, because it's such a large building, physically hauling everything away, you're talking approximately a $500,000 demo, if not more. We have been in negotiations with the owner of the property between the hotel and the gun range, which is, I think, 10 acres or more. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How big is this property? MR. SHAPIRO: I don't -- do you know how -- seven acres, Page 49 June 23, 2016 according to -- so -- but if any of you have been back there, between the hotel and the gun range, there's a very large acreage, and we're talking with them to try and do a joint venture where we could demo it and bury at least part of the hotel so that would save some of the cost of demoing it. I think we got a quote of somewhere between 5- and 700,000 just to haul -- demo it and haul everything off site. So by burying some of it, it saves on the cost. I know that's not really your issue, but it may help because we had an agreement initially with Port of the Islands for them to do some controlled burns on it and use it for their training purposes. As I said before, we actually got an asbestos certificate saying it's asbestos free so -- to clear the fire department from doing controlled burns, but we were halted because of the liens on the property. But maybe if you could clear the way, we could have the fire department do controlled burns and at least put this in a state where people aren't going to go into it. I mean, if it's burned down or at least -- then I doubt you're going to be have people going in to do graffiti. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And it will still be unsafe. If the owner were to walk away from this, it becomes the county's problem; the county can demolish it, and then the cost of that demolishment (phonetic), for lack of a better word -- I'll make up my own -- would be the first lien on the property. It goes ahead of mortgages and everything else, my thought on that. MS. CURLEY: This is a priority lien. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It is. So you have seven acres here. I don't know what it's worth. It's obviously worth a lot more with no buildings on it than with buildings on it. You're talking about a lot of money to resolve this safety issue. MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. And to speak with that -- because you brought up a good point. So let's walk through that. So if the county takes it over and demolishes it, puts a first lien on the property -- there Page 50 June 23, 2016 is no mortgages on it, by the way, but there are other liens. There's tax certificates, meaning there's tax liens on it for property taxes, and there's also the Community Improvement District for the water that has a large lien. So while you may be first in priority, still who's going to want to buy it when you have a half-million-dollar lien on it, the water -- CID has a $2 million lien on it, and there's hundreds and thousands in tax certificates. That's why I'm saying it's a difficult situation. I hope you appreciate -- I mean, my clients realize there's a problem. They recognize that but, you know, we're trying to come up with a solution to deal with this. In fact, my client was the one that called the police which brought it on their radar, because for 20 years this same stuff was happening, but the only difference is no one really knew about it. Now, by -- my client, by calling police and saying, hey, there's people in there, you know, brought this to the forefront. But it's not like it wasn't happening before we bought it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, as far as the Code Enforcement Board is concerned, we need to address the safety issues on the property. What happens after that, folks like yourself will be duking it out. And I can't answer all the questions that you're bringing up with all the different liens and whatnot. So we have found the property in violation. Kerry, if you'd put back Steve's suggestions. I think that what we need to do is to modify the recommendation to include the ability to demolish the property, and in the next -- same as the last one -- five days have the pool and the building secured by whatever means necessary, whether it's boarding, as Sue mentioned, to the pool. MS. CURLEY: Paragraph No. 1, if you just strike everything until the capital "OR" on the fourth to the bottom line, because they're not going to repair. It's only chemically treat the pool, killing the Page 51 June 23, 2016 algae, and then covering it. That's really the only option that they have because there's probably no pump there or electricity to start the pump, so that's not an option for them, right, number one? MR. SHAPIRO: Yes, there's no -- I don't believe there's any pumps there. In fact, the pool was empty except for then it rains you get rainwater in there. MS. CURLEY: So they throw chemicals in it, and it just, you know -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, they have to secure the pool. However they do that, that's up to the Code Enforcement and the respondent. They can work together to do that. MS. CURLEY: And can we put on there an order to demo it? Can this board do that? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes, I believe you can. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We can as a dangerous building. I would think -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, I want to point out that we do have a dangerous building case that we are most likely going to bring back next month. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: On this property? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah. What we're looking for now is just safe and secure on this case right here but board -- you know, whatever needs to be done. Obviously, they're not going to fix it. If they want to demo it, by all means, we'd be glad for them to demo it. But right now we're looking for some safety precautions. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, for Paragraph 1, after all the rest of that, when you get -- before you get to the amount of days to do it, et cetera, or you could put down there "or demo the structure." MR. LETOURNEAU: That would fit right in, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Now, that takes that part. How many days -- if they're going to board everything up and Page 52 June 23, 2016 secure the pool, I guess we give them the six months on that as well. Any comments from the Board on that? MR. ASHTON: Six months to board -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, no, no. They have to get the boarding, like we did in the last case, within five days, but as long as it's secure, then they can decide to do the rest of what Paragraph 1 says to include demoing the property within six months. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. As long as that first one, that chemically treating, because securing is not going to be enough as far -- you know, because of the mosquito infestation and all the other stuff going on here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. What we put in the last recommendation or order was that they have five days to pull the permit to do boarding and security for the pool; is that right? Any comments from the Board? I see -- MR. LAVINSKI: They didn't have a pool in the last one. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They didn't have the pool, but we did the boarding, okay. So same thing. That's number one. Number two, maybe we can consider this a motion unless somebody -- and somebody can modify it. That's okay with me. And then they have, on the bottom of Paragraph 1, 180 days or $150 fine; we'll be consistent. Don't forgot the 67.11 within 30 days. That's also part of the order. And if the respondent wants to consider going back to Code Enforcement with some other suggestion as far as security is concerned, whether they hire a person to sit there with a blue light flashing, as Lionel's mentioned, I'm sure that could be considered as well. I would assume that the Sheriffs Department will continue to patrol this facility until it's secure. CORPORAL BOYLAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And probably even after it's secure. Page 53 June 23, 2016 CORPORAL BOYLAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One of the things about the security, after it's up, they have the responsibility to maintain the security. If somebody goes there and rips the boards down, they need to fix that. MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. And, Mr. Kaufman, if I could suggest that -- because, keep in mind, this is a hotel with, I believe, somewhere close to 100 rooms in it, so we're talking about a lot of windows, which may be, again not -- not feasible to do within five days. May I suggest that if we're not able to do that in five days we have the option of having a security guard there, and if we do have a security guard there, we can -- you know, to buy us more time to put boards up, that we have that option, because it may not be feasible to complete that in a five-day time frame. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have no problem with that. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. But you would need to say -- or just a suggestion, that if the security guard option is taken, that you've got a month to board it or something like that. I mean, is the security guard going to be good enough in perpetuity? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're talking about a security guard, you're talking 24 hours a day? I don't know when the kids get there. You maybe could hire them to do security for you. Don't laugh. It's possible. MS. CURLEY: Two hundred forty dollars a day. That's more than the fine. If it's a $10 an hour security guard, that's $240 for every 24 hours. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: But the boarding is going to be an immense expense, obviously. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have a picture of the building again? Is this a first-floor type deal again as far as boarding? MR. ASHTON: Yeah, first floor. Page 54 June 23, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: First floor. Yeah, first floor. MR. ASHTON: Board the first floor in five days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And if they find that they can't get it done in five days but they show progress, I'm sure that Code Enforcement would certainly look favorably upon that. MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, I mean, we have to go by whatever you guys decide. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right, I understand that. MR. LETOURNEAU: We can't really change anything after that's set in stone. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I think your suggestion for 30 days is fine if there is an on-site 24-hour security person. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah, if they supply a contract of a security person. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So this is a motion. MR. MARINO: What is the motion? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's a motion and a half. The motion is -- if you put that back up, Kerry. Not that, the motion. Sorry. That on the first paragraph we add in there at the end "or demolish the structure," to include the pool. That's one thing; the $150 a day and the 180 days. There are the two blanks that are in there for us to read. And now, the same wording that we used on the order, which was the respondent will obtain a boarding permit and board within five days unless a security -- a 24-hour-a-day security is provided by the respondent, and in that case he would have 30 days. MR. L'ESPERANCE: On site. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: On site. MR. MARINO: Going back to it, in that order you've got Page 55 June 23, 2016 chemically treating the pool. I think the pool should be secured. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think those are just extra words that are sitting there. We know it's not going to be done. It says "or." The pool needs to be secured. However they secure the pool, that is -- and that's a -- we've done many, many pools where they put the -- as Sue said, the rebar across it, and they cover it with a tarp. MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah. We are still asking for it to be chemically treated and covered. That's just beyond the secured measures. That's because of the Zika and what else is going on. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. Okay. MR. ATHEY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. ATHEY: Regarding the boarding, the corporal had a good question. CORPORAL BOYLAN: There are doors on the second floor that would also need to be secured. So it could not only be just their first floor. So, I mean, I understand the windows on the second floor not being secured, but the doors should be secured. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We did that on the last order as well, yes. And that should be included in the order. You have a staircase going up to a door that's open. Doesn't do us any good to secure the first floor. MR. LETOURNEAU: Just to assure there's no intrusion to the structure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Correct. MR. L'ESPERANCE: And to be sure, if there's anybody living there, that they're forced, requested, to leave. CORPORAL BOYLAN: They will be escorted out. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. MS. CURLEY: Maybe they could start paying rent. MR. SHAPIRO: Yeah. I don't think they're staying overnight. Page 56 June 23, 2016 They're going in and doing graffiti and having parties. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They're doing what kids do. MS. CURLEY: Charge them. CORPORAL BOYLAN: They are staying overnight. The fire department from Port of the Isles has seen them in there at night, so they are living in there at night. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Get the biggest kids and hire them as your security guards. Okay. We have a motion, I believe. Do we have a second on the motion? MR. ASHTON: Second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you, thank you, and thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 4, Tab 4, Case CELU20150014365, Massimo Faffei, and we have received a stipulation for this case. MR. BALLENGER: Glenn Ballenger, again, representing the respondent. We -- Page 57 June 23, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hang on one second. MR. BALLENGER: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And swear everybody in. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. BALLENGER: Just to inform the Board, we're not going to burden you-all with a hearing, so we've decided to enter into a stipulation, and we'll have everything taken care of within 45 days. So I guess we've got just a stipulation for you to approve. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Dee, do you want to read the stipulation into the record. MS. PULSE: For the record, Dee Pulse, Collier County Code Enforcement. It comes now the undersigned, Glenn Ballenger, on behalf of himself-- or no, on behalf of Maffei Massimo, if I pronounced it -- MR. BALLENGER: It's actually Massimo Maffei. MS. PULSE: Okay -- as the representative for respondent and enters into the stipulation of agreement with Collier County as to the resolution of notices of violation in reference to Case No. CELU20150014365 dated the 23rd day of September. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Number one, pay all operational costs in the amount of$64.59 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Number two, abate all violations by: Must cease any and all use other than what the Estates zoned property is intended to be used for; must remove items that are illegally stored outside -- storage from the property. Oh, is that a -- let's see. That are illegally stored outside. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Remove it from the property, that's proper. MS. PULSE: Remove from property or store items within a completely enclosed permitted structure within 45 days of this hearing, Page 58 June 23, 2016 or a fine of$200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Number three, 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. Number 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 Sheriff s Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of the abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Ballenger, is that okay with you? MR. BALLENGER: I just wanted to make sure -- I mean, there will be occasionally -- I guess, they park -- you know, at night they come home from work and they bring a trailer and they drive that in and out. I'm assuming that that's not really storage. That's just -- we're just talking about all the debris. MS. CURLEY: I thought you said that they were evicting the tenants. MR. BALLENGER: Well, the owners -- it is -- the owners do have a business. And until the property is sold, they have -- they do take a trailer, leave it and park it at night, and then move it out in the morning. MR. LETOURNEAU: You're allowed to have commercial vehicles and trailers on Estates-zoned property. MR. BALLENGER: And that's what it would -- that's all we're asking. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Dee will have her eyes out for you. MR. BALLENGER: I'm sure she will. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. BALLENGER: Thank you. MR. LAVINSKI: That was my intent, to deny the extension to Page 59 June 23, 2016 get something like this and get it recorded that it is a violation. MR. BALLENGER: That's fine. I think we're all on the same page, so we're going to get it done. MR. LAVINSKI: Hopefully that $200 a day will give your client some incentive. MR. BALLENGER: That's plenty of incentive. MR. LAVINSKI: Right. MR. BALLENGER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Can I get a motion to accept the stipulation as written? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion and seconded. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. BALLENGER: Thank you. MR. LAVINSKI: Time for a break? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, you want to take -- a okay. How are your fingers? THE COURT REPORTER: I could use a break. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Need a break, okay. We're going to Page 60 June 23, 2016 take 10 minutes. Be back at 43. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're back together again, okay. All right. Let's go to the next case. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 6, Tab 6, Case CEOCC20150022849, Pee-Wee's Dumpsters, Incorporated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Who we going to swear in? Just Dee. MR. MARINO: Who's here for Pee-Wee? (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. PULSE: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You want to take us through this? MS. PULSE: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: Before Dee gets started, I'd like to point out that there -- I think the majority of the people here in the audience are interested in this case, and I think they might want to speak, depending how the case looks like it's going here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. If you -- have you given your names to Kerry if you want to speak? MS. NICOLA: No, because it says they're supposed to give them to me, which is wrong. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Give them to Kerry. MS. NICOLA: No, give them to Kerry. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Give them to Kerry, okay. MS. NICOLA: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You sure you don't want to speak? MR. LETOURNEAU: I think -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We were told it wasn't necessary. MR. LETOURNEAU: Depending on how the case is going, I think, and the direction that the Board is probably moving in, I think -- Page 61 June 23, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, we probably would allow you to speak if we get stuck someplace and we want to know what's going on. But I'm sure Dee is going to speak for all of you. Okay, Dee. MS. PULSE: Good morning. For the record, Dee Pulse, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CEOCC20150022849 dealing with violation of Collier County Code -- Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 5.02.03(A), 5.02.03(D), 5.02.03, 5.02.03(F), 5.02.03(I), 5.02.03(G), and the Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance 04-41 as amended, Section 2.02.03 and Section 2.03.01(B). This is for a prohibited business activity taking place on property which includes, but not limited to, delivering and removing dumpsters, excessive noise, and it is a repeat violation on dumpsters on the property. Location is 721 Logan Boulevard South, Naples, Florida, 34119; Folio 38280090006. Service was given on May 4, 2016. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: One photo taken on January 8, 2016, by myself; two photos taken on June 2, 2016, by Investigator Plourd; five photos taken on June 3, 2016, by myself; and the aerial view of the property for 2016. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can I get a motion to accept the photos. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. MARINO: I'll make a motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second? MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. Page 62 June 23, 2016 MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MS. PULSE: Okay. I received a complaint in November of 2015 for running a business at this location. My site visit with Mr. George, who is the owner of Pee-Wee's Dumpsters, Incorporated, and that is the owner of record for 721 Logan, met him on January 8th. Revealed dumpsters on the ground, which is a repeat violation for Case No. CELUPM20110000047 heard by the Code Enforcement Board dated April 28, 2011 . OR4681, Page 2045. While researching the property, Mr. George obtained a business tax receipt located at this property dated January 12, 2016, in the name of Pee-Wee's Hauling, Incorporated. Also, my observations were various dumpsters would come and go from the property. I observed dumpsters being picked up and loaded onto a truck, which causes excessive screeching noise, as well as what appears to be employees on the property. Notice of violation was issued with the compliance date of May 31, 2016. Observed prohibited business activity then on June 2nd and 3rd, and I was advised by a nearby resident of activity occurring for over two hours from the time 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. on June 9, 2016. This case was prepared to be heard before the Board. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What's the zoning on that 721 Logan Boulevard? Page 63 June 23, 2016 MS. PULSE: Estates. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Are you permitted to have a dumpster on your property without a building permit? MS. PULSE: No, sir. You cannot have it on the ground. He does own several trucks that hold the dumpster but -- and those are allowed on Estates-zoned properties. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And I believe I was chairman when this was heard the first time. MR. MARINO: It's been going on for a couple years. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 2011 . CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. PULSE: The first complaint we have in our record is 2007. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: Well, they purchased it in January of 2007. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The Board heard this back then, and we were assured this wouldn't happen again, et cetera, et cetera. Well, there's nobody here from Pee-Wee's. Did you contact him? Is there any reason that -- MS. PULSE: I spoke to him yesterday. He assured me he was going to be here, and he is not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I know he's short, but -- okay. MS. CURLEY: I have a question. That concrete barrier wall -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. CURLEY: -- what's up with that? Is that -- MS. PULSE: That is a permitted fence structure. MS. CURLEY: It is? That's so neighborly. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Jeff, do you want to be sworn? (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. LETOURNEAU: We had a couple meetings with Mr. George a few months ago regarding this issue and some other issues Page 64 June 23, 2016 that he's had pending on his property, and we gave him some options. And he was, you know, yeah, yeah, I'm going to get this done but never did one thing, continued to do this operation. He knows that the neighbors are very upset. Obviously they are. They're sitting out here in the audience for a couple hours, you know, wanting some justice on this. And I just want to put up the home occupation ordinance. And if you look at the top line underneath the standards, it pretty much lays it out that this ordinance was put in place so that when a business is being conducted at a residential property, that it doesn't detract from the neighborhood. It's incidental, so it should be where the neighbors don't even know you're running anything over there. And this business is totally opposite of what's (sic) going on over there. He's got continuous noise, equipment. I mean, it's just -- it's not good for the neighborhood, and something definitely needs to be done about this. And that's pretty much what I wanted to say. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MARINO: This property's adjacent to the Vineyards, is it not? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. PULSE: Yes. If you see in the aerial, you can see the Vineyards property butted up to his property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, I think we're up to the point of does a violation exist or not. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I think we'd like to hear from, perhaps, some of the people in the audience. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Would you like to speak? You're in charge because you have a tie. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. BOII\NER: Yes, I do, so help me God. THE COURT REPORTER: And state your name. Page 65 June 23, 2016 MR. BONNER: I'm one of the neighbors. THE COURT REPORTER: State your name. MR. BONNER: My name is Mark Bonner, B-o-n-n-e-r, and I'm one of the residents there. My house is, like, the top house on the right center. May I point at it? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. BONNER: I live up there on the top. Geno Filetti (phonetic), who is out there, lives there. We have some folks from across the street and up there as well. And Geno can tell us, the lady who lives here and the man who lives there, they're both -- driving them out of their minds. All right. I moved into the Vineyards in 2009, and I think some of these folks have been there even longer. But we're all neighbors, including Mr. George. He's a neighbor of ours. You can throw a baseball from our house into his backyard. If he were dumping his stuff, the concrete or whatever he dumps, and you were sitting on our back porch, he'd be dumping it at the back of this courtroom, right. So it's really close. And it's -- you know, he's at it again. There's the "beep," "beep," "beep," "beep," "ka-bam." It makes the whole house shake. People can hear it across the street and down the street. And he burns stuff. Occasionally there's this, like, toxic -- whatever it is. Big bunch of stinging smoke comes flying out of his backyard right into everybody's house. So he's got to knock it off. And so we're looking for some order or some relief from you to order him to stop doing this. And not only that, to make it effective. Apparently just loading people up with liens -- and I've been listening to the prior few cases. Millions of dollars of liens landing on stuff, and it doesn't change anybody's behavior. So if there's a way of somehow coercing, is the answer really, Mr. George, to be a good neighbor, to obey the law as we have here in the Page 66 June 23, 2016 county, that's sort of the relief we're looking for. So maybe it would be worthwhile, actually, to hear from Mr. Filetti, who is a pretty articulate guy, if you will. But that's all I have for you is -- we're just looking for -- it's not like there's not a lot of property here in Collier County. If you want to dump stuff, you want to burn stuff or whatever, there's plenty of land here to do it in. You just do it -- don't do it in a residential district, that's all. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Were you here when the last case was heard? MR. BONNER: I was at home. I mean, actually it was Geno and the rest of the guys were dealing with it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did he stop? MR. BONNER: No, he didn't. There wasn't a hitch in his get-along. I mean, it's the same thing. We're thinking, oh, boy, we've been to the County Commissioners, you know, we're going to get some relief, and I think some relief was afforded. I think there was discussions with him, he was going to knock it off. And no perceptible difference before and after your orders. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. BONNER: Thank you. MR. MARINO: Wasn't there a violation the last time; he had a certain amount of time? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. That's why I asked that question, did he stop after we heard it the last time. You were here, Tony. MR. MARINO: Yeah. MS. PULSE: Mr. Kaufman. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. PULSE: The previous case was a land use. This case also includes land use but occupational licensing as well as business tasks. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Yes, sir. Page 67 June 23, 2016 MR. SAADEH: Commissioners, my name is Michael Saadeh. I'm the President and CEO of Vineyards Development Corporation. I've been on this property for 30 years this year. I've developed the entire Vineyards. And our company had bought the land in '59 that is currently known as the Vineyards. It's a planned unit development. It's a very beautiful community. We've done a lot, not just for the Vineyards residents, but for the Collier County in general. We've donated county park sites; we've donated county school sites; we've donated sites for fire protection. So we've been a good neighbor for years, and this gentleman here is taking the law and bending it in 10 million different ways. I mean, I own lots in the Estates. I still own some lots in the Estates. And it's basically residential zoning. If you want to run an office in there, you want to have a telemarketer or something, nobody knows you're there. But this guy does a hauling operation out of a residential property backing into a beautiful planned unit development, disrupting tens and tens of people. I could have loaded the room today with 100, 200, 300 homeowners who will speak. We didn't want to take up your time. It's clearly that this is in gross violation of the zoning ordinances, of everything that's allowed in the residential district, and it's becoming a nemesis for the homeowners. I think the staff acknowledges this. I think your staff is doing a very good job trying to deal with it. And I think this guy needs to be at some point -- I mean, fines are not working with him. Warnings are not working with him. I think -- if this is not his -- if this is not his homestead, I think the county can foreclose on that property and toss the guy out, be done with him. I mean -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That was a question I was going to ask. Is this property homesteaded? MR. LETOURNEAU: No, it's not. It's owned by a business. Page 68 June 23, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. SAADEH: Thank you very much for your time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MR. LETOURNEAU: I would just like to clarify one thing. It is Estates property, but he is correct; it has, you know, single-family homes on these properties. May I? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, sir. MR. GRAY: Bruce Gray. I'm a resident of Hammock Isles and also the president of the homeowners association. I want you to know that it's gone beyond the initial complaint and hearing. He's burning toxic trash now. I mean, I'm out there all the time walking my pets. There's gribbles of burnt plastic raining down on us. This is not just a matter of annoyance anymore. This is public safety and health, and we are really, really requesting something be done other than fines. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Unfortunately, the fines is one of the only things to motivate people. Now, this is a repeat violation. So if I'm not mistaken -- Tami, you correct me if I'm wrong -- it's $1,000 -- MS. NICOLA: I think that's -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- maximum fine. MS. NICOLA: -- right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Which can be imposed as soon as tomorrow or the day after, whatever. And that -- if we find that is an alternative for us, this goes -- it's not a homesteaded property and you are correct, it can be foreclosed on, so... MR. GRAY: I appreciate it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We'll address it. MR. MARINO: My question is, wasn't he found in violation at the last hearing and he's under the rules of that violation and fines? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He was found in violation, from my Page 69 June 23, 2016 memory. MS. PULSE: For land use. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. I remember him walking down the aisle here. He was going for back surgery or something. And Gerald said, excuse me, and he whipped around, and Gerald said, I guess your back isn't so bad. I remember that. MR. MARINO: I mean, that's got to be a year. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, it was a couple years ago. MS. CURLEY: So I had a question. So this -- the dumpster violation is the newest violation of January 8, 2016? MS. PULSE: No, the occupational license case. The land use case previous, in 2011, had to do with dumpsters on the ground, and it's a repeat violation now. MS. CURLEY: So what's happened since 2011 and now? I mean, these neighbors have just sat there and had all this -- MR. MARINO: No, they were here before, also. MR. FILETTI: He's increasing his operation as we speak. There are more trucks coming in than before. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You have to speak at the microphone so that we can get it recorded. You want to be sworn in. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And could you give us your name. MR. FILETTI: My name is Geno Filetti. I was here in 2011. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. FILETTI: And the operation that he has now has expanded tenfold from what it was back then. He has another trucking company come in and dump debris to his property where he sorts it out and burns whatever he has to burn, and then they haul the rest back to wherever they come from. And it's not -- before it was just the noise, and now it's the burning. And in the summertime -- I live there all year-round -- the Page 70 June 23, 2016 garbage residue on the containers emains (sic) a terrible smell, which you can smell it. We are at a point where we cannot sit on our lanai anymore. Between the noise, the smell, and the burning, life is almost impossible. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. FILETTI: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. Dee, do you -- any other comments from the Board or, Dee, do you have some suggestion that you can put up? MS. PULSE: Yes. MR. LAVINSKI: Why can't we use the -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Any more speakers? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sheriff? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The comment I was going to make was covered. Thank you. MS. PULSE: Have you determined a violation exists? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We did that, that the violation does exist. Did we vote on that? MS. CURLEY: No, we didn't. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We didn't? MR. LAVINSKI: I'll make a motion a violation does exist. MS. CURLEY: I'll second that. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. Page 71 June 23, 2016 MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. MARINO: My question is -- I'm a little bit confused. I've been on the Board for how many years. This has been in a violation for a lot a years. Is he still working on that violation and the fines from that? MR. ASHTON: That was a different violation day, wasn't it? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It came before the Board; we found him in violation. I don't remember what the penalty was at that time. I'm only guessing that he said he wouldn't do it again, and that's why I asked the question, was there some slowdown in what he was doing it at that time? MR. FILETTI: Very short. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And then it just migrated into where we are today. MS. PULSE: Yes. I actually made site visits on a daily basis, because it is hard to observe the activity taking place. You can't be there 24/7. So I made visits on a daily basis, and I also asked them to call me when they would observe activity taking place, and I could usually be there quickly. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, from the pictures that you have shown us, there are dumpsters on the ground -- MS. PULSE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- which is a clear violation. It is a violation that was in existence years ago. This is a repeat violation. Okay. So why don't you put up on the View-Master there what your suggestion is. MS. PULSE: Okay. It's that the Code Enforcement Board orders Page 72 June 23, 2016 the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$65.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Number one, must cease all prohibited home occupation business activities and follow the guidelines of the Collier County Land Code Enforcement Code 04-41, as amended, Section 5.02.03 within blank days, or there will be a fine of blank per day until violation is abated; Number two, must cease any and all uses other than what this Estates-zoned property is intended for by removing all unauthorized dumpsters to an area designated for such use or by keeping them loaded on approved commercial vehicles or storing them in a completely enclosed permitted structure within blank days or there will be a fine of blank per day until the violation is abated; Number three, 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. Well, I did ask Tami the maximum fine -- this is a repeat violation -- is $1,000 a day. My question for Jeff is the part where it has the use of the county Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions. Do you have any comments on that? MR. LETOURNEAU: I've got a couple comments. And I'll answer that. But before we get into that, I would also like to -- we spoke with the business tax receipt office, and they're underneath the Tax Collector, and they advised us that if the Board put into the order some request of Code Enforcement to -- or some order to Code Enforcement to request the Tax Collector -- Page 73 June 23, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Revoke. MR. LETOURNEAU: -- revoke the business tax receipt, that they would take a hard look into revoking it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: I would like to add that to the order. As far as the Sheriffs Office goes -- and it will be up to the Sheriffs Office in how far they would want to go on something. I really don't know. I mean, that's our standard -- that section is our standard, what we put in every order. I'm not really sure if they're going to go in there and make Mr. George stop doing what he's doing. I think the best way to go about this is talk to our county attorney and look into foreclosure or, you know, possible threat of foreclosure to Mr. George. Nothing seems to be getting through to this man so, obviously, we have to go and take some, you know, more drastic steps. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The last time he paid all his fines; do you recall? MR. LETOURNEAU: I'm not sure if he did. I can't -- MS. PULSE: There's also another case that's accruing fines daily. MR. LETOURNEAU: He's got an unpermitted -- when we came in for that last one, he had an unpermitted garage, which he's never taken care of. That's been getting fines since, what, 2011, I believe, so he's got -- MS. PULSE: Yes. MR. LETOURNEAU: He's got massive fines already on this property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, can we put in this recommendation that we are requesting the county to foreclose on the property? I know that's the purview of the county attorney. MS. NICOLA: I can't see that we can. I think that is -- I think that's up to the County Attorney's Office whether they want to foreclose on it. We assess the lien and then it gets recorded, and then Page 74 June 23, 2016 they take the recorded lien and file the foreclosure. MR. L'ESPERANCE: We can make a recommendation? MS. NICOLA: I think there could be a memo to the county attorneys, but I don't think it would be appropriate to put it in the order, in all honesty. MS. CURLEY: I have a question about the testimony of the residents. In light of what they're saying, the smells and the fumes, is it an FWC issue or an EPA issue where you could then turn it over to another component for enforcement, for investigation? MS. PULSE: I'm in the process of working with pollution control, but that's for another -- that has nothing to do with the smoke. I did let them know that as soon as they see smoke, they should call the fire department and have -- and ask them to make a site visit to determine even what is being burned. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, fining somebody and having fines accrue and nothing being done by the county on that makes it a farce. So I do want to recommend that we do put something in the order to strongly recommend to the county that they take the necessary action to start the ball rolling, for a lack of a better term, towards foreclosure. MS. CURLEY: We can follow the proceeding that Jeff noted about the corporation -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. That, I think, Dee already added, right? MS. NICOLA: I just don't -- I don't think that the Board has standing to do that, Bob, in all due respect, because the -- the directive has to be against the -- against the property owner. It can't be to the county to do something. I don't think we can direct the county to take action. I think we could do a separate memo that says, this -- you know, this is a very severe violation, and we think you should look closely at this. But can Page 75 June 23, 2016 we direct the county in our order? I don't think that we can. I just don't think it's appropriate. I mean, I know that we'd like to, but I just -- in my opinion, under the -- under the laws, I don't think that we can. I don't think it would be enforceable. It would be like putting something in a court order that's not enforceable to say we think you should do this, but we really can't. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You know, if this was a case where it was a homesteaded property, I understand the rules there. What is it, Statute 163? It's not. And because it's not, this is absolutely flaunting our orders. It makes us irrelevant. And whether we should do it or not, we'll do it. I'll put that in, and I betcha the Board supports me. To show our -- if we have a case that fines have been accruing since 2011 and nothing's being done, and these citizens are being hurt by that, that's gone far enough. If you want to get ahold of the County Attorney now and ask him what we need to do to get it done, we'll be more than happy to listen to the County Attorney. MR. L'ESPERANCE: This is a recommendation, not a directive, correct? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. That's all. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Just a recommendation? MS. NICOLA: Well, it's going to go into an order, and it's like a separation-of-powers issue. I mean, we've got the Board here. We make the orders, and the county enforces the orders. And so I think that what needs to happen from this end is we enter the order, and we suggest to the county maybe by way of a memo, that we've got a second violation, an egregious violation of a corporation that owns a residential piece of property that they're using for business purposes and that they need to take some action on it. I don't think it's the purview of this board to take the action. It's the purview of the County Attorney's Office to take the action. It's like Page 76 June 23, 2016 the difference between the Sheriffs Office and the State Attorney's Office. The Sheriffs Office issues a violation. The State Attorney's Office proceeds on the violation to bring it to court. That's how I look at this. MR. LETOURNEAU: Is that your same recommendation on them ordering us to ask the Tax Collector to revoke the business tax receipt? Because that was pretty much their -- MS. NICOLA: Well, you know, you can ask it, but it's still going to be up to them to do it. I mean, I think it's -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's why it's just a recommendation. MS. NICOLA: Foreclosing on a lien is like they're going to have to actually file a court proceeding. They're going to have to file a lien foreclosure. And in looking at this, you know, from a lawyer's standpoint, my guess is that what this person has done is he's formed this corporation in order to try to figure out a way to get around, you know, being a homeowner so that he's not individually liable, so then you've got to pierce the corporate veil, and you get into all kinds of other legal issues with that. But the bottom line is what's going to have to happen here is the County Attorney is going to have to sign a legal complaint, take our order that says that he's in violation once we impose the liens, and he's going to have to impose that lien and file a lawsuit. And we can't make somebody do that. I think they should. I mean, from hearing this case, I think somebody needs to take some action. But can we make them? I don't think we can. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any idea how much fines have accrued from the 2011 case? We don't generally do anything less than $100 a day. MS. PULSE: I can't honestly say. I have a 100,000 my head. MR. LETOURNEAU: We don't have -- I'm not -- it's five years Page 77 June 23, 2016 of at least $100 a day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. MR. MARINO: I think it was more than $100 a day. MR. LETOURNEAU: And it probably is more than $100 a day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I'm just brainstorming here the best way to get somebody's attention, whether we need to go to -- who is your county commissioner, by the way? MR. SAADEH: Tom Henning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Unfortunately, he's not running again, however -- MR. SAADEH: But he hasn't retired. He's staying until November. Can I make a suggestion? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think that his office should be notified as well. MR. SAADEH: He has been. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And? MR. SAADEH: Can I make a suggestion? If you will impose as many fines as you can on this individual and then, as a board, write a letter to the County Attorney's Office requesting what Tami just said that you couldn't put in the order, we will back up it up on our end. I'll meet with the County Attorney personally and discuss this with him. I've talked to the County Manager about this. Commissioner Henning's very aware of it. There's a couple other commissioners I've spoken to. So we can meet it on other ends as well. Just, you know, whatever; if your maximum is $1,000, I recommend you fine him the $1,000. Let's keep putting that extra pressure on now, and then maybe Mr. Pee-Wee will wake up one day. But we will come on the other end and meet with the County Attorney and request the foreclosure issue. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I just think that if this individual hasn't paid in five years, then I don't know if just issuing the Page 78 June 23, 2016 fines at this time are going to motivate him anymore; whether it's he owes 100,000 or 500,000, he's obviously -- MR. SAADEH: It puts him to the point where he has to walk away from it, because the property won't be worth that much, and then he'll have to walk away from it. And because it's a corporation, he's not liable personally, so the easiest thing would be to walk away. So the higher the numbers keep piling up, the more he has an incentive to walk away. And I recommend very much so that they revoke his license on that operational thing that he's circumventing the system with, and now he's facing a lot more issues than he was facing four, five years ago. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. SAADEH: Thank you. MR. BONNER: Mr. Kaufman? MS. CURLEY: I agree, because the county will revisit these fines if there's a new owner. We've been through that before. And we might, you know -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: -- be able to address that. MR. BONNER: Mr. Kaufman, if-- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, sir. MR. BONNER: If I can just add my two cents' worth. This board has or commission has, you know, paid a lot of attention to this case, obviously, read the file, and has five or more years of history with this person. Putting a recommendation in your order is different from putting an order in the order. And that recommendation would not only be read by Mr. George who understands that you're recommending that the County Attorney take action on this matter, but also it will, I think, help the County Attorney. So it is one thing to -- obviously, you can't order what you don't have the authority to order, but you certainly can memorialize the Page 79 June 23, 2016 sense of the Commission that something needs to be done, as you pointed out; otherwise, it's all just a waste of everybody's time. So I don't see any reason in the world why you couldn't recommend that the County Attorney take action. Let Mr. George read that. The County Attorney would see it. You can send the County Attorney a letter too. That's my -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And I don't know if there's any big difference between a separate letter to the County Attorney or putting it in the order as a recommendation. MR. LETOURNEAU: I would defer to the County Attorney on this one. I think that she was correct on all accounts, what she was saying. I mean, I'm not a lawyer, but it sounded very reasonable. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can we draft a letter from the Board to the County Attorney recommending that they take a close look at this violation? It's a repeat violation, those words, and it's been a violation for the past five years, and that the respondent is flaunting the law in any way he can. It's time to act on this, something to that -- MR. LETOURNEAU: If you guys draft that letter, I'll personally give it to the County Attorney. MR. ASHTON: Tami can draft it? MS. NICOLA: I'm happy to do that. I mean, it would be interesting to take a look and see what this company has done with this property because -- and I tried to pull up some of the public record information, but it won't let you do it on an iPad, unfortunately, but I mean, he could be the kind of guy who has taken out all kinds of loans on this property, and he's just riding it out. I mean, it could be worth 4- or $500,000, and he could have this thing loaned to the max. He's running his business for as long as he wants disturbing all these kind people. And it might be part of a more nefarious plan. Who knows? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, you draft a letter, and I'll sign Page 80 June 23, 2016 it. MS. NICOLA: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay? MS. NICOLA: Sure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So that's part one of our recommendation. Part two: We need a letter drafted that will go to the request to revoke, and it's only request to revoke his -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Business tax -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- business license, tax license. MR. LETOURNEAU: Business tax receipt is what it's called. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Tax receipt, yeah. You changed the name. Okay. Which brings us back to the case. MR. LAVINSKI: Well, a couple years ago, Jeff, didn't you guys issue a cease and desist on a property on 951, and that worked the next day? It was a lot -- I forgot the investigator's name. But a lot had been dug out, fill brought in, and they were going ahead to build something until she went by and said, hey, here's a cease and desist. That's the end of the work. It stopped. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I can even tell you who it was that had it. It was Michaelle Crowley had it. MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, Michaelle. She issued a cease and desist. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It was on the corner of-- MR. LAVINSKI: 951 . CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Two main roads. MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. MR. LETOURNEAU: I'm sorry. I'm drawing a blank on that, though. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: When you get old, your memory sometimes -- Page 81 June 23, 2016 MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah, yeah, yeah. MR. LAVINSKI: Well, she testified in front of us that she issued a cease and desist order and they stopped. MS. PULSE: She may have issued a stop work order. MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah. We have what's called a stop work order which, you know, hey, we're not sure what's going on here. Please stop everything until we get this thing figured out, yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They put that on a permit board. That's different. MR. LETOURNEAU: Right. That's normally for -- if you go on a site, they don't have any kind of permits displayed, yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Which brings us back to, would anybody like to take a shot at filling in the blanks on Paragraph 1? MR. MARINO: I think you should handle that one. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I would say the 65.43 should be paid within 30 days. I'm going to say two days -- there's no big deal on stopping what he's doing in two days -- or the fine will be $1,000 per day. MR. MARINO: I'll second that. But let me -- see, does this say -- I can't see. What is it -- the amount of dollars on here? Section -- do we have to put the dollars in, or you just put them in? MS. CURLEY: He just said a thousand. MR. MARINO: No. I'm talking about the fine, not the -- not the fine, the other -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The other fines are not part of this order. So we need to finish this order and go from there. Then Paragraph 2, well, cease -- that's yours, cease and desist. Cease any uses other than authorization, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. MS. CURLEY: That's two days, too. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. Page 82 June 23, 2016 MS. CURLEY: Two days, a thousand. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Two days and a thousand, the same as the Paragraph 1 . MR. MARINO: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you move that paper up a little bit. Okay. The only thing else that I'm looking at here is -- and that's the sheriff. I know that's the same verbiage we use. I don't know what the sheriff could do in this particular case. If there was any way of involving the sheriff, I'd be more than happy to request it? But once the dumpsters are on the trucks, he could park a truck there with a dumpster on it, and he's not in violation; is that correct, Dee. MS. PULSE: Correct. MR. LETOURNEAU: As long as it's owned by a resident of that particular property. The truck has to be registered to that property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Or to that business that owns that property. MR. LETOURNEAU: Right, right. He can't have off-site employees coming in there picking it up, you know. There's all sorts of rules. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. But what could happen -- may be a stretch. If he's burning stuff there -- now, I don't know how you involve the sheriff or the fire department in that. MR. LETOURNEAU: I definitely -- if we see burning there, we're going to call the fire department in one second, and hopefully they can get the sheriff involved at that point. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MARINO: Did somebody say that they saw that other people were bringing garbage or dumping in there other than his own? MR. FILETTI: There's another trucking company with a different name on the door coming in and out of the property. Page 83 June 23, 2016 MS. CURLEY: Oh, really? MR. MARINO: He's using it for a dumping ground also. MR. LETOURNEAU: Unfortunately, Mr. George is not allowing us on the property to view most of these things that allegedly are going on. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, for those of you that have cell phones with cameras, if you see a truck pulling in there with a different name on it, it wouldn't be a bad idea to take a little picture of it. MR. LETOURNEAU: They have sent us some videos. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, sir. MR. ERNAMEYER: Hi. My name is Robert Ernameyer (phonetic), and I'm a resident from across the street. And we do have videos of the names of the other trucking companies. So we can submit that. There's various ones. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Have you provided that to Dee? MS. PULSE: Yes. We received those in an email. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So that's a different violation. MS. PULSE: Well, it falls along the same home occupation violation. MR. LETOURNEAU: It's just -- yeah, it's nonresident people that are coming onto that property doing business activities, which is prohibited by the home occupational license. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ERNAMEYER: Excuse me. There's also a video of the burning trash and the smoke going over into the Vineyards. MS. CURLEY: Nicely done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think -- MR. LETOURNEAU: I would suggest next time that happens that you immediately call the fire department. I mean -- MR. ERNAMEYER: We did. They were notified. Page 84 June 23, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did they come? MR. GRAY: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They didn't come? MS. CURLEY: You have to say there's a home on fire. MR. ASHTON: That's false. MR. GRAY: We did report it, and they said that residential -- do I need to go up? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. GRAY: It was reported. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hold on. THE COURT REPORTER: And your name again? MR. GRAY: I'm sorry. My name is Bruce Gray. It was reported by the, at that time, president of the Hammock Isles Estates Homeowners Association that burning was going on in writing to the fire department. And we received, it was either in writing or a phone call that residential trash burning is permitted, and that we would have to prove that it was nonresidential trash burning. MS. CURLEY: Just call 911 . MR. GRAY: So we got really nowhere with that. MR. MARINO: That block wall or concrete wall that's there, is there a home right behind that wall? Are there homes right behind that wall? MS. PULSE: Yeah. MR. MARINO: Can you see onto the property from there? MS. PULSE: Yes. MR. MARINO: So if there was burning or something like that going on, you could take pictures of it from behind that wall? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They have a video. MR. MARINO: They've got the video. MS. PULSE: There is a portion of that block wall that is lower than the other part. That's how I've been -- and I'm kind of short, so Page 85 June 23, 2016 that's how I've been getting my photos is where the block wall drops down slightly. MS. CURLEY: And isn't there -- I mean, I understand some zoning is for backyard burning, but isn't there restrictions for the distance from the edge of the property line or the distance from another neighboring home and the height of the flame? I know there's specific rules for burning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I thought you needed a permit to do that. MS. PULSE: I've heard that if you plan to have a fire, that you need to call the fire department; they come out and make sure you have all the safety issues in line, but -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did you happen to send your letter -- I don't know who to address this to. Did you send it to the chief? MR. GRAY: I did not send the letter. I'm not sure; I can't say for sure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Because they're all running for election this year. MR. GRAY: He sent it to the -- I believe it was the head of the fire district management. MR. MARINO: Fire commissioner of that district? MR. GRAY: I just couldn't say with authority. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I know we're making it impossible for you to get that. Okay. I think if you follow the instructions that Jeff has, you see smoke, call it in as a fire. I don't know what it is, it's behind a wall, if you don't want to exaggerate things. But I also thought that you needed a building -- you need a permit in order to have an open fire. MR. MARINO: You do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So if that's the case, I would think that the fire department would cite them or whatever they do, but we'll Page 86 June 23, 2016 see how this goes. And with the changes that were made on Dee's recommendation, did we get a second on that? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. MR. MARINO: I second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And all those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. So with everything now, hopefully this will get moving forward one way or another. And I would suggest that you keep in close contact with Dee on this. Okay. Thank you very much. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you for all your time and effort. MR. MARINO: Bye, Michael. MS. ADAMS: The next case is from No. 6, Old Business, Letter A, Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens. Number 1, Tab 7, Case CESD20140004241, Benjamin DMD Florida Holdings, LLC. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, sir? You're here. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'm here to ask for abatement of the fines on this property. I had the structures demolished within 30 days after I took possession of the property. So that's what I said I Page 87 June 23, 2016 would do, and I did. MR. LETOURNEAU: If you look down the line, No. B down at the bottom down there, he pretty much bought the property, 10 days later he got the permit, and within two months he had the whole property cleaned and clear. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: Can I make a motion? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, discussion first. Go ahead. MR. LAVINSKI: Why did we have two continuances? MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, we had previous owners that didn't do anything. And this gentleman came in right away, took care of the -- took care of the issue. You had two continuances with -- I don't know if it was one or two previous owners that just didn't do anything, so... MR. LAVINSKI: He rode in with a white hat. MR. LETOURNEAU: He did, yes. MS. CURLEY: Rock star. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Sue, you have a motion? MS. CURLEY: I make a motion to abate the entire amount. MR. MARINO: Second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any comments on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. Page 88 June 23, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you. Appreciate it. MS. CURLEY: Good citizen award. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 2, Tab 8, Case CEVR20140018858, Michael T. Johnson and Lori R. Johnson. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: For some reason I never got 8. I don't know why. MS. CURLEY: What's that? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I never got that in order in my package. MS. CURLEY: Number 8? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that your fault, Danny? MS. CURLEY: There's a revised 8. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I didn't get anything. MR. LETOURNEAU: I changed it yesterday. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. LETOURNEAU: I think -- MS. CRAIG: We're here to ask for the fees to be waived for this project. All the work was done, and the code case has been closed out. MR. LETOURNEAU: Can you state your name, please. MS. CRAIG: I'm sorry. Becky Craig. I'm with Mr. Johnson. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You are? MS. CRAIG: I am a family friend that has helped him with the case. Mr. Johnson is here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you have given permission for -- MR. JOHNSON: Yes, I did. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CRAIG: The case was officially closed in May. This case Page 89 June 23, 2016 has gone on, actually, for quite a while. Somewhere in the translation some of the paperwork got lost, but it has been cleaned up and everything has been done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Comments from the Board? Comments from the county? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah. Everything she's saying is true. There was -- it was a long process to figure out exactly what the ag exemption needed to be before they could get their vegetation removal permit. So Mr. Johnson and Becky worked pretty diligently to get this thing taken care of. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: Is this the -- the goat farm? MS. CRAIG: Yes. MR. JOHNSON: Yes. MS. CURLEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's the goat farm. MS. CRAIG: It is. MS. CURLEY: You did work hard. That wasn't that long ago. MR. ASHTON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So do you want to make a motion, Sue? MR. MARINO: Make it. I'll second. MS. CURLEY: Yeah. I'll make a motion to abate the entire cost of the fines. MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 90 June 23, 2016 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those who say naaahhh. (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. CRAWLEY: Thank you. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. MR. LETOURNEAU: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 3, Tab 9, Case CESD20150013948, Jack O'Connor. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. BALDWIN: For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violation: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06 (B)(1)(e)(i). Location of the violation: 230 5th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida; Folio 37164160008. The description of the violation: Two unpermitted structures, a steel building, and a Ted's Shed type structure without Collier County building permits. Past orders: On November 20, 2015, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order; respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinance and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the Board, OR5217, Page 2238, for more information. The violation has not been abated as of June 23, 2016. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at the rate of$200 per day for the period of May 19, 2016, to June 23, 2016, 36 days, for a total fine amount of$7,200. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of$64.59 have been paid. Page 91 June 23, 2016 Operational costs for today's hearing, $63.75. Total amount to date: $7,263.75. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you been in contact with the respondent? MR. BALDWIN: I have not in a few months. I was there yesterday. The building is still up, and no permits have been applied for to either remove the structure or -- structures or to permit the structures. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you know, was this reported by a neighbor or something like that, or -- MR. BALDWIN: It went back a little while ago. Yes, it was originally reported by -- someone was living in the guesthouse in the back, renting a guesthouse and renting a house in the front. That was the original violation. Also, Pollution Control had a complaint on the property as well by the same person, and we found many vehicles on the property. It was polluted in the back with oil stains, and that's how we came across the unpermitted structures on the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: We had a stipulation back in November, so I'll make a motion to impose the fines. MR. ASHTON: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Page 92 June 23, 2016 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Let's see. MS. NICOLA: Bob, it looks like 9:30 to me. You were right. MS. CURLEY: Yeah, that's the shortest longest meeting we ever had. MR. L'ESPERANCE: You're right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You know, it would have been okay except for all the lawyers we had here, including you. We have -- on the consent agenda, we have two reports here that are listed. Joe, you're going to be sworn in? (The speaker were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. MUCHA: For the record, Joe Mucha, Collier County Code Enforcement. Can I just summarize them both -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. MUCHA: -- into one thing? All right. The gentleman has eight permits that have been applied for. Two are in ready -- ready-to-be-issued status. There's been five -- I'm sorry. Yeah, five rejections and one that's still under review. And these are the first rejections. And just based on the area it's in, I'm sure there's some -- you know, some extra things that might be required, because it is out in the Everglades. So he's going to probably have to come back and ask for more time, I'm thinking. He still has two months to go before the compliance date, but -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I remember this. We asked him -- we asked the county to provide an update for us to make sure that things were moving ahead, and it appears -- MR. MUCHA: He's trying. He's absolutely trying. He's been in touch with us. He's working. Page 93 June 23, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I think that -- I have no other questions of Joe unless somebody else does. (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you, Joe. MR. MUCHA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And anything else? MR. LETOURNEAU: Are we at comments? Right. Yeah, since we never say anything at these comments, we decided once we get some new investigators in here, we'd like to introduce them to the Board and the special magistrate. So I'd like to introduce -- come up here, guys -- Frank Balazano, is coming up first, and Ben Plourd is coming up after him. So you'll be seeing these guys up here shortly. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How you doing? You don't even have to swear yourselves in. We trust you, know your name, and -- MS. CURLEY: Are you from here? MR. PLOURD: I'm from Minnesota originally. I've been down here three years. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Warmer here. MR. PLOURD: Much warmer. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Especially in February. MR. BALZANO: Massachusetts, but then I've been here since '92 and jumped back and forth. MS. CURLEY: Well, welcome. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Welcome. We look forward to seeing you. These are additional investigators? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah. We have another one, but he was at the FACE conference, so we'll bring him in here next month. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And, Danny, you want to -- this is his first meeting. MR. BLANCO: How you guys doing? I'm Danny Blanco. I'm Page 94 June 23, 2016 going to be working with Kerry. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, great. Well, we welcome everybody. And with that -- MR. MARINO: Lunchtime. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to adjourn. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We are adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :38 a.m. COD E. NFORCEMENT BOARD • ERT KAUF AN CHAIRMAN These minu s approved by the Board on 7-2 c-( , as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC/COURT REPORTER. Page 95