Loading...
CEB Minutes 07/28/2016 July 28, 2016 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, July 28, 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 Kathleen Elrod James Lavinski Lionel L'Esperance Tony Marino Sue Curley Gerald Lefebvre Ron Doino Robert Ashton (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Tamara Lynn Nicola, Attorney for the Board Jeff Letourneau, Manager of Investigations Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Specialist Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA Date: July 28, 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,Excused Lionel L'Esperance Sue Curley,Alternate Kathleen Elrod,Alternate 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. June 23,2016 Hearing 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. Motions Motion for Continuance 1 Motion for Extension of Time 1. CASE NO: CESD20150017917 OWNER: RAFFAELE FABRIZIO AND JANICE FABRIZIO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR VICKI GIGUERE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,ORDINANCE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).POOL PERMIT PRBD20140514906 EXPIRED LEAVING POOL WITH NO PERMANENT SAFETY BARRIER CREATING A HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARD. FOLIO NO: 69770005842 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3158 SAGINAW BAY DRIVE,NAPLES 2. CASE NO: CESD20150018562 OWNER: ROBERT J.DOUGLAS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).DOCK AND BOAT LIFT INSTALLED ON IMPROVED OCCUPIED WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE REQUIRED PERMITS(S), INSPECTIONS,AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY/COMPLETION. FOLIO NO: 46420920009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 631 PALM AVE, GOODLAND B. Stipulations C. Hearings 1. CASE NO: CEROW20150021347 OWNER: CWABS INC CERTIFICATE HOLDERS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 110 ROAD AND BRIDGES,ARTICLE II CONSTRUCTION IN RIGHT OF WAY,DIVISION 1 GENERALLY, SECTION 110-31(A). EXPIRED PERMIT NUMBER PRROW2014082232201. FOLIO NO: 37987760009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3610 WHITE BLVD,NAPLES 2. CASE NO: CESD20160000177 OWNER: MARIA TERESA PAZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELE MCGONAGLE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A).ACCESSORY STRUCTURES BUILT PRIOR TO OBTAINING COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 82640280004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2480 ANDREW DRIVE,NAPLES 2 3. CASE NO: CESD20160008557 OWNER: BENDERSON DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC AND WR-1 ASSOCIATES LTD OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES: ORDINANCE NUMBER 2002-51 SECTION 8.3. PROPERTY OWNER HAS FAILED TO COMPLETE THE TRAFFIC COMMITMENTS OUTLINED IN ORDINANCE 2002-51, SECTION 8.3. FOLIO NO: 155884100 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 13995 TAMIAMI TRAIL N,NAPLES 4. CASE NO: CESD20150024662 OWNER: HUNTINGTON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 10.02.06(B)(1)(a)AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). REPLACEMENT OF WOODEN WALKWAYS WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY PERMIT(S). FOLIO NO: 236161001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: NO SITE ADDRESS 5. CASE NO: CESD20160004110 OWNER: MARVIN DRUMMOND AND BARBARA DRUMMOND OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED SECTION 10.02.06(B)(I)(a)AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR REMODELING OF THREE OF THE BUILDINGS ON THE PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 62257520203 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 11399 TAMIAMI TRAIL E,NAPLES 6. CASE NO: CESD20160000728 OWNER: PEDRO A. TUR AND BEXAIDA CARRALERO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELE MCGONAGLE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A). PERMIT PRBD20120409082 EXPIRED WITHOUT OBTAINING CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION. FOLIO NO: 54670001061 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 271 LEAWOOD CIRCLE,NAPLES 7. CASE NO: CESD20150017888 OWNER: JULIEN FRANCOIS LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A). OBSERVED UNPERMITTED INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS TO A STRUCTURE CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO:NEW WINDOWS,DOORS, ELECTRICAL WIRING, PLUMBING LINES/BATHROOM FIXTURES,AND PETITIONED WALL CREATING APPROXIMATELY 20 INDIVIDUAL SLEEPING ROOMS. FOLIO NO: 00124960000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 305 S 3'ST, IMMOKALEE 3 8. CASE NO: CESD20150015096 OWNER: UV CITE LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ARTHUR FORD VIOLATIONS: BUILDING AND LAND ALTERATION PERMITS,COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A). AIR CONDITIONING CHANGE OUT WITHOUT REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS, INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION/OCCUPANCY. FOLIO NO: 66262021764 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 81 BURNT PINE DRIVE,NAPLES 9. CASE NO: CELU20150022309 OWNER: HIGHLAND PROP OF LEE AND COLLIER OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR VICKI GIGUERE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 1.04.01(A) AND SECTION 2.02.03. COMMERCIAL VEHICLES/TRAILERS AND DUMPSTERS, NUMEROUS PILES OF VEGETATIVE DEBRIS AND MISCELLANEOUS PILES OF LITTER CONTAINING BUT NOT LIMITED TO,WOOD,PIPES,METAL,CONCRETE BLOCKS ON VACANT PARCEL. FOLIO NO: 00407320008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: NO SITE ADDRESS 10. CASE NO: CELU20150012185 OWNER: REALTY TITLE AND TRUST CO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 1.04.01(A). OBSERVED A WOODEN BOAT DOCK ON UNIMPROVED RESIDENTIAL WATERFRONT PROPERTY WITHOUT FIRST HAVING A PERMITTED PRINCIPLE USE. FOLIO NO: 46372680002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 715 PALM POINT DRIVE,GOODLAND 11. CASE NO: CEROW20150019121 OWNER: O'CONNELL J. BENJAMIN AND DAUGHN M. BENJAMIN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODES OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 110 ROADS AND BRIDGES,ARTICLE II CONSTRUCTION IN PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, DIVISION 1, GENERALLY, SECTION 110-30. DAMAGED DRIVEWAY APRON AND CULVERT PIPE. FOLIO NO: 67184720003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 86 RIDGE DR,NAPLES 12. CASE NO: CELU20140020537 OWNER: TRACEY DEWRELL AND MARA DEWRELL OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 1.04.01(A). OBSERVED A SINGLE-WIDE MOBILE HOME INSTALLED ON UNIMPROVED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 00129640008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3021 ALAMO DRIVE, IMMOKALEE 4 13. CASE NO: CELU20160003910 OWNER: JEFFREY N BERES OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 1.04.01(A) AND 2.02.03. FUSION MOTORS UTILIZING MORE THAN THE ALLOWED THREE PARKING SPACES ON THE ZONING CERTIFICATE ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPROVED SITE DEVELOPMENTS PLAN FOR THE STORAGE OF VEHICLES FOR SALE. ALSO, SEVERAL UNLICENSED VEHICLES ARE BEING STORED IN THE PARKING LOT SPACES IN FRONT OF THE BUSINESS. FOLIO NO: 76875000382 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3899 MANNIX DRIVE,UNIT 419,NAPLES 14. CASE NO: CEPM20160003810 OWNER: NAPLES PLAZA PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOHN CONNETTA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODES OF LAW AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 22,ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22-228(1). PRIVATE ROAD WITH DETERIORATING ASPHALT ON THE SIDES OF THE ROADWAY ALONG WITH SEVERAL POTHOLES ON THE ROAD ITSELF. FOLIO NO: 63000040007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6599 DUDLEY DRIVE,NAPLES D. Motion for Reduction of Fines/Lien. 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. CASE NO: CESD20150017917 OWNER: RAFFAELE FABRIZIO&JANICE FABRIZIO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR VICKI GIGUERE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A).POOL PERMIT PRBD20140514906 EXPIRED LEAVING POOL WITH NO PERMANENT SAFETY BARRIER CREATING A HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARD FOLIO NO: 69770005842 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3158 SAGINAW BAY DR,NAPLES 2. CASE NO: CESD20150018562 OWNER: ROBERT J DOUGLAS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A).DOCK AND BOAT LIFT INSTALLED ON IMPROVED OCCUPIED WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE REQUIRED PERMIT(S), INSPECTIONS, AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY/COMPLETION. FOLIO NO: 46420920009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 631 PALM AVE,GOODLAND 5 3. CASE NO: CESD20150016081 OWNER: ANTHONY JAMES MEERPOHL TRUST OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A)(E)(I). ALTERATIONS COMPLETED(GARAGE CONVERSION AND ADDED A ROOF WITH SCREENED IN AREA)WITHOUT COLLIER COUNT BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 70971200008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1324 ROSEMARY LN,NAPLES 4. 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 5. CASE NO: CESD20150017447 OWNER: DANIEL HERRERA AND GLENDA GONZALEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JUAN SERNA HERRERA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A)AND(E). INTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS ON A WOODEN STRUCTURE CONSISTING OF ELECTRIC, DRYWALL, INSULATION,FRAMING,TRUSSES, PLUMBING,ALL CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PERMITS,INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY AS REQUIRED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING. FOLIO NO: 30733560007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1316 ORANGE ST, IMMOKALEE 6. CASE NO: CESD20150003265 OWNER: WILLIAM T.CABAL OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR VICKI GIGUERE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A). UNPERMITTED STRUCTURES AND EXTERIOR LIGHTING IN THE REAR YARD. FOLIO NO: 38166040002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5941 COPPER LEAF LN,NAPLES 6 7. CASE NO: CESD20140017973 OWNER: GEORGE CALDERON AND CRISTINA CALDERON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A). AN ADDITION/STORAGE ROOM WITH ELECTRIC ATTACHED TO PRIMARY STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PERMIT(S), INSPECTION(S)AND CERTIFICATE(S)OF OCCUPANCY AS REQUIRED BY COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING CODE. FOLIO NO: 00061560000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4725 VIREO LN, IMMOKALEE 8. CASE NO: CESD20120013716 OWNER: BRANISLAVA CIRAKOVIC VUKOVIC,GINA RADENKOVICH,AND ALEKSANDAR H. RADENKOVICH OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JON HOAGBOON VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 10.02.06(B)(1)(A), 10.02.06(B)(1)(E),AND I0.02.06(B)(1)(E)(I). OBSERVED ALTERATIONS/IMPROVEMENTS TO STRUCTURE/PROPERTY AND NO COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS OBTAINED FOLIO NO: 62578800000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 10580 6TH ST,NAPLES 9. CASE NO: CESD20140000965 OWNER: MARICELA PEREZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).AN ADDITION WITH ELECTRIC AND A CARPORT WITH A WOODEN DECK ALL ATTACHED TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE,ALL CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PERMIT(S), INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE(S)OF OCCUPANCY/COMPLETION AS REQUIRED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING CODE. FOLIO NO: 34750000025 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4755 VIREO LN, IMMOKALEE 10. CASE NO: CESD20140019519 OWNER: STEPHEN SHANE CLARY AND CHRISTOPHER JASON CLARY OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A)AND SECTION 2.02.03. AN UNPERMITTED SECONDARY MOBILE HOME WITH UTILITY CONNECTIONS AND A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE WITH UTILITY CONNECTIONS. FOLIO NO: 110480002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 18960 IMMOKALEE RD,NAPLES II 7 11. CASE NO: CESD20150002399 OWNER: EVA M. SILVA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JUAN SERNA HERRERA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A).A MOBILE HOME PLACED AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS/STRUCTURES,WITH ELECTRIC AND WATER, BUILT WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PERMITS, INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY AND COMPLETION. FOLIO NO: 60180400007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 220 N 4TH ST, IMMOKALEE B. Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order C. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order 7. NEW BUSINESS 8. CONSENT AGENDA A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. NONE 9. REPORTS 10. COMMENTS 11. NEXT MEETING DATE- AUGUST 26,2016 12. ADJOURN 8 July 28, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, everybody. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board to order. The reason that we're delayed a little this morning is the court stenographer is either on her way or won't be here today, so that's the reason for that. Now for the beginning of the meeting. The respondent may be limited to 20-minute 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 Roberts Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that the court reporter, who's not here today, can record all statements being made. The proceedings is videotaped, so the court reporter will have the ability to transcribe at a further time. Any person who decides to appeal the 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. So in this particular case, since the court reporter isn't here, the minutes, which will appear at some time, will be at the Clerk of the Court to be pulled. So with that, if everybody will silence their phones and stand for the pledge. (Pledge of Allegiance recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't we start with the roll call, Kerry. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Robert Kaufman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. James Lavinski? Page 2 July 28, 2016 MR. LAVINSKI: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Present. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Ronald Doino? MR. DOINO: Present. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Tony Marino? MR. MARINO: Here. MS. ADAMS: Ms. Sue Curley? MS. CURLEY: Here. MS. ADAMS: Ms. Kathleen Elrod? MS. ELROD: Here. MS. ADAMS: And Mr. Robert Ashton has an excused absence. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, and for this meeting Kathy will be the voting member of the board. We have the minutes to approve. Anybody have any comments on the minutes from the last meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing -- MR. LAVINSKI: Move to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to accept. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 3 July 28, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay, now we are up to changes to the agenda, which we have many of. MS. ADAMS: Number five, public hearings/motions. Letter A, motions, motion for continuance. We have one addition. It's number 13 from hearings, tab 13, Case CELU20160003910, Jeffrey N. Beres. Motion for extension of time, number two, tab 16, Case CESD20150018562, Robert J. Douglas. The extension of time request only is being withdrawn. Also under motion for extension of time we have two additions. The first addition is from imposition of fines number eight, tab 22, Case CESD20120013716, Branislava Cirakovic Vokovic, Gina Radenkovich and Aleksandar Radenkovich. The second addition is from imposition of fines, number six, tab 20, Case CESD20150003265, William T. Cabal. Letter B, stipulations, we have one addition. It's number 11 from hearings, tab 11, Case CEROW20150019121, O'Connell J. Benjamin and Daughn M. Benjamin. Letter C, hearings, number three, tab three, Case CESD20160008557, Benderson Development Company, Incorporated and WR-1 Associates, Ltd. has been withdrawn. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Kerry, can I interject? Was tab one withdrawn also? MS. ADAMS: I'm sorry. That's correct, yes. Number one, tab one, Case CEROW20150021347, CWABS, Incorporated Certificate Holders has been withdrawn. Thank you. MR. MARINO: You're so good. MS. ADAMS: Number four on the agenda, tab four, Case Page4 July 28, 2016 CESD20150024662, Huntington Homeowners Association, Incorporated, has been withdrawn. Number five, tab five, Case CESD20160004110, Marvin Drummond and Barbara Drummond, has been withdrawn. Number nine, tab nine, Case CELU20150022309, Highland Properties of Lee and Collier, has been withdrawn. Number 10, tab 10, Case CELU20150012185, Realty Title and Trust Company, has been withdrawn. Number 12, tab 12, Case CELU20140020537, Tracey Dewrell and Mara Dewrell, has been withdrawn. And that's all the changes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, can we get a motion to accept the changes to the agenda? MR. DOINO: Motion to accept. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN. Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. MR. MARINO: That cleared the book out. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think that brings us to motion for continuance. Page 5 July 28, 2016 MS. ADAMS: Yes, the first motion for continuance is number 13 for hearings, tab 13, Case CELU20160003910, Jeffrey N. Beres. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think you're by yourself this morning, so -- INVESTIGATOR ASARO: It appears that way. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Tammy, why don't you -- MS. NICOLA: I've not done this before, so -- (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MARINO: That's good. MS. NICOLA: Thank you. My first time. Never had this job before. MR. MARINO: You're an attorney. You heard it -- MS. NICOLA: I've heard it a lot. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a letter that says: Thank you. You're request to be presented to the Code Enforcement Board -- they are looking for an extension of time, I believe? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. What do you know about the case currently? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Well, first of all, they are storing vehicles on the property more than allowed. There's probably about 25, maybe 30 vehicles. Per their zoning certificate they're only allowed three spaces. But also talking to the -- Ramon, the owner of Fusion, he is actively looking for a new place to conduct business. But it's going to take some time. So he's trying to find a place that's going to accommodate all the vehicles, and he's going to be -- it's also a financial situation too where he's going to try to find a place that's Page 6 July 28, 2016 going to be able to rent to him at close to what he's renting from Mr. Beres. So he just basically needs more time to find a new place. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm looking at this and the violation was first observed on March 10th. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And it's not a case where there's two or three extra vehicles, it's a case where you have how many extra vehicles? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: I'm going to say 25 to 30. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What's been done in the last four months? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: He's trying to place as many vehicles inside his storage, inside his unit, which is maybe he can fit five or six in there. He's trying to relocate some of the vehicles. So he is trying but he hasn't made any headway yet. He's still looking -- like I said, last time I spoke to him, which was a few weeks ago, is that he is actively looking for a new location. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Have you mentioned why he's not here this morning? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: I had asked him to be here. He said he was going to be here on behalf of the property owner, so I don't know why he's not here. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is this -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hang on a second. Go ahead. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: And I spoke to Mr. Beres. Unfortunately he's out of the country and he won't be back, I gather, for another month or so. And he -- at this point he just can't do anything because he's so far away. MR. LEFEBVRE: Are there multiple tenants on this property? Page 7 July 28, 2016 INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Yes. Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: My thought is that it's not really fair to the other tenants when he's only allowed three spaces, the other tenants are trying to conduct business, and they have 25 cars. That could limit the amount of people that can come in, customers, for these other businesses. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Absolutely. MR. LEFEBVRE: So from March to now is three plus months, and now until October is another three months. So he's getting a free ride for six months. I would not agree to the extension. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Well, his contention, the owner of Fusion, his contention was that, you know, he was not aware -- he wasn't aware of the amount of spaces that he was allowed. And he says, why was I allowed to have a -- conduct business as an auto sales business where I can -- and I can only have three vehicles on site? So that was his contention. MR. LAVINSKI: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to deny the request for extension. Let's hear the case. MR. MARINO: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: I second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. Page 8 July 28, 2016 MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay, so we'll hear this when it comes up. The extension is done. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Thanks. MS. ADAMS: The next case, motion for extension of time, number one, tab 15, Case CESD20150017917, Raffaela Fabrizio and Janice Fabrizio. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Tammy, would you do your -- you're the attorney? MR. BONAQUIST: I am. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, so you don't have to be sworn, but County does. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, very good. You're two for two. MS. NICOLA: And we know Mr. Bonaquist will tell the truth, of course. MR. BONAQUIST: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm sure. You are requesting? MR. BONAQUIST: Right, a motion -- we had a motion for an extension of the deadline from the order that was entered on February 25th. There was a code violation where Mr. Fabrizio's pool -- and Mr. Fabrizio is here with me today, if we need testimony from him or anybody has any questions for him. Page 9 July 28, 2016 His pool was not completed and the permit was expiring. And at the time, what I explained to this body was that he had -- he was on his third contractor. And that contractor had evaporated and didn't do the work. So you provided him till June 24th to get the work done. We diligently immediately tried to find a new contractor, and ultimately found one a couple weeks later and brought them on board. And since that time it just hasn't happened yet, through no fault of Mr. Fabrizio. There was a suggestion by one of the members at the last hearing that perhaps Mr. Fabrizio had a problem with payment and that's why these different contractors weren't finishing. And since that time I've looked into it and Mr. Fabrizio was prepared to testify to the fact that there has never been an issue of payment. He's paid all of these folks. In fact, his pool should have cost him $60,000. He's got now over $90,000 into it, since he's on his fourth contractor. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're not going to hear the case now. We're just going through the request for an extension of time. And what extension are you looking for? MR. BONAQUIST: We're looking for 90 days. I spoke to the contractor's rep a couple days ago and he assures me he can get it done within that time. The problem was, once they were retained it took them three months to even get the permit put in their name. Despite haranguing, begging, pleading, hand-holding.g, hand holding. It just takes long. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I believe when this came up the last time I had asked, and I don't remember what the answer was, had this been reported to Contractors Licensing? MR. BONAQUIST: There's actually been -- Mr. Fabrizio has sued his first contractor with another lawyer who had a conflict, which was why I came in. So there's actually active litigation that was going on. So I'm not sure of how or when it was reported, but I know there was a lawsuit. Page 10 July 28, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Because this has been going on since February, which was several months ago. MR. BONAQUIST: I believe actually the permit was pulled in 2014. I think he hasn't had a pool now for two years. MR. MARINO: Geez. MR. LEFEBVRE: Wow. MR. MARINO: How much more has to be done to the pool? MR. BONAQUIST: I think it's just a question now of-- and Vicki, maybe you can answer this more accurately, but I think it's just a question now of getting inspections scheduled. There's a pressure test I know that's left to go. But for the -- there's no health and safety issue, the pool screen is up and is very, very close is my understanding. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And the county says? INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: For the record, Vicki Giguere, Collier County Code Enforcement. We don't object to the motion for extension of time. In reference to the pool permit itself, there are only seven inspections left; three of those are final inspections to be done. The permit has been extended and is valid until September. And the screen enclosure permit did pass its final inspection; they're just waiting on a spot survey. So there is no health and safety issue at this time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Questions from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: I know someone who just had a pool installed recently and they had no issues with it being completed. So -- and they're satisfied with their contractor. So this just seems like it's being dragged out way too long. And if we're that close to getting inspections done, it's simply calling the county and it's on the county, the county level to get these inspections done. And I don't think they're three months out to get an inspection. MR. BONAQUIST: The last time I was here I was concerned that we were going to be in the situation, know how long everything Page 11 July 28, 2016 had taken to that point, and you all advised me please come back and move for an extension if in fact it's the case that this is not going to happen within the timeframe. So we've done that. And I just think to be safe, 90 days would be the way to go so we don't have to come back and do this again. I would hope that this would get done much more sooner than that, but the way things have gone, it wouldn't appear -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we grant a two-month extension. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, so we have a motion to grant a 60-day extension from today; is that correct? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is it an extension or is it a continuance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Which is more proper? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, a continuance, the fines continue to accrue. An extension, they don't. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Continuance, please. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second that motion. MR. MARINO: Second it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just maybe as an order is maybe you should mention who makes the motion and who seconds it, since it's being recorded. It would be easier. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, the motion has been made by Lionel L'Esperance, and it's been seconded by Gerald Lefebvre. MR. BONAQUIST: If I may interrupt for one second, our motion was for an extension of the deadline so that there would not be an accrual of the fine. Page 12 July 28, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, okay. Then do you want to withdraw your motion? MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'd like to keep it as a continuance. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I mean, I think what you're faced with, if it's not a continuance, then they'll just deny the motion. So your choice. MR. BONAQUIST: Well, we'll take what we can get. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, I think the continuance is proper, just in case we're here 60 days from now going over this again. A continuance I think is proper. MR. MARINO: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Your question? MR. MARINO: Are these pool contractors here in Naples? MR. BONAQUIST: Well, three of them were, and one was from Fort Myers. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any other discussion on the motion? MR. MARINO: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? Page 13 July 28, 2016 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. So 60 days. MR. BONAQUIST: 60 days from today? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. BONAQUIST: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. ADAMS: The next motion for extension of time is from imposition of fines number eight, tab 22, Case CESD20120013716, Branislava Cirakovic Vukovic, Gina Radenkovich and Aleksandar Radenkovich. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You should get an award for being able to pronounce the names correctly as you do. I want to take a couple minutes here to read the request that was sitting at our desk this morning. Did you get it, Tammy? MS. NICOLA: I did. I read it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you may want to swear in the respondent. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Everybody had a chance to read it? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yep. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This case is like a history lesson here. I'm looking. It started on May 23rd, 2013. And you've been here several times. Why don't you state your case and we'll go from there. MR. LEFEBVRE: And the name. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Your name, for the record. MS. VUKOVIC: My name is Branislava Vukovic. And I want to thank you for opportunity. At this point the case is at the planning department for the approval -- actually building department for the approval. And I Page 14 July 28, 2016 believe, and I actually had opportunity to speak with Mr. John this morning and he said it's in the final stage, and they expect the approval any day now, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Just for the benefit of those who are not familiar with this case, can you just go over what the case is involving? What type of construction? This was a -- if I'm not mistaken, where it was one-family, two-family, three-family, whatever it was that was in question. MS. VUKOVIC: Correct. The property was purchased as a partnership between me and Mrs. Radenkovich -- so she actually owns it, I'm actually partial owner -- as a duplex. And we had a tenant at the time and she complained about totally irrelevant things. She didn't complain about being a duplex. But then because in Collier County Appraiser Office it's listed as a duplex and that's how I purchased it and that was the price that I paid. However, that unfold and now we are going to total revamp of the property, going through fire inspections, through driveway (sic) inspections, toelevation e evation certificates that had been requested, you know, like to be renewed. The construction inspection, electrical, all kind of possible inspections about this property which it's like totally irrelevant because it happened like three years ago. But again, I am here to, you know, do whatever it takes, whatever is necessary to do. And in the meantime I did submit $5,000 for the changing of zoning because I understand that was necessary. And all these engineering and I paid all these fees all the time. And, you know, property's basically, you know, not occupied at that time. And I'm happy to finish it. So it looks like the end is close. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you requested a variance, right, not a zoning change? MS. VUKOVIC: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Page 15 July 28, 2016 MR. MARINO: Was it just a property that was recorded wrong or something like that? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, it was recorded as it was stated, but -- MS. VUKOVIC: As duplex, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: As a duplex. MS. VUKOVIC: But they said it's not. And -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, and you say? Good morning. INVESTIGATOR HOAGBOON: Good morning. For the record, Jon Hoagboon, Collier County Code Enforcement. The county first of all doesn't have any objections. If you look at the entirety of this case, everything they've been through, the variance hearing, everything like that, they're very close with this permit that they acquired last month. They've been through two revisions. All they need right now is an elevation certificate. We're really, really close to completion here, so we -- MS. VUKOVIC: I believe we did submit elevation, sir. INVESTIGATOR HOAGBOON: Okay, but they're still back in on the county's part. They're reviewing it; it's under review right now. But the previous revisions they've done before have been, you know, reviewed. So it's almost done, hopefully. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm a little surprised as far as an elevation certificate. An elevation certificate,the elevation of the property, unless we have an earthquake, doesn't change. So whatever it was last year or the year before should be what it is now. INVESTIGATOR HOAGBOON: Maybe someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but they have to change the standards of when the building was originally constructed to the standards that are set today. MS. VUKOVIC: We did had (sic) the old one, but they requested a new one, so we did that as well. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did the elevation change? Page 16 July 28, 2016 MS. VUKOVIC: No. MR. LETOURNEAU: There might have been -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I rest my case. MR. LETOURNEAU: -- some new FEMA regulations that, you know, had to be adhered to, so -- but I don't know, there might not have been an original elevation certificate from when the property was built so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It wasn't required then. MR. LETOURNEAU: Right. INVESTIGATOR HOAGBOON: Typically it's easily the last thing I see when a permit -- if there is an elevation certificate involved, it's one of the last things that's needed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, so does it look like this is actually going to be completed in the next some time? INVESTIGATOR HOAGBOON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any -- INVESTIGATOR HOAGBOON: I would say -- I would hope 30 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you think 30 days would be -- MS. VUKOVIC: I pray to God that's all. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is there any work that has to be done to the property? INVESTIGATOR HOAGBOON: Does not look like it. MR. LEFEBVRE: It's just inspections? INVESTIGATOR HOAGBOON: Correct, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay, I make a motion to continue for 45 days. MR. MARINO: I'll second the 45 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion by Mr. Lefebvre for 45 days, and a second by Tony Marino. Any discussion on the motion? Page 17 July 28, 2016 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. So in all likelihood we probably won't see you back here for a while. MS. VUKOVIC: I should get a job here. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. ADAMS: Next motion for extension of time is from imposition of fines number six, tab 20. Case CESD20150003265, William T. Cabal. MR. MARINO: He's not here. (Investigator Giguere was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, Vicki, this one looks like it's been abated, so why don't you give us a little lowdown. MR. LEFEBVRE: Abated? INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: This one has not been abated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Tab 20? I'm sorry, wrong tab. MR. LAVINSKI: Earth to Bob. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Earth to Bob. Okay, hey. MR. MARINO: It happens after you get older. MS. CURLEY: There's an additional -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any other nasty comments from the Page 18 July 28, 2016 board on me? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, let me take a minute to read the request. MR. MARINO: That's a long story. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Has everybody read it? Your comments. INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: Sure. For the record, Vicki Giguere, Collier County Code Enforcement. The county does not object to this motion for a request for extension of time. Mr. Cabal has been working very hard to come into compliance. He is doing it on his own with the help of a contractor. And he has, as you can see in the letter, had some issues with an accident and some surgery which is why he's not here today. And the county did have this permit in their possession for over a month under review, for reasons unknown to myself. Finally it was issued at the beginning of June, and he since then has called in inspections on this. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And how far along is this? Is this going to take 90 days to finish? I know that's what they're requesting. INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: Due to the fact that he's working on it mostly himself, I would say yes. He is limited on some movement with -- I've spoken with him and seen him in person. He does have some limitations as far as how much he can do at once, so it will take him a little bit longer. But he is working on getting it done. He had one permit that he since canceled and is not doing the work on, so he came into compliance on that part. He also has a permit issued for the electric; that was an issue on the property as well. And like I said, for the carport permit, in less than a week after it was issued to him, he started calling in some inspections. And I believe including a final inspection he only has five inspections left to call in. Page 19 July 28, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, comments from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, the last sentence says he had a delay because Code Enforcement Office took a lot longer to review his case. Is that true or does he mean the permitting office? INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: He means the building department in the permitting aspect, yes. MR. LAVINSKI: So you guys are clean then. INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: I would hope so, yes. MR. LAVINSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any other comments from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: This case has been going on for a year. And sounds like it was a carport and a few other items. A year seems like a long time. I would be more inclined to grant a 60-day continuance. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, is that a motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: That's a motion, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion by Mr. Lefebvre to grant 60 days continuance, and seconded by Lionel L'Esperance. MR. MARINO: Is it a continuance or an extension. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Continuance. Okay, any comments on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'll give you my comment. Obviously this work was done from the beginning a year ago without pulling a permit. And for that he is responsible. So I don't think cutting this back to 60 days is improper at all. And 60 days, if it's done, then we'll go forward to see if there's going to be an imposition of fines or whatever. Hopefully it's done by then. Okay, any other questions or comments on the motion? (No response.) Page 20 July 28, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks, Vicki. INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is from letter B, stipulations. It's number 11 from hearings, tab 11, Case CEROW20150019121, O'Connell J. Benjamin and Daughn Benjamin. INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. You were sworn? Tammy? MS. NICOLA: I'm sorry. (Mr. Benjamin and Investigator Musse were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, why don't you read the stipulation into the record. INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Jonathan Musse, Collier County Code Enforcement. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Pay operational costs in the amount of$65.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing and abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County right-of-way permits and inspections through the issuance of a final approval to bring the right-of-way access to a permitted condition within 60 days of this hearing or a fine of$100 per day will be imposed until the violation is Page 21 July 28, 2016 abated. Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator to perform a site inspection to confirm compliance? That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance, and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You understand the stipulation as read? MR. BENJAMIN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Did you state your name for the record? MR. MARMOLEJOS: I have not. My name is Joe Marmolejos. I'm representing Benjamin O'Conner (sic). CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you have his permission to represent him? MR. MARMOLEJOS: Yes, we do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I have one question. We have a lot of culverts that -- and I know not all culverts are the same. But approximately on a standard driveway do you have any idea what the cost should generally be, in the neighborhood of? MR. MARMOLEJOS: It all depends on the width of the driveway. So anywhere between 1,000 to $3,000 would be my estimate. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Just for curiosity sake. Okay, any comments from the board? Any motions from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: I make -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, I'll make a motion that Page 22 July 28, 2016 we accept the stipulation as written. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll make a motion to accept the stipulation as agreed upon. MR. BENJAMIN: Thank you. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second, okay. Motion made by Mr. Lefebvre, seconded by Mr. Marino to accept the stipulation as written. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you very much. MR. MARMOLEJOS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The reason I asked that question, by the way, to the board about the cost of a culvert, we've had cases -- in the past we've heard a lot of culvert cases where people have quoted us $15,000 to do a culvert, and I just wondered, unless they're putting a culvert under Coastland Mall, I don't understand why -- MS. CURLEY: That's true. We had the Willoughby Acres, they were between eight and $12,000 a home. MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah, I think that gentleman underestimated the cost. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, I was just curious. Page 23 July 28, 2016 MS. ADAMS: The next case from letter C, hearings, number two, tab two, Case CESD20160000177, Maria Teresa Paz. (Investigator McGonagle was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, it looks like you're flying solo today. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you state your name for the record and give us a rundown on this case. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Michele McGonagle, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20160000177, dealing with the violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), accessory structures built prior to obtaining Collier County building permits. Violation location: 2480 Andrew Drive, Naples, Florida, 34112. Folio 82640280004. Service was given on January 26, 2016. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Two aerial photos from Collier County Property Appraiser's website, one from 2010, one from 2016. One picture taken by Investigator Giguere on January 6th, 2016; one picture taken by Investigator Musse on March 2nd, 2016; three pictures taken by me on July 13th, 2016; and two pictures taken by me on July 27th, 2016. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, could we get a motion to accept? MS. ELROD: Motion to -- MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have -- Page 24 July 28, 2016 MR. DOINO: Second. MS. ELROD: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The motion was from Kathy, and seconded by Mr. Lavinski to accept the photos. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: On January 6th, 2016 Investigator Giguere made a site visit and met with the property owner who escorted her to the rear yard where she observed two sheds and an aluminum roof connecting the two sheds, creating a covered patio. What you see up there right now is the 2016 aerial photo. Could you put the 2010 right beside it to compare? MR. LEFEBVRE: You can cover it a -- yeah. MR. MARINO: Yeah, that's different. Okay. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: On the right is the 2010 aerial photo, and you can see in the back left corner there is just the one shed. And then on the left is the 2016 aerial photo. In the center between the two buildings is where that aluminum roof structure is at. On the top right corner of that you can see a little bit of a green roof area. That's a little covered porch that was added. And then across the whole back left portion of that property is a shed and then another covered patio area. Page 25 July 28, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MARINO: Looks like they built up the whole thing. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Research revealed that permit PRBD20130101933 for a 16 by 20 shed with no electric and no concrete was finaled in 2013. That's not that picture you see up there. But no permit for the shed in the back corner of the property or the aluminum patio roof or the covered porch. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So that patio that we're looking -- that shed that we're seeing in the back of this picture was not -- INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Correct. The one that you can kind of just see the very end of it sticking out behind the house? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: With the gray roof. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Right here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Gotcha. That was permitted? INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: On January 25th, 2016 Building Official Walsh determined permits are required for the unpermitted accessory structures. A Notice of Violation was issued on January 26th, 2016, with compliance due on February 25th, 2016. There had been no contact from the property owner and the case was prepared for a hearing. On July 13th, 2016, I made a site visit and observed the property from the road and from the apartment building behind the property where I verified that the shed, roof structure and covered porch remain. That's the covered porch on the front right side of the property. This is a picture that I had took from the apartment buildings. This is looking at the back side of this shed, the back of the property. You can see where that shed is right up to the property line. And then on the left you can kind of make out where the white aluminum Page 26 July 28, 2016 covered porch area is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did setbacks come into discussion on this at all, or not? INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: No, because there's no permit or anything for the buildings. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Does the building appear to be occupied? INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Not that building, the whole site. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: When I was on site yesterday, there was a vehicle in the driveway. There is a gate on the front that's locked and a no trespassing sign. That trailer that you see right there in that picture -- this picture was taken yesterday. That trailer was not there on my prior visits. So somebody was there yesterday. I sat out in front of the property for about five minutes with my lights on my truck on; nobody came out. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: As of July 28th, 2016, there are no permit applications for the second shed, the aluminum roof or the covered porch. I've not had any contact from the property owner, and the violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Our first decision is whether a violation exists. MR. DOINO: I make a motion a violation exists. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion from Ron Doino that a violation exists, a second by Gerald Lefebvre. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. Page 27 July 28, 2016 MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. I wonder if we can take a five-minute break now. Cherie', welcome. So let's take five minutes. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The Code Enforcement Board is back to order. Cherie', just for your information, we are on case number -- tab number two. Tab number two under hearings. Everybody's been sworn. We just found that the respondent -- that a violation exists. And I'm about to ask Michele if she has a suggestion for us. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Yes, sir. For the record, case number CESD20160000177. Description of violation: Accessory structures built prior to obtaining Collier County building permits. Recommendation: That the Collier County Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$64.59 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within blank amount of days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. 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 Page 28 July 28, 2016 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. Before I ask for someone to try to plug in some numbers there, it concerns me that you've been unable to contact them. Did you post the building itself? INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And showing that the trailer showed up is probably a pretty good indication that somebody has, so I hate to say this Michele, but seems like they're avoiding you. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: The notice was gone from the fence when I had gone back a few days after I posted it as well. MR. LEFEBVRE: And one of the pictures also showed a Nissan Rogue, gray in color, in the driveway -- INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Yes, sir. • MR. LEFEBVRE: -- when you were there. So obviously there is some activity at the house. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you know whether or not there's a les pendens on this, or any -- INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- foreclosure? There's not. Okay. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, would someone like to take a shot at filling in the details as to what the fine should be per day and how many days we are looking for on this? MR. LEFEBVRE: I haven't heard that question in a while regarding if it's in foreclosure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Really. MR. LEFEBVRE: Market must be getting better. Page 29 July 28, 2016 I'll make a motion. Make a motion that all operational costs in the amount of$64.59 be paid within 30 days. 90 days for the demolition permit or certificate of completion, or a fine of$200 per day will be imposed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a -- MR. DOINO: Second. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- second? Take a pick. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you, Michele. MS. ADAMS: The next case is number six, tab six, Case CESD20160000728, Pedro A. Tur and Bexaida Carralero. (Catherine Tur was duly sworn as interpreter.) (Mr. Tur, Ms. Carralero and Investigator McGonagle were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: See, that was a complicated one, Tammy, you didn't have to handle. Page 30 it July 28, 2016 Okay. Why don't we begin, Michele, with this case. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Good morning. For the record, Michele McGonagle, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to case number CESD20160000728, dealing with a violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Permit PRBD20120409082, expired without obtaining certificate of completion. Violation location: 271 Leawood Circle, Naples, Florida, 34104. Folio 54670001061 . Service was given on February 15th, 2016 by signed certified return receipt. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: One picture taken by Investigator Scavonne on March 20th, 2012; two pictures taken by Investigator Athey on January 15th, 2016; two pictures taken by me on March 17th, 2016; and three pictures taken by me on July 13th, 2016. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Make a motion from -- has the respondent seen the pictures yet? INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: They have not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you show them to -- okay, did the respondents have any problem with those pictures being introduced to evidence here? THE INTERPRETER: No, they do not. MS. ELROD: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to accept the photos. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 31 July 28, 2016 MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: On January 15th, 2016, Investigator Athey made a site visit in response to a complaint and observed that (sic) the structure in the rear of the property. Research revealed Permit PRBD20120409082 was issued on June 29th, 2012, but expired December 26th, 2012 with no inspections or certificate of completion. On February 8th, 2016, Investigator Giguere verified that there is a valid permit 2010061889 for a covered open patio with no screen. But permit PRBD20120409082 that expired included changes to the covered patio. Notice of Violation was issued on February 10th, 2016 with compliance due March 9th, 2016. On March 17th, 2016 I made a site visit and observed the covered open patio had been extended to the rear and was enclosed on the left side with an exhaust fan installed in the wall. That's looking at the left side of the property, and you can kind of see -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I see the fan. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: I researched the property history and found that this has been an ongoing issue since 2007. The original permit for the covered open patio was issued in 2007 and re-apped twice before it got a CO. There have been multiple cases since 2008 where the property Page 32 July 28, 2016 owner built a canopy type structure off of the covered patio, removes it after code enforcement finds it's in violation and then puts it back up after a couple months until another complaint is filed. I talked to the owner's daughter, Catherine Tur, on May 17th, 2016 and responded to an email from her on May 27th, 2016, explaining that if the permit was not re-apped the case would be prepared for a hearing. There was no further contact from the property owners or their daughter and the case was prepared for a hearing on July 8th, 2016. On July 13th, 2016 I made a site visit and I observed the property from the county walkway behind the property where I observed the extension and enclosure of the covered patio. That's one of the pictures I took from the walkway area from the back side of the property. And this shows that whole extension that they've added onto the back side of that covered patio, and it comes right up to the fence. I've not had any further contact from the property owner. Violation remains as of July 28th, 2016. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is this a first violation or a second violation? INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: This is first time it has come to a hearing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. But it's been reported? Code Enforcement went out there on prior occasions? INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Many times, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Many times, okay. Okay, you've heard the testimony of the code enforcement officer. What do you have to say? THE INTERPRETER: He said that in 2013 we solicitated (sic) a permit and paid for an extension part wood and then the other part would be screened for the porch. And then we were authorized that we Page33 July 28, 2016 paid for it and we started doing the work and then the association in our neighborhood authorized us to stop. And then they authorized us to stop and warning that they were going to talk to us again, and then they haven't spoken to us about the permit anymore, and it's been like that ever since. And then the permits expired because we never went more to it since the association told us to stop. And they have not authorized us to keep going since then. But the permits were paid for already before the association told us to stop. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Has there been some reason why a conversation between Code Enforcement and the respondent has not happened? THE INTERPRETER: He said that the first time we got the notice that we did go into the office. And this part's more that I've been doing it since all the language barrier. My parents and I have been going together, and every time that we go, Michele has either been in the field or has been away. So she would call us and then I would either be in school or my parents were in work and we were unable to communicate for that reason. It's been back and forth with phone calls and going to the office and her being in the field, since it is her job. And then a few months back there was a different inspector on the case and he had talked to us and said that he didn't really see much of a problem, that it was going to be something that was quick. However, then the inspector changed to Michele and then started the problem with not being able to communicate because of times and jobs. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have a community association where this house is? THE INTERPRETER: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What have they told you? Page 34 July 28, 2016 THE INTERPRETER: That we cannot proceed any building until a debt that we have with them. MR. MARINO: It looks like they didn't even get permission from the community before they even started; is that correct? THE INTERPRETER: No, they did not. Because they were not aware that the association had to do it, since they thought the county was the one that did the permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's part of their HOA documents, Tony, whether they need to notify somebody or not. But the county requires a permit and the permit is not a permit -- it's not completed until there's a C.O. And obviously it looks like there never was a C.O. because they stopped work on it. THE INTERPRETER: He said that no, there wasn't any officers, and then we only did that part because we had to stop doing any construction because of the association. We were also -- we also had a permit to do something in the front, but since the association did stop us, we weren't able to do that part either. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Michele, do you have any questions of the respondent, or any comments on their testimony? INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: All I can say is, like I said, this has been an ongoing issue. I had printed up the multiple code cases that have been filed on this case. This has been an ongoing issue since 2009. This has occurred numerous times. The same thing. They did originally put this up after they had applied for that permit. And then it has come down, it's gone back up. That's why we're here today, because this is an ongoing issue. If you would like, I can also present further evidence, but I don't believe that's necessary. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't think it's necessary either. Okay, comments from the Board? Motions from the Board? MR. MARINO: I'll make a motion a violation does exist. Page 35 July 28, 2016 MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second that a violation exists. Let's have some discussion on the motion. MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah, I guess I'm a little confused. What is this permit applying to, just this fabric roof structure? INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: The permit application itself says new porch, new bathroom on front room, walls in rear lanai. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And that has never been C.O.'d. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Correct. The bathroom was never started. They never did any work on the front of the house, from what I have found. The only thing that they have done is the rear lanai and then that little extension they've added onto that lanai. MR. LAVINSKI: So that little extension is not even included in that permit. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So it's not just a permit that expired within without a C.O., it's also that work has been done without a permit. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any other discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 36 July 28, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay, we have found that a violation on the property exists. I'm going to ask Ms. Michele McGonagle if she has a suggestion on the cure. Michele? INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$65.01 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. 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. All right, anyone like to take a shot at filling in the blanks or any discussion on the recommendation from the county? MR. DOINO: I'll take a shot at it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. DOINO: $65.01 be paid within 30 days. Days within the hearing, 30 days. Fine of$100 a day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is there a second? (No response.) Page 37 July 28, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, that motion fails. Anybody else like to take a shot at it? MR. LAVINSKI: I'll do it. The $65.01 be paid within 30 days. That the time be 90 days or a fine of$200 per day. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Just a quick -- this neighborhood is developed with homes that are very close to each other. The lots -- they are smaller homes off of Radio Road. And I can see why the neighborhood homeowners association put a stop to this. And also, if they are -- their neighbors on either side probably wouldn't like this structure built. So I feel that a fine of$100 a day would be much too lenient, that 200 is much more appropriate. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I just wonder if there's any language -- since this has gone on up and down, up and down for quite a while, do we want to include any language that if this goes up again that will be a second violation? MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, that's -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That goes without saying. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I think that's implicit. MR. MARINO: They don't even have the authorization from the homeowners association, do they? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, that's debatable whether -- that's a civil matter whether the homeowners -- MR. MARINO: I'm talking about, you know, time-wise and everything else. So this thing could carry on and carry on. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, this motion with these remedies should prove effective that we removed. I don't know what Page 38 July 28, 2016 to do with that permit at that point. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, they would have to get a demo permit. MR. MARINO: They might have to take it all down, exactly. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, I don't know whether that requires a permit as far as demo. Jeff, do you -- MR. LETOURNEAU: That's a good question. Normally if a permit wasn't pulled and there's no utilities involved, they don't need a demo permit. But since there was a permit pulled, there might need to be one at this point. MR. MARINO: I have a question. What is the homeowners association telling them? MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, there is electric, I'm hearing, so -- MR. MARINO: Is there a standstill? What is it? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me comment on that. It's not applicable because homeowners association rules can't conflict with the county rules. That's number one. MR. MARINO: Exactly. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the remedy to resolve HOA violations is a civil matter that the county doesn't get involved in. Correct me if I'm wrong. MR. LETOURNEAU: That's correct. MR. MARINO: Understandable. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So -- MR. LETOURNEAU: I'm told that there is electric involved so they would need a demolition permit for this. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we want to include that in this motion, that a demo -- MR. LEFEBVRE: It is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, okay. MR. MARINO: Let them know. THE INTERPRETER: Before we start, they're asking if they Page 39 July 28, 2016 would have to demo the entire backyard, all the structures in the backyard. Entire roof. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: I'll show them what has to be done. MR. LEFEBVRE: Let me ask a question. Of the -- has anything been permitted except from the original structure? It's vinyl sided so it's a wood frame house. Anything beyond the back where the vinyl siding ends, has any of that been properly permitted? MS. ELROD: May I make a statement? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. LEFEBVRE: I directed a question to them. THE INTERPRETER: No, that part has not been included in the original permit, that it's a canopy. MR. LEFEBVRE: Again, my question: From the original structure, which is up to the vinyl siding, past the vinyl siding, the wood structure on the side with the vent and everything that's there, has that been properly permitted? Has anything been properly permitted and inspected and certificate of completion, I guess. THE INTERPRETER: The wall did have a permit; however, it's not been inspected. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. So that's the answer that I wanted. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So it's not C.O.'d. MR. LEFEBVRE: It's not certificate of completion -- INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: No. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- or certificate of occupancy. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Michele, do you have a comment on that? INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Yes. To answer your question, there is a permit for a covered open patio with no screen that has been C.O.'d, and that was in 2010, so that was added after the original structure. That portion has been permitted and C.O.'d. Page 40 July 28, 2016 They then enclosed the left side of that that's not permitted and then they've added canopy, like a canopy type structure to the rear of that property -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Which was the blue -- INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: -- and that also is -- MR. LEFEBVRE: -- the blue structure, then there it's wood underneath. INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you'll be able to direct the respondent as to what needs to be removed? INVESTIGATOR McGONAGLE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay? Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Michele McGonagle will work with you to let you know what needs to be removed. THE INTERPRETER: Thank you so much. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And it's important that if it's removed that it doesn't go back up, as was testified by the county, again. Because that would be a second violation, which is a much more severe violation. Okay? Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is number seven, tab seven, Case Page 41 July 28, 2016 CESD20150017888. Julien Francois, LLC. And I've just been given a stipulation for this one, so this is a stipulation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Swear them both in at the same time. THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please. MS. FRANCOIS: Gisella Francois, Julien's mother. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: She has the permission of-- MS. FRANCOIS: My son, yes. (Ms. Francois and Investigator Lopez-Silvero were duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: For the record, Steven Lopez-Silvero. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, Steven, you want to read the stipulation into the record? INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes, sir. Therefore it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Pay operational costs in the amount of 65.43 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 permit, inspections and certificate of completion and/or occupancy within 180 days of this hearing or a fine of$200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, I was looking at the days on Page 42 July 28, 2016 the stipulation. It was kind of blurry there. That's 180 days; is that correct? INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you understand the stipulation as written, that you'll resolve everything? You have six months to do it? MS. FRANCOIS: Yes, I'm going to do my best to resolve everything. I have to go pull a permit on that property. The property is my son's property. My ex-husband gave it to my son. I was not allow-- he didn't want me on the property 'til like two weeks ago when my son called me, say, mom, they sent me a paper, what do I do? And I said I'll help you. So I'm going to try to see if Mr. Andrew (phonetic) is out -- I already did the violation -- you know, the survey, I did a survey already for the property. So I have to get all the permits that I'm going to pull the permits and to the best I can to come here with, you know, something to you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm sure Steve will help you -- MS. FRANCOIS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- to let you know what needs to be done. MS. FRANCOIS: He's a very nice guy. He would definitely help me, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, very good. Well, we have a motion and a second. All those -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, A couple of questions. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. LEFEBVRE: This property was turned into 20 rooms or something? MS. FRANCOIS: It's not into 20 rooms, sir. No, it was not turned to 20 rooms. I guess when my ex-husband was dividing it he turned it into -- but he was not down. They wasn't turned into 20 Page 43 July 28, 2016 rooms, it was turned into seven big rooms. He had seven big room (sic). And they had things in it that he was storing his stuff in it. But it wasn't turned into 20 rooms. MR. LEFEBVRE: Was this a church originally? MS. FRANCOIS: Well, the previous owner had applied for a church and he didn't get the permit so then he sold it to my ex, and my ex-husband made my son buy it. So my son going to turn it into a house as soon as he finishes school. Right now he's in his first years of college, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: So -- but it's not occupied now? MS. FRANCOIS: No, no. It's basically -- I'm going to tell you the honest truth, he's -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I hope so, you're under oath. MS. FRANCOIS: Yes, he's renting it. He said my son was going to rent it to the people at the flea market to put their stuff in it because it's not being used so he could use the money to pay for school tuition. But I had told him that let's hold on, let me ask if you could do that, just for now till I get the permits so the house don't be vacant. Because it's like on Third Street and Second Street. So nobody go in and break anything or steal anything in it. That's it, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, as far as the building permits, though, let the respondent know what's permitted and what's not permitted when they do it and they'll have the inspections, et cetera, et cetera. So whether it's 20 rooms or two rooms, I guess that will be something that will come up later on, okay? So anybody -- I didn't ask for a motion on this before, I'll ask for it now. Anybody want to make a motion on this one? MR. LAVINSKI: I'll make a motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. MARINO: Second. Page 44 July 28, 2016 MS. ELROD: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The only thing I'd like to say is that it's six months, hopefully it won't be when your son graduates college. MS. FRANCOIS: No, I'm going to do my best to get it done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, very good. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. FRANCOIS: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Work with Steve, he'll guide you in the right direction. MS. FRANCOIS: They usually help me very good out in Immokalee. They usually sit and help me, you know, and tell me how should I do it. They're very good out in Immokalee. Very good. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Very good, thank you. MS. FRANCOIS: You guys did a wonderful job putting the team in Immokalee. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. ADAMS: The next case is number eight, tab eight, Case CESD20150015096, UV Cite, LLC. Page 45 July 28, 2016 (Shawn Cassel and Investigator Ford were duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR FORD: Good morning. For the record, Arthur Ford, Collier County Code Enforcement. I believe the respondent would like to address the board. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. CASSEL: I'm here for UV Cite. I'd like to request an extension for 30 days. The -- it appears that the air conditioning unit was permitted, installed and then never closed. The UV Cite is unable to get in contact with Andrew Shaffer. A registered letter has been sent, no response, and we are in the process of pulling a replacement permit to get the air conditioner closed out and a certificate of completion and occupancy. 30 da s. PY CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're requesting a continuance on this for 30 days to get this done; is that correct? MR. CASSEL: To get the new permit pulled and closed, which is in process. Correct, 30 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: OKAY. And you've turned the permit in on this already? MR. CASSEL: That I'm not aware of whether it's been turned in. I'm here just to fill in for UV Cite because they're in Miami and couldn't make it over this morning. So I don't know if it's been turned in. I know it's in the process. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What happened to the original permit? MR. CASSEL: After the installation of the AC, the contractor never contacted the county for the inspection to close it out. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I was wondering if this was ever reported to contractors licensing. INVESTIGATOR FORD: Yes, it was. They looked into it. Apparently there's some sort of discrepancy with payment and the contractor allowed the permit to expire, and from what I understand, Page 46 July 28, 2016 refuses to contact the respondent to kind of make good on it. And contractor licensing sent it back to us without prosecution. So now we're -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're here. INVESTIGATOR FORD: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: It's quite ironic that we're looking at one year today from when this was first observed. And to get a permit for an AC unit doesn't take a year to get it certificate of completion. Doesn't take a year. I mean, no matter what problem you have with your contractor, a year just sounds just so excessive. INVESTIGATOR FORD: Yeah, what had happened was I believe the permit was extended. Actually it was opened I believe in August of 2015. It expired or was close to expiring. Was extended February of 16 and expired May 25th. Apparently they were trying to work it out with the contractor between that time and I guess that fell through. So -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Just one quick comment. Ordinarily we don't accept -- there's a certain time frame that's required before you come before the board to request a continuance or an extension, and that time frame is more than five minutes. So in that regard I would be opposed to granting an extension on this. MR. LAVINSKI: I agree. I think we ought to hear the case. We can find it in violation, which it sounds like it is. We can still give the respondent the 30 days or 60 days, whatever he needs, but now we have the fines sitting in the agreement also to make some emphasis to get this thing done and over with. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we don't have to do much but hear the case right now. Because this was not on the agenda for a continuance or an extension of time. So having said all of that, the outcome will probably be the same thing. But why don't you present the case. Page 47 July 28, 2016 INVESTIGATOR FORD: Okay, this is in reference to case number CESD20150015096, dealing with violation of building and land authorization permits; permits, inspections, certificate of occupancy required. Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.2.6(B)(1)(a), air conditioner change-out without required Collier County permits, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy. Located at 81 Burnt Pine Drive, Naples, Florida, 34109. Folio 66262021764. Service was given July 31st, 2015. I would like to present the following case in evidence: Copy of the permit application, extension, dated February 25th, 2016, and expiration of May 25th, 2016. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen the exhibits? INVESTIGATOR FORD: No, they haven't. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you show it to them, please. And I do have a question. You are representing UV Cite, LLC; is that correct? MR. CASSEL: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Question. You stated that the permit originally was issued in August of last year. INVESTIGATOR FORD: Of'15, correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, there is a violation with the Contractor Licensing Board because it was first observed on the 28th of July. If a permit was issued in August, the person -- the company that installed this AC unit should know that they need to pull a permit prior to installing it. So in fact there was a violation. INVESTIGATOR FORD: Again, it was sent to contractor licensing, they sent it back for prosecution. So we did our end. Page 48 July 28, 2016 MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. But what I'm trying to say is a permit should have been pulled prior to the work being done. And it might not necessarily -- the permit expired, but they didn't pull a permit until after they were caught. INVESTIGATOR FORD: Correct. It should have been misconduct issue on the contractor. MR. LEFEBVRE: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is this contractor located in Collier? INVESTIGATOR FORD: I believe Bonita Springs. This is an older case, I kind of inherited it. So, you know, I just kind of have a paper trail pretty much to stand before you here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MARINO: You mentioned something about payment. Was that between a contractor and licensing board or between a contractor and the respondent? INVESTIGATOR FORD: And the respondent, correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, why don't you show the -- INVESTIGATOR FORD: I want to enter the other two as a copy of the code case report from contractor licensing who contacted the contractor that applied for the permit was Andrew Shaffer. He allowed the contract -- the permit to expire due to nonpayment of work completed, as reported. And email just from me and the respondent indicating that if they don't make good on the permitting and the abate the violation that we would be here before the board. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: A little side conversation while he shows him, this particular case, we generally discuss the homeowner is responsible, not a contractor. I find that a little disconcerting if it's a contractor rather than the property owner. MR. LEFEBVRE: What I'm trying to get at -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hold on, hold on. Jeff? Page 49 July 28, 2016 MR. LETOURNEAU: I'm sorry, I was looking at the contract. Can you restate that, please? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, ordinarily it's a person who has a home for instance that has a an AC swap-out and that if there's some problem with that the person who would be the respondent would be the property owner, not the contractor. MR. LEFEBVRE: Property owner is the respondent. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Unless the property owner is this person. MR. LETOURNEAU: I'm looking at the contractor licensing case right now. There seems to be some form of dispute between the property owner and the contractor early on. And I don't see any fines levied by contractor licensing on the contractor. I'm not really sure what went on. But normally if there's a contractor involved, the contractor would be the first person contacted and they would be required to abate any violation. But sometimes the contractors licensing can't get them to comply, they turn the case over to code enforcement and then we go after the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: Is that answering your question? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Almost. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm looking here, and this occurred at 81 Burnt Pine Drive; is that correct? MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And there's a homeowner at 81 Burnt Pine Drive. And the name of the owner of that property is UV Cite, LLC? That's what's confusing to me. MR. LETOURNEAU: Hold on, let me click on the ownership. MR. CASSEL: UV Cite, LLC is the owner who's an investment Page 50 July 28, 2016 company. The property is currently rented to a tenant. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, okay. Then I understand. It was a little confusing to me on that. Okay, do you have any problems with what is going to be shown as evidence? MR. CASSEL: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to accept. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Jeff is waving to -- MR. LETOURNEAU: No, I'm going to just go over the contractor licensing case with him. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mike is a little familiar with contractor licensing, I think. Okay. INVESTIGATOR FORD: Facts of the case: On July 27th, 2015, we received the report of air conditioner change-out without permits. The violation was confirmed by Investigator Musse and a notice of the violation was sent to the property owner. Page 51 July 28, 2016 Property owner received the notice on July 31st, 2015 and subsequently a permit for the air conditioner change-out was received on August 6th, 2015. The permit was extended February 25th, 2016 and expired May 25th, 2016. Contractor Licensing Department followed up with the contractor, Andrew Shaffer, who indicated they allowed the permit to expire due to nonpayment of work completed. To date the violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Recommendations. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, we're going to have the respondent comment. Any -- now is probably the best time to say what the situation is and when it's going to be resolved, et cetera. MR. CASSEL: My understanding is UV Cite, LLC would like to, or is in the process of applying for a replacement permit, getting the permit in place, then having the inspection done, then having the permit closed out with the certificate of completion and occupancy. And they've requested 30 days to complete that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you have no problem -- this is obviously a violation. We're going to vote on that whether a violation exists or not. MR. CASSEL: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sounds like it is. Anybody like to make a motion? MR. LAVINSKI: I'll make a motion a violation does exist. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any comments on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 52 July 28, 2016 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Now, you have a suggestion for us? INVESTIGATOR FORD: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We get around to it, it just takes time. INVESTIGATOR FORD: That the Code Enforcement Board -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hold on, can you put it up on the -- there we go. Okay. INVESTIGATOR FORD: That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $66.69 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and shall abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. 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. Page 53 July 28, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, now, would someone like to fill in the blanks? MR. LAVINSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Go ahead. MR. LAVINSKI: I'll make a motion that the 66.69 for administrative services be paid within 30 days. And you're looking for 30 days to resolve this? MR. CASSEL: Correct. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay, fill in the 30 days or a fine of$100 per day be -- MR. CASSEL: Do you feel I can get through permitting in 30 days? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: For an AC swap-out you should be able to. They have to do one inspection and I think that's about it -- MR. CASSEL: Just don't want to be back here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- check the drains. And you know what it is. Unless you want to make it more days? MR. LAVINSKI: Well, this doesn't sound like it's a death-defying issue, right? Okay, I'll make that 60 days or a fine of $100 a day, just to be sure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion. MR. MARINO: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. Page 54 July 28, 2016 MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. So we wound up doing what you wanted, it just took a little while to get around the block to do it. MR. LAVINSKI: And you got double the time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Instead of 30 days, you got 60 days. Thank you. MR. CASSEL: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is number 13, tab 13, Case CELU20160003910, Jeffrey N. Beres. (James Robellard and Investigator Asaro were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is the other gentleman going to testify at all? MR. ROBELLARD: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It won't cost anything; we'll swear you in just in case. MR. SNIDER: Mark Snider. I am the vice president of the condo association. (Mr. Snider was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, so we're starting with square one. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The case is? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: If you would like to hear the members of the association speak first or should I -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'd like you to speak first and then they can comment on what they have to say plus what you had to say. Page 55 July 28, 2016 INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Okay, I'll go ahead and present the case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Very good. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: For the record, Tony Asaro with the Collier County Code Enforcement Department. This is in reference to case number CELU2016003910, violation of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 1.04.01(A), and 2.02.03. Property is located at 3 899 Mannix Drive, unit 419, Naples, Florida, 34114. Folio No. 76875000382. At this moment I would like to present case evidence of two photos taken by myself dated 6/23/16. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And I understand the respondent is not present. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Yes, that's correct. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to accept. MS. ELROD: Second. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Page 56 July 28, 2016 INVESTIGATOR ASARO: On March 10th, 2016, I observed Fusion Auto utilizing more than the allowed three parking spaces on the zoning certificate associated with the approved Site Development Plan for the storage of vehicles for sale. I have spoken to the owner of Fusion Motors, Ramon, on several occasions and I have spoken to the property owner. To date the violation still remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. It's unusual to me to see a violation of this that's not the purvey of the HOA or the LLC that owns the property, et cetera. But that's neither here nor there. I understand your case, and would be glad to hear you. MR. ROBELLARD: Can I introduce the photographs that I have? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have to make a motion to accept those. MR. DOINO: Motion to accept. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. ROBELLARD: I bought the unit from Mr. Beres, as a matter of fact, a year ago. Closed in -- bought it in May, closed in August. My unit is the one to the far -- Page 57 July 28, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Go back one. MR. ROBELLARD: Go back. My unit is the one -- I'm in 420, which would be the one to the far right. Fusion is the one on the other side. They're double units; they go through all the way through. So there's really two units on each side. They've been operating this for -- and there are several complaints that have never been resolved -- operating an auto dealership. It's a Car Fax kind of franchise deal. So on any given occasion as you go through here, you can see that they deliver cars in the middle of the night from an auction up in Lakeland and just block my entrance. They -- you'll see some photos coming up there. There you see my unit open. I can't get out. That happens fairly frequently. There are 32 units in the building and 102, 104 parking spots. On any given day they take about 30 to 35 parking spots. And so they're over 30 percent of that. As you can see, on some days when they do the auto auction dropoff, there is a health and safety violation, because they double park and there's no way you can get the firetruck through there. When they did the fire inspection, I noted that to the Fire Marshal. They did talk to them. That violation continues to exist as well. So when you talk specifically about the homeowner's association, or condo association in this case, I think -- which is why Mr. Snider is here to speak on their behalf-- one of the problems you have with the homeowners or a condo association, under Florida Law 718 or 720, is there isn't a lot of enforcement ability. The board is suing them. You know, we were given a set of documents that has an 80 percent approval to change those documents. We've worked to get that changed. So from our standpoint, you know, we're working on our end from a civil standpoint to make the corrections. However, Ramon and Page 58 July 28, 2016 Mr. Beres continue to operate a business that quite frankly is successful. It's outgrown the thing and it's no longer appropriate for the business location. And so everybody in that development is now suffering both land value, health and safety and we'd like to see some -- a resolution. MR. LEFEBVRE: How long has it been there for? MR. ROBELLARD: The building -- Ramon says he's been operating for five years. Now, my impression was that when he did it he operated and sold within the unit, which I guess would be permissible. And he's now successful to where he has -- you know, it's a regular auto dealership. Detailing, oil changes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you had conversations with him regarding your inability to -- } MR. ROBELLARD: Yes. And Ramon is a very pleasant person. I mean, it hasn't been confrontational, let's say. But, you know, he refuses to make any changes. And in fact there's a second complaint that will be coming before you that I made last week. His solution has been to move 30 more cars out into the vacant property, which is the Toll Gate Naples LLC property just to the north, vacant property. And so there are somewhere between 30 and 70 cars in that particular property. So that's been his solution. And that's a second complaint that will be coming before you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, let's concentrate on this one. Any comments from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion that a violation does exist. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second that a violation exists. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) Page 59 July 28, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Do you have a suggestion for us, Tony? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Yes, I do. The Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of 64.59 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Complying with the approved Site Development Plan by only utilizing the three approved parking spaces and removing all unlicensed vehicles from the property not associated with the approved allowable parking spaces, and each vehicle that remains in the approved parking spaces must have a valid license plate affixed within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. 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, so these are unlicensed Page 60 July 28, 2016 vehicles. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Yes, they are unlicensed vehicles. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any comments from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Does he have a business license to operate here on the site? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Yes, he does. MR. ROBELLARD: And he has the DMV license as well. Because I've met the DMV person. And let me add one thing. You know, one of the solutions that the board looked at and we looked at was towing. And you say, why don't -- you know, we have a towing, you know, thing. Baker Towing is the towing for the association. Baker won't tow. Because they have no room to put, you know, 20 or 30 cars in there into their impound lot. So, you know, from our standpoint as a board, as a condo association, we're limited in that regard because, you know, none of the towing people want to take on that responsibility. The cars just sit there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, it seems that if nothing else this case will motivate the owner to move a little more quickly to move the cars, depending upon what blanks are filled in on this recommendation. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll be more than glad to fill in the blanks. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, Mr. Lefebvre. MR. LEFEBVRE: For the first violation, what's the maximum fine that would be allowed per day? If we can look at our rules. MS. NICOLA: I thought it was 500 for the first violation. I just want to make sure I have it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think it's 1,000. MR. MARINO: It is 500. MS. NICOLA: I thought 1,000 was for the repeat violation. MS. CURLEY: So I have just a question about what other Page 61 July 28, 2016 services were being performed at that company. You said they're doing oil changes? MR. ROBELLARD: Uh-huh. MS. CURLEY: Is there any like -- MR. ROBELLARD: You know, in the condo development there are a number of auto repairs, so it is permitted, you know. So that sort of thing. They do detailing. You know, think of it as a regular auto dealership; you get new cars in, they get detailed, they get the oil change. There is another issue with another occupant of the building that the board is pursuing civilly but, you know, that part would be probably allowable. MS. NICOLA: It is 1,000. And it says $5,000 is the max for repeat violation. Actually the max for a first violation appears to be 1,000. MR. LEFEBVRE: All operational costs be paid within 30 days in the amount of 64.59. The respondent will have 14 days from the date of this hearing or a fine of$500 will be imposed per day until the violation is abated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. MR. MARINO: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think that's sufficient to -- that's sufficient to motivate the gentleman to speed up his search for a place to put the cars. MR. LEFEBVRE: I feel he has plenty of time. If he's in business, he realizes that to have a proper location is imperative and obviously, like the complaint stated, that he's outgrown his space. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any other discussion on the Page 62 July 28, 2016 motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you, Tony. MR. ROBELLARD: Thank you. Can I -- for my own edification, is the fine per instance of parked car or one general? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One general. MR. LEFEBVRE: Per day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Per day. It's an expensive parking lot after 14 days. MS. ADAMS: The next case is number 14, tab 14, Case CEPM20160003810, Naples Plaza Property Owners Association, Incorporated. (Investigator Connetta was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. Looks like you're it today. INVESTIGATOR CONNETTA: I'm it today. Good morning. For the record, John Connetta, Collier County Code Enforcement, Property Maintenance Specialist. This is in reference to case number CEPM20160003810, dealing Page 63 July 28, 2016 with the violation of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article 6, Section 22-228-1, a private road with deteriorating asphalt on the sides of the roadway along with several potholes. Located at 6599 Dudley Drive, Naples Florida. Folio 63000040007. Service was given on June 1st, 2016. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: 10 photos taken by me. Exhibits A and B are dated March 10th, 2016. And Exhibit C is dated May 6th, 2016. The next four photos are dated July 27th, 2016. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We need a motion a motion to accept the exhibits. MS. CURLEY: Motion to accept the exhibits. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR CONNETTA: I'd like to show an aerial of the location that we're talking about first before I present the photos. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm familiar with the area. INVESTIGATOR CONNETTA: Dudley Drive and Larson Way Page 64 July 28, 2016 run off of Whippoorwill and Pine Ridge. It's across from the Naples Nissan dealership. There's approximately nine businesses back in that area. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you put that one back up for one second; I'll ask a question. There are potholes and whatever along the entire stretch, or in a particular area? INVESTIGATOR CONNETTA: Well, mostly on Dudley there's one or two right at the corner of Larson Way. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Should I ask who maintains that road? Or it looks like nobody, but -- INVESTIGATOR CONNETTA: Right, nobody. It belongs to the Naples Plaza Property Owners Association, Inc. MR. LEFEBVRE: The original PUD stated that they were to maintain that area, that road. INVESTIGATOR CONNETTA: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. ELROD: There's a hotel back there now. MR. LEFEBVRE: There's two hotels back there. INVESTIGATOR CONNETTA: There should be three photos, six there, and then I've got four more right here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No private conversations. INVESTIGATOR CONNETTA: We'll start with Exhibit A. This is the corner of-- this is pulling out of the Burger King onto Larson Way where you would turn to go out onto Pine Ridge Road. And Exhibit B shows the pothole directly in the middle of Dudley Drive. The photo on the right is a right-of-way where you can see where the asphalt from the vehicles is starting to deteriorate. The potholes -- the photo on the left is at the corner of Dudley where you would turn onto Dudley Drive from Whippoorwill. The one on the right is where you would turn onto Whippoorwill from Page 65 July 28, 2016 Dudley, right next to the Kangaroo gas station. This is a photo where you would turn onto Dudley from Whippoorwill, showing that somebody had patched that pothole. There have been several that have been repaired but there's still a lot that remain in violation. That's the corner, if you turn onto Whippoorwill from Dudley. You see the corner where the asphalt is eaten away? Next one is going to be -- that's where you would turn onto Dudley from Larson, right next to the Circle K Shell Gas Station. And this last photo is going to be -- that's the -- where you turn out of the Burger King onto Larson Way. There's like a four-inch divot, pothole, crater. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you been in contact with the folks who are supposed to be maintaining the property? INVESTIGATOR CONNETTA: Yes. I was going to get into it. This case began on March 8th, 2016, after code enforcement office received a complaint from a neighborhood in the area of the road conditions on Dudley Drive and Larson Way. Apparently the Naples Plaza Property Owners Association, Inc. is not maintaining the road surface in the right-of-ways. A site inspection was conducted and I observed that there were several defects -- THE COURT REPORTER: Could you slow down, please? INVESTIGATOR CONNETTA: I'm sorry. A site inspection was conducted and I observed that there were several defects, deteriorated asphalt on the sides of the roadway and potholes on the road surface. A Notice of Violation was mailed certified registered mail and regular US Mail to the Naples Plaza Property Owners Association to abate the violation by June 16th, 2016. I have spoken with the president of the association, Mr. Rick Johnson, who stated that he has attempted several times to meet with Page 66 July 28, 2016 the association members to address the road conditions but all attempts have failed. Someone, I'm not sure who, has made several attempts to abate the violation by patching some of the defective areas, but they have not completely abated all of them. As of July 27th, 2016, the violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I guess it's time to decide whether a violation exists. Anybody like to make a motion? MR. MARINO: A violation does exist. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion by Tony, and Mr. Lavinski seconded. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Do you have a suggestion for us, John? INVESTIGATOR CONNETTA: Yes, I do. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$66.27 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: One, obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permits, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within blank days of this hearing for the repairs Page 67 July 28, 2016 of the roadway surface and sides of the roadway or a fine of blank per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Second, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. MR. LEFEBVRE: You might want to slow down. INVESTIGATOR CONNETTA: I'm sorry. MR. LEFEBVRE: We did this with Kitchell Snow a few years ago. INVESTIGATOR CONNETTA: 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, any discussion on the recommendation? MR. LEFEBVRE: I just have a question. I guess it's more administratively. If there's a lien imposed on this property, or violation found, what would it be attached to? Because it's a roadway. It's not like you're attaching a business. You're attaching an association. Will the individuals personally be liable, the businesses that are there? There are two hotels, there's an IHOP, Kangaroo, Rick Johnson, Burger King. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I guess the -- any lien would be against the Property Owners Association, which has assets. MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, yeah, the road actually does have its own folio, so we would attach it to that particular piece of property and the Naples Plaza Property Owners Association would be the people that would be responsible for the lien. I would like to also say that if they don't fix it, we're probably going to ask the road department to go in there and they would bill us Page 68 July 28, 2016 and that would be part of the lien we would put on the property. MR. LEFEBVRE: But what do you put a lien on? MR. LETOURNEAU: That road does have value. I believe it is a piece of property in Collier County, so -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Is it being taxed? MR. LETOURNEAU: That I cannot say. I imagine it is; is its own folio number. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's probably part of the whole association. MS. CURLEY: It does. And that becomes a problem for the future of anybody wanting to transact business with that association, whether it be get a loan or anything. It's going to be a cloud on the title. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is it going to be a cloud on the title on let's say Rick Johnson? MS. CURLEY: Every person who's a member of the association. So anybody who's in that -- MR. LETOURNEAU: I do believe Mr. Johnson is the head of the association at this time. INVESTIGATOR CONNETTA: Yes, he's the president. MS. CURLEY: So any member of the association by the covenants. No different than a condo association. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm assuming that all the businesses there pay a certain amount of money to -- and big shopping centers, clean up the refuse in the parking lot, et cetera, et cetera, and that's no different than this as far as maintaining the road. INVESTIGATOR CONNETTA: You would think. But according to Rick Johnson, he has spoken to these other members of the corporation. Because all those businesses are a corporation. He's just not getting any help. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, when they find out that there Page 69 ii July 28, 2016 maybe a cloud on them, I think maybe that will be a good Y motivational tool. MR. LETOURNEAU: John, do you know who made the attempt to fill the potholes recently? INVESTIGATOR CONNETTA: No, I don't. According to Rick Johnson, it wasn't them. MR. LETOURNEAU: Obviously somebody is concerned about it at this point. I think hopefully they're concerned about a lien coming on the property at this -- INVESTIGATOR CONNETTA: The other thing too is this road, there's a lot of volume, vehicle traffic on this road. There's a lot of deliveries because you've got the gas stations, you've got 18-wheelers. At the hotel you've got dump trucks staying there. So they're in and out. People use that Dudley Road as a shortcut to bypass the traffic light. Why wouldn't they want to maintain it? In order to get to those MR. MARINO: They have tractor trailers on there. INVESTIGATOR CONNETTA: -- eight out of those nine businesses in that area you have to use Dudley or Larson. The Kangaroo Gas Station has an entrance from Whippoorwill. But to get to those other -- for the patrons or customers to get to those other restaurants or businesses, they have to use Dudley or Larson to get back in there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If there was a great big hole in that road, you would close the road. And I believe the businesses then may be motivated to take care of the situation. And that probably would be the next step, should they not adhere to this. Now, would somebody like to take a shot at filling in the blanks? MR. MARINO: I'll fill in the blanks. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MARINO: I think it's 66.27, is that what it is, to pay within Page 70 July 28, 2016 30 days. They should have the completion in 14 days or a fine of$500 a day. I've hit those potholes many a times. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think 14 days is not nearly enough, because they don't have a consensus even of the members to try to get this moved forward. MR. MARINO: I'm thinking maybe that -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Hold on. MR. MARINO: -- would shake them up a little bit. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm not finished. And $500 a day I think is excessive. So that's just -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, we have a motion. Do we have a second on that motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, the motion fails. Would somebody else like to take a shot at the motion? MR. DOINO: I'd like to say 90 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, 90 days and a fine of? MR. DOINO: $150 a day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion for 90 and 150 with the 66.27 being paid within 30 days. Anybody want to second that motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll second that motion, because I think that will give ample time for the association to get together and try to come up with a resolution. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. Page 71 July 28, 2016 MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks, John. INVESTIGATOR CONNETTA: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is from number six, old business, letter A, motion for imposition of fines/liens. Number two, tab 16, Case CESD20150018562, Robert J. Douglas. (Mr. Douglas and Investigator Lopez-Silvero were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, this is an imposition of fines. Did you want to address the board? MR. DOUGLAS: Yeah, if I could. Everything's been taken care of; all the violations have been taken care of. We ran about three weeks over the period you graciously granted me. Problem was my contractor found out we had an extension and that behooved him to take more time to get everything taken care of. And according to him everything was fine, everything was going just great, and nothing was going on. I finally looked in at the last minute and waved my hands in the air and did the best I could. They've got it taken care of now. But, you know, I've tried to do everything I could. And Mr. Lopez probably will attest to the fact that I've done everything I could to get it taken care of in a timely manner, but it just didn't quite work out. I was kind of hoping maybe you'd waive the fines and fees at this point and I can get a good night's sleep and wash my hands of the whole thing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, you probably want to read this into the record, the order, the imposition order. Page 72 July 28, 2016 INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Then we'll go from there. INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: Violation is violation of Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41 as amended, Section 10.2.06(B)(1)(a). The location is at 631 Palm Avenue. That's Goodland, Florida. I don't have a zip code. MR. DOUGLAS: 34140. INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: Thank you, Mr. Douglas. The folio is 464209200009. The description of violation is dock and boat lift installed on approved waterfront residential property without first obtaining the required permits, inspections and certificate of occupancy. The past order was issued on February 25th, 2016. The Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of facts, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR 5247, Page 3188 for more information. The violation has been abated as of July 22nd, 2016. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of$200 per day from the period from June 25th, 2016 to July 22nd, 2016, for a total of 28 days, for a total fine amount of$5,600. Previously assessed operational costs have been paid in the amount of 64.59, and today's operational costs are 62.91 for a grand total amount of$5,662.91. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to abate. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to abate and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 73 July 28, 2016 MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. DOUGLAS: Thank you very much. Appreciate it, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sleep well tonight. MR. DOUGLAS: Thank you, I will. MS. ADAMS: The next case is number three, tab 17, Case CESD20150016081. Anthony James Meerpohl Trust. (Mr. Meerpohl and Investigator Short were duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR SHORT: For the record, Senior Investigator Eric Short, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is regarding violations of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended. Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and Section 10.02.06.(B)(1)(E)(I). The location was 1324 Rosemary Lane, Naples, Florida. Folio 70971200008. This was a garage conversion and an added roof with a screened-in area, all without Collier County building permits. Past orders: On March 24th, 2016 the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board OR book 5257, Page 891 for more information. The violation has been abated as of July 5th, 2016. Fines have accrued at a rate of$200 per day for the period from June 23rd, 2016 to July 5th, 2016, a total of 13 days, for a total fine Page 74 July 28, 2016 amount of$2,600. Previously assessed operational costs of$64.59 have been paid. Operational cost for today's hearing is $62.91 . The total amount, $2,662.91. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, could you state your name for the record? MR. MEERPOHL: Anthony James Meerpohl. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you're here probably to request something? MR. MEERPOHL: Yes, I'm here to request that the fines be abated or reduced. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, any comments from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Just wondering, were you the party that did this violation originally? MR. MEERPOHL: Well, I bought this house in 1987, and it was a two-unit home at that particular point in time. The house was built in 1964, as I remember. When the -- and it had been investigated twice before this last incident in 2015, and at both times it was found that those -- it was very evident that those things existed prior to me even buying it because of the condition of what I call the cabinets and things like that. All those improvements were like that from original. So in 1992 my step-father built a -- or we applied for a permit to build a porch on the back of the house. Now this is not the same porch that's in discussion now. And shortly after he applied for the porch he built the porch. He was a handy guy. Got it inspected. Because when I talked to my mom -- my step-father died. Without me knowing that it never got C.O.'d. I thought it got C.O.'d. Because when I asked my mom she said yeah, inspectors were out here. So life goes on. My mom died shortly thereafter too. I inherited Page 75 July 28, 2016 the house. I just leased it out. Because we'd always leased it out to -- you know, one party. It was a little one-bedroom one-bath efficiency on one side and a two-bedroom two-bath on the other side. So somewhere in the mid Eighties somebody complained that it was two units and met with the zoning folks and they said no, we see this is going to be grandfathered in because it's been like this forever. '92 I think -- not '92 but around 2002, 2004 I went through the same thing. And -- excuse me. (Cell phone ringing.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You have a duck in your pocket. MR. MEERPOHL: I thought I had it on airplane mode. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, it's a duck. It may be a cricket. MS. NICOLA: I've got to change mine. That's very effective. MR. MEERPOHL: It gets your attention, no doubt. MS. NICOLA: Everybody listens when you quack. MR. MEERPOHL: So I went through this at that point in time. Now, hurricanes come and go. The porch on the back that my step-dad built, no problem..The original porch that was built with the house, tile roof, got damaged during Wilma. I fought for about two and a half years with Nationwide Insurance because the tile roof they said didn't look like it had problems. Finally got the roof redone in 2006, 2007. And when I did that the garage service door, or the service door on the side of the house to the apartment, the roofer came to me and said, hey, you've got a bad leak there. It looks like that got compromised by the storm. And when I say roof, it was a, you know, like a two-foot overhang basically just to protect the door. So he said here's my suggestion, he said, we'll just extend it and put -- and, you know, you can put -- give it some support so it won't leak again. I said, okay, fine. Page 76 July 28, 2016 So he did the roof and then he did the porch and he said he pulled permits. Well, then I find out in 2016 he never pulled permits. Because he said he could get I think it was called express permit because of hurricane damage. So he found -- and he is a contractor here in town. Or was. I've tried to get in touch with him on some other issues, and now I'm getting certified letters back saying he's no longer at the address that's on his Sunbiz address and all that. So long story short, when this violation came up the new investigator said she went back and said hey, this larger roof never existed. I said yeah, I admitted to that before. I said but the guy pulled a permit, at least what he told me. And she says, well, there was no permit pulled. Well, that was news to me at that meeting. So -- and then the permit in the back, I found out that my step-dad never got the C.O., even though he applied for it. And when we applied for the permit, as I explained, on the permit it says two units. Then I was being told that you couldn't have two units on this property. Next door neighbors got three units, across the street's got two units. So I'm thinking, you know, why can't I have two units. Anyway, I was told it can only be single-family. So I'll agree to it. It's better for me anyway because I want to sell the property and I think I can sell it better as a single-family home than I can as a duplex. So we agreed to do it. My contractor said he thought for sure we could get it done in I think 90 days or whatever. So we apply. And during the course of construction there was a couple of delays. The biggest delay though was he decided to go -- I decided to go with all new hurricane-proof windows throughout the house. Make sense to me if I'm going to do part of it I might as well do all of it correctly. Page 77 July 28, 2016 Well, that took a couple extra days to get them in. Then it turns out that the doors weren't hurricane proof, even though Home Depot told me they were. They met the new codes. Evidently there was change in the code or something later on. So when the inspector came out, he said you've got to have shutters for the doors, because those don't meet code. Oh, well, my contractor had known about it but he didn't put it in the amended permit, maybe it was called? You know, he amended the permit at some point. Anyway, that caused like a 10, 12, 14-day delay. So that's why I'm here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So your question was did you do it and the answer was no. MR. LAVINSKI: Sorry I asked. MR. MEERPOHL: I didn't do it. No, I hired people to do it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the answer was no. MR. LAVINSKI: Sorry I asked. I'll make a motion to abate. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. MS. CURLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to abate. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) Page 78 July 28, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. Cherie', are your fingers tired right now? Why don't we take a quick 10 minutes. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board back to order. We are up to case number? MS. ADAMS: Number four, tab 18, Case CEOCC20150022849, Pee-Wee's Dumpsters, Incorporated. And before we get started, Mr. Chairman, the county would like to request that the original order for this case be amended. The -- on the second page, letter B, the part that's related to the business activities was not actually a repeat violation. So the last sentence in that part on part B says that it was an enhanced penalty under the law for repeat violation. Only part C regarding dumpsters was actually a repeat violation. So we would like to have that amended to remove the part about the repeat violation, if that's okay with the board. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I don't think it changes the fines. MS. ADAMS: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They're still in limits and whatnot. Okay, why don't we begin. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is that order amended so it will have to be rerecorded or -- MS. ADAMS: Yes, a new order will need to be prepared as an amended order to remove that sentence, and then we'll record the amended order so -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Is the board attorney very clear on what is going to be amended on that? MS. NICOLA: I understand. You're just amending the violation Page 79 July 28, 2016 under B, not under C. C remains. MR. LETOURNEAU: Just the last sentence. MS. NICOLA: Just the last sentence that says it's a repeat violation. Got it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Note that this is an enhanced penalty under the law for repeat violation is going to be -- strike it. MS. ADAMS: The county would like to have that removed, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Had we had a $5,000 fine, that would change things. MS. ADAMS: Yes. I believe you need to vote on that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to amend the order -- MR. DOINO: Second. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- as stated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: By Kerry Adams. MR. LEFEBVRE: By Kerry Adams. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: At the meeting on the 28th of July. MR. LEFEBVRE: Whose motion is this? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion -- MR. MARINO: Second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- and we have a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? Page 80 July 28, 2016 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Very good. MR. LEFEBVRE: Next meeting don't put me next to him. (Investigator Pulse was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, you look familiar. INVESTIGATOR PULSE: Good morning. For the record, Dee Pulse, Code Enforcement. Violation: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 5.02.03(A), 5.02.03(D), 5.02.03 and 5.02.03(F), 5.02.03(I), 5.02.03(G), and Section 2.02.03, 2.03.01(B). Location is 721 Logan Boulevard South, Naples. Also don't have the zip code there. The folio number is 382800990006. Description was a prohibited business activity taking place on the property which includes but not limited to delivering and removing dumpsters and excessive noise. Past order: On June 23rd, 2016 the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board OR 5290, Page 35 -- 3455 for more information. The violation has been abated as of July 1st, 2016. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Part B of the order, fines have accrued at a rate of$1,000 per day for the period from June 26th, 2016 to July 1st, 2016, which is six days, for a total fine amount of $6,000. Part C of the order, fines have accrued at a rate of$1,000 per day for the period from June 26th, 2016 to July 1st, 2016, which is six days, for a total fine amount of$6,000. Previously assessed operational costs of$65.43 have not been paid. Operational cost for today's hearing, $63.21. Total amount, $12,128.64. Page 81 July 28, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Ordinarily I would -- on a case that's been abated I would go to the respondent and say is there anything you'd like to request, but there's nobody here representing the respondent, so there's nobody requesting it. I would almost like to see this come back next month and let them know that if he's not here we're going to impose the whole fine because we have no choice since there's nobody here to request anything. MR. L'ESPERANCE: The costs have not been paid either. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. Have you been in contact with Pee-Wee? INVESTIGATOR PULSE: Yes, I talked to Mr. George on Tuesday, July 26th. He wasn't quite sure what this hearing was about, so I advised him about that. He stated that he called my supervisor, Supervisor Perez, because I believe he was going to be out of town today. But I told him within five business days he would have needed to request in writing that he wasn't going to be able to appear. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you been out there to see that everything is -- you did an inspection to see that everything's been abated? INVESTIGATOR PULSE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the neighbors and whatnot are happy, I hope? INVESTIGATOR PULSE: I have had a couple of phone calls from Vineyard residents stating the noise is continuing. However, the noise that he's describing is the trucks and the rear of the property from the beeping noise from reversing, and that is allowed on Estates zoned property. MR. LEFEBVRE: This is not the first time to the rodeo for -- I call him Pee Wee, but Mr. George. INVESTIGATOR PULSE: Correct. Page 82 July 28, 2016 MR. MARINO: It's been going on for a while now. MR. LEFEBVRE: So honestly, he should know the process. He's been in front of us several years ago multiple times, multiple times. My recommendation would be to impose the fines. There are avenues for him to appeal that, but again -- and he has not paid the operational costs, most recent operational costs. So I make a motion that we impose the fines. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. MR. MARINO: Third. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion? Anybody want to say anything? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have -- I have compassion for him as far as the amount of the fine. I don't exactly know what he did to come into compliance. I know that the dumpsters were on the ground, they had to be removed. INVESTIGATOR PULSE: He removed the dumpsters. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And it's unfortunate that the neighbors are still being bothered. I don't know what time the trucks come there, but I know how annoying that is with the beep, beep, beep at 6:30, 7:00 in the morning. There are certain restrictions I believe on what time that can happen. INVESTIGATOR PULSE: Well, the beeping noise on the truck is a safety mechanism. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, I understand that. But the trucks being there starting work -- I know you can't start working on a house that you're building prior to I think it's 7:00 a.m. in the morning, or after 7:00 at night. INVESTIGATOR PULSE: 6:30 a.m., construction nose. MR. LEFEBVRE: Let me ask you a question aside from this. Page 83 July 28, 2016 The beeping sound on a truck is allowed in Estates zoning. But what does it say that -- what can that pertain to? Can it pertain to a business or could it pertain to construction that's occurring to the property? Like a building of the house, does it specifically say in the Land Development Code? Because the beeping isn't related to construction of a home, it's related to a business that's on the property. INVESTIGATOR PULSE: The Estates zoned properties can have commercial vehicles, so it wouldn't necessarily be related to a business if it's a commercial vehicle. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. What I'm trying to -- and I remember him coming to us before very, very clearly. Mr. Kelly was chairman at the time. And I remember the audience, and I remember it was at the building on Horseshoe Drive. And looking at probably a row of people, eight or 10 people. And I remember those faces and them looking for relief probably six years ago. MR. MARINO: It's been going on for years. MR. LEFEBVRE: And for him to come back -- I wasn't here last month, but I'm appalled that he's still operating. And I think this amount here is a small amount to pay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: There's another question that comes up, we need to vote on this, but prior to that. We were made to understand that there were fines that had been accruing on this business for years. As a matter of fact, I wrote a letter -- do you remember the letter I wrote, Jeff? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, let's vote on this and then we'll talk about that a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. Page 84 July 28, 2016 MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. What we discovered at the hearing on this was that there was a code case and there was fines levied that continued to accrue. And my letter was to both the business license people and the county to find out what's going on. I mean, we just imposed this, is that going to stay on the books for the next 100 years, or what? MR. LETOURNEAU: I believe the County Attorney is still looking into the situation at this time. And I can't speak for the Tax Collector. They haven't really made any kind of move as far as his license goes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, I would hope that they MR. MARINO: Somebody's got to do something. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We imposed the fine. And again, I go back to what Mr. Lefebvre said about the people there being very unhappy. And to them they see this as just numbers on a piece of paper if they're still being bothered in one fashion or another. But hopefully we'll get a response from the County Attorney on that. MR. LETOURNEAU: I talk to him today, I'll ask him, and I'll have a report to you next month. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Very good. Thanks a lot, Jeff. Appreciate it. Okay, next? MS. ADAMS: The next case is number five, tab 19, Case Page 85 July 28, 2016 CESD20150017447, Daniel Herrera and Glenda Gonzalez. (Mr. Herrera and Investigator Herrera were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, you are here to request -- before I have you read this in, are you here to request something? MR. HERRERA: Yeah, I need more time on -- I need more time on getting my house fixed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm sorry, I can't hear you. MR. HERRERA: I said I need more time to get my house fixed. I got some inspections today and I got two more coming. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You're familiar with this, the background on this case? INVESTIGATOR HERRERA: For the record, Collier County Code Enforcement Juan Serna Herrera. Yes, I am. What had happened was a while ago the permit kept getting rejected, so it needed some corrections to come in, which have finally been submitted and the permit was issued on June 9th. And then the work started going. He's been doing the work by himself with the help of a contractor. And three inspections have been already -- two are for today, which is the framing, electrical rough and the plumbing rough-in is going to be for tomorrow. In total, 14 inspections are still needed before coming into compliance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The framing is a big one. It's -- INVESTIGATOR HERRERA: Yeah, yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any idea when you're going to be done? MR. HERRERA: No, sir. Depends on the permits, how long it takes. And depends on me, how often I go to work, if more often Page 86 July 28, 2016 there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It probably depends more on you than it does the permits. The permits are there. It's when are you going to finish the work and have the inspections. MR. HERRERA: It's kind of hard for me, you know, to be working and have a job, you know, the same time, you know. I'm trying my best, but I guess another 90 days or, I don't know, somewhere around there. MR. LAVINSKI: Well, the last stipulation you had 120 days, and what happened that you didn't meet that 120? MR. HERRERA: Well, like Juan was saying, there were delays on what I was doing, the permits and all that. That's why it takes a little bit of time, you know. And plus I'm the one doing it. And it's kind of hard for me to get funds to build more and more. I got to go to work and then make some money, then put some money in the house. If I had the money, maybe I can do it sooner than what I (sic) looking for, you know, more time. INVESTIGATOR HERRERA: What needed -- actually the reason why -- well, the information they needed was to provide framing and foundation plans with attached detail and additional information for HVAC and insulation, which was provided, and that's why it was finally issued. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That was issued in June? INVESTIGATOR HERRERA: Yes, correct. June 9th. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, June 9th. So that's not too long ago. What is actually being built? INVESTIGATOR HERRERA: What it is, it's a remodel of the interior of the house. Which a lot of the work -- I actually have pictures, a lot of the work has been done. I did speak a little bit to the contractor, and he informed me it shouldn't take too much longer. It's just getting the inspections done Page 87 July 28, 2016 and that's pretty much it. But he's done almost with the whole entire -- what he needs to do. He just needs to put in the insulation and dry wall and we should be good. MR. MARINO: What are we looking at? What do you think? INVESTIGATOR HERRERA: I would say 120 days. I mean, just in case. That way like all the inspections and everything can go through if possible. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion. And I don't know why this didn't come in front of us earlier. INVESTIGATOR HERRERA: We came before -- MR. LEFEBVRE: No, I mean today. If he was looking for a continuance we could have -- INVESTIGATOR HERRERA: We did, actually. We came on May 26th, but it was denied. So -- but the date wasn't due 'til the 29th, so it was the Saturday before. Like we came before time, but it was denied, so now we're here to ask for a little bit of time. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to continue for 90 days. And at that point I'm going to be hard pressed to give another extension. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion and a second for a continuance for 90 days. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 88 July 28, 2016 Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. HERRERA: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You better get cracking with your contractor, get it all done. And don't take off any Saturdays and Sundays. MR. HERRERA: I'll try not to. INVESTIGATOR HERRERA: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is number seven, tab 21, Case CESD20140017973, George Calderon and Christina Calderon. (Mr. Calderon and Investigator Lopez-Silvero were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you read the imposition in, and then we'll find out what the respondent has to say. INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes, sir. It is the violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended. Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). The location is 4725 Vireo Lane, and that's in Immokalee, Florida. The folio is 00061560000. The description of violation is an addition/storage room with electric attached to primary structure constructed without first obtaining the authorization of the required permits, inspections and certificate of occupancy, as required by the Collier County Building Code. The past order was on March 26th, 2015. The Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR 5138, Page 1210 for more information. On October 22nd, 2015, an extension of time to comply was granted. See the attached order of the board, OR 5210, Page 292 for Page 89 July 28, 2016 more information. On January 29th, 2016, a continuance was granted. See the attached order of the board, OR 5241, Page 1355, for more information. On March 24th, 2016 a continuance was granted. See the order of the board, OR 5257, Page 19 -- correction Page 917 for more information. The violation has been abated as of July 13th, 2016. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of$250 per day for the period between January 21st, 2016 and July 13th, 2016, for a total of 175 days, for a total fine amount of$43,750. The previously assessed operational costs have been paid in the amount of$64.59. Operational cost for today's hearing is $67.11, for a grand total amount of$43,817.11. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you're here today to request something? MR. CALDERON: I'm here to request that I have a -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You want to state your name on the microphone? MR. CALDERON: George Calderon. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, George. MR. CALDERON: I have finished all this things that I needed done, and I'm here for the final to -- saying that I'm done. And I don't understand about the fines. I thought there wouldn't be no fines. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Beginning in March of 2015 until January 21st of 2016, 10 months, we granted continuances or extensions of time for that 10-month period. After that 10-month period we imposed fines of-- was it $200 a day, I think -- 250 a day from then until you have your violation being abated. So if you add all of that up it comes out to $43,817.11 . So that's what the fines were. Originally -- did you handle this case from the beginning? Page 90 July 28, 2016 INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: No, sir, I was inherited with this case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we know who originally had the case? INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: I believe it was Investigator Maria Rodriguez. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: So what you're asking for is for the fines to be erased? MR. CALDERON: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to abate. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion and a second to abate. All those in favor -- MR. LAVINSKI: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hold on. MR. LAVINSKI: I'd like to bring to the board's attention, we had a stipulation agreement dated March the 24th, 2015 that said this was going to be done in 80 days. That -- 180 days has long gone. This has come before us three times when a normal case may come one time. I don't think it's proper and fair to any of the other respondents who have come in compliance either with one shot or no shots. So I don't think an abatement of this total amount is proper at this time in relation to all of this that's gone on. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have a suggestion on it? MR. LEFEBVRE: We have a motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, we have a motion on the floor, okay. So let me call it again. All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. Page 91 July 28, 2016 MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those opposed? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. The ayes have it, two voting no. Okay, we're done. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Your fines are abated. You don't have any fines. MR. CALDERON: Thank you, sir. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Except the operational cost. MR. LEFEBVRE: Not for today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The 64.59 was paid, Lionel. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you very much. MS. ADAMS: The next case is number nine, tab 23, Case CESD20140000965, Maricela Perez. (Ms. Perez and Investigator Lopez-Silvero were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, you want to read this case into the record? We'll start with that. INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: I do. Violation is violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). The location is 4755 Vireo Lane, Immokalee, Florida. The folio is 34750000025. The description of violation is an addition with electric and a carport with a wooden deck, all attached to the primary structure, all constructed without first obtaining the authorization of the required permits, inspections and certificate of occupancy and/or completion, as required by the Collier County Building Department. On August 27th, 2015 the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of facts, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was Page 92 II July 28, 2016 found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board OR 5194, Page 3104, for more information. On January 29th, 2016 a continuance was granted. See the attached order of the board OR 5241, Page 1347, for more information. On March 24, 2016, a continuance was granted. See the attached order of the board, OR 5257, Page 905, for more information. On May 26th, 2016 a continuance was granted. See the attached order of the board OR 5278, Page 2547, for more information. The violation has not been abated as of July 28th, 2016. Fines and costs are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of$200 per day for the period between December 26th, 2015 and July 28th, 2016 for a total of 216 days for a total fine amount of$43,200. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of$64.17 have been paid, and operational costs for today's hearing of 66.69, for a grand total amount of$43,266.69. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning. MS. PEREZ: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You want to state your name on the microphone for the record. MS. PEREZ: My name is Maricela Perez. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you're here to? MS. PEREZ: Actually requesting more time. Because I just handed in my plans that my affidavit, which was -- person was taking too long to complete. And that's the reason that we are here today. I handed them in to Alimar, she was going to hand them in today to Naples. I need more time to get that permit and then for me to fix whatever I have to fix. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What's happened since August of Page 93 July 28, 2016 last year? It's almost a year. MS. PEREZ: I've been struggling with my -- Antonio, affidavit person, to fix my plans to I can submit it. They got submitted twice and it got rejected because due to his mistaking, not putting in what he needed to do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This appears to be just a carport with a wooden deck. MS. PEREZ: It's a deck attached to the house and the room. It's not a carport. But it says carport. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It says addition with electric and a carport. So the addition is the room and a carport and a wooden deck. So there are three items; is that correct? INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ-SILVERO: This was another case that was inherited to me. I wasn't the original investigator. MS. PEREZ: Maria was the first one, Maria Rodriguez. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, we've met on this on August 27th, 2015 and then again on January 29th, '16, then again on March, then again in May. And now we're back here in July. MS. PEREZ: Yes, I understand. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why was this built without a permit to begin with? MS. PEREZ: It was my -- because my family was big and I didn't do the right steps to get the permits done. And that was the reason that I did the extra room. I have a family of seven. And it was my mistake. And I'm just trying to make it right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Comments from the board? MR. LAVINSKI: Here again, I think this is a case that's just drug on since the stipulation was signed, continuance after continuance. I just don't think it's right for everyone else who falls in line. I make a motion to impose the fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'll second it. Page 94 July 28, 2016 We have a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? MR. LEFEBVRE: Nay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The ayes have it. Fine's imposed. You have recourse to go to the County Commission to reverse this. I wish you luck in getting everything resolved. MS. PEREZ: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is number 10, tab 24, Case CESD20140019519, Stephen Shane Clary and Christopher Jason Clary. (Christopher Clary and Investigator Short were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Eric, you want to read it into the record? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Good morning. For the record -- or afternoon. Senior Investigator Eric Short, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in regards to violations of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and Section 2.02.03 of the Land Development Code. Location is 18960 Immokalee Road. Folio is 00110480002. Description is an unpermitted secondary mobile home with utility connections. Past orders: On March 26th, 2015 the Code Enforcement Board Page 95 July 28, 2016 issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board OR book 5138, Page 1184, for more information. On October 22nd, 2015, a continuance was granted. See the attached order of the board OR 5210, Page 272, for more information. On January 29th, 2016 an extension of time to comply was granted. See the attached order of the board, OR 5241, Page 1371, for more information. The violation has not been abated as of July 28th, 2016. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Part B of the order, fines have accrued at a rate of$100 per day for the period between June 24th, 2016 and July 28th, 2016, 35 days, for a total fine amount of $3,500. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of$65.43 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing, $65.85. Total amount to date, $3,565.85. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Can you state your name on the microphone. MR. CLARY: Christopher Jason Clary. MR. LAVINSKI: Mr. Chairman, before we move on, is there any way we can confirm that on January the 29th we granted an extension? Which is kind of highly unusual and I don't remember that happening. MR. LEFEBVRE: We can look at the order. It's right in our package. MR. LAVINSKI: That's what I was trying to locate. But I didn't seem to see that. MR. MARINO: I don't even remember the case. MR. LAVINSKI: It says on item A, appears that the respondent's motion for a continuance of this case was granted until January. And Page 96 July 28, 2016 then I don't see the January order in here. MS. NICOLA: I have a copy of the order. It was dated February the 9th. MS. CURLEY: You were not here last month, correct? MR. CLARY: No, I was actually incarcerated, and my brother had run into some problems with my belongings being in the home, and they were waiting -- they had granted until I was released from the jail. MS. CURLEY: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Here it is, right here. Extension of time. MR. LAVINSKI: We have a February 1. I don't see a January. MR. LEFEBVRE: February 11th is when it was recorded. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This thing goes back to March 26th of 2015, which is over a year and months ago. It has not been abated. What is the situation right now? Why hasn't it been abated? What does it entail to have it abated? MR. CLARY: Well, I'm close. I've been in -- during that period I was incarcerated for a year, 12 months in the county jail. I was released on May 9th. From the date I was released I got involved with getting my permits and everything. We submitted them. Then once the county submitted it, it ran into a problem with environmental due to the existing septic, so it was denied. So then I had to go through the steps through the environmental to get that resolved. So from May 9th to of this date I've got all my permits, everything up to date. I've removed -- the mobile home has been removed off premises. I took some pictures and stuff and spoke with Mr. Short in reference to it. And, you know, like I told him yesterday, I need some more time. I mean, the mobile home's been removed. I've got the septic tank's been taken care of and I've just got debris and old blocks and just a lot of trash that needs to be picked up. And I was trying request maybe 30 Page 97 July 28, 2016 more days to get all that cleaned up, please. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Eric, do you have any comments? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Yeah, based on the photographs that he had showed me out in the hallway -- and I guess we could put those up. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, why don't you put those up. MR. LEFEBVRE: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We need a motion. MR. DOINO: Motion to accept the pictures. • CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MS. ELROD: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: That is the mobile home. This whole situation is he had two mobile homes on an agricultural piece of property. You can only have one. And yeah, basically he's pulled it out of there. There's some photos in there of the area where it was. He's just got to clean up a little bit before he calls in his inspections. He's got four inspections: Septic -- there's two septic inspections and a final electric and final building. Page 98 July 28, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: There are no trailers on that property now or there's one trailer? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: This is one. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Which is not in any of these pictures. This is just for the other one. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Yes, this is just the violation, where it was located. And that first photo is showing he's pulling it out of there. And it's off-site, correct? MR. CLARY: It's gone. Yes, sir. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: It's just a matter of calling in inspections. He's got four to call in and he's got to clean up a little bit. If there's any debris remaining, they're going to fail the inspections. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you're familiar with that? MR. CLARY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motions from the board? MR. L'ESPERANCE: I make a motion that we grant his request for an extension for 30 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Extension or continuance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Extension the fines continue? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, continuance they continue. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Continuance then. 1 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So your motion is to grant a 30-day continuance. MR. L'ESPERANCE: It is. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And seconded by Mr. Lefebvre. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) Page 99 July 28, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. You have 30 days. MR. CLARY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're welcome. MS. ADAMS: Next case is number 11, tab 25, Case CESD20150002399, Eva M. Silva. (Ms. Silva and Investigator Herrera were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. INVESTIGATOR HERRERA: Morning -- good afternoon. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good afternoon. Why don't you read this case into the record and then we will talk with the respondent. INVESTIGATOR HERRERA: For the record, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Juan Serna Herrera. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location: 220 North Fourth Street, Immokalee, Florida, 34142. Folio 60180400007. Description: Mobile home placed and accessory building structure with electrical and water built without first obtaining the authorized (sic) of the required permits, inspections and certificate of Page 100 July 28, 2016 occupancy and certificate of completion. Past orders: On February 25th, 2016, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of facts, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinance and ordered to correct the violations. See the attached order of the board OR 5247, Page 3185, for more information. The violation has been abated as of July 20, 2016. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at the rate of$200 per day for the period from June 25th, 2016 to July 20, 2016, 26 days, for a total fine amount of$5,200.00. Previously assessed operational cost of$64.17 have been paid, operational costs for today's hearing is $62.61, for a total amount of$5,262.61. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning. MS. SILVA: Good afternoon. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Or afternoon now, yes. As long as we don't have to say good evening, we're okay. Could you state your name on the microphone. MS. SILVA: Eva M. Silva. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you're here to request something? MS. SILVA: Yes. Well, I request about the -- why I'm late, it was because of the builder, not of mine. The builder took forever to do everything so I have to hire somebody else to finish it. Every time he was late and I had to bother him too much that he didn't answer my calls that I needed this to be done. So I hire somebody else. And as soon as I find another builder, he got everything done. And as soon as he got everything done I paid everything that I had to pay. And I asked for an extension for until June, but everything's paid for and everything's done. So I'm done with everything. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you're looking for the fines to be Page 101 July 28, 2016 MS. SILVA: Clear. To be done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, any discussion from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motions from the board? MS. ELROD: Motion to abate the fines. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to abate the fines. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. You're done. Have a nice day. MS. SILVA: Thank you. I can sleep well now. Thank you very much, everybody. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, thank you. Okay, I know that Jeff wants to -- that's our last case, right? Jeff wants to say something and he wants to introduce somebody and -- MR. LETOURNEAU: First I'd like to introduce a new investigator we have on board. His name is Juan Garcia. So you guys have a name to a face when he gets up here in a month or two. I believe he likes to be called Garcia. INVESTIGATOR GARCIA: Garcia. Page 102 July 28, 2016 Good afternoon, everybody. I'm Juan Garcia. Just Garcia. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're like Madonna, just one name. INVESTIGATOR GARCIA: Just one name. Last name. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, welcome aboard. Glad to see you. INVESTIGATOR GARCIA: Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What area is Garcia going to be working? MR. LETOURNEAU: He's going to be in the Immokalee Estates district. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And we have another announcement? MR. LETOURNEAU: One more thing. Per your question about how code interacts with contractor licensing, I believe Director Ossorio is going to be here next month to go over any questions you might have and explain the dynamics between the two departments. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we look forward to it. MR. LETOURNEAU: All right, and that's it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any comments from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah, motion to adjourn. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we're adjourned. MR. MARINO: Second. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:20 p.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Page 103 July 28, 2016 411111.1% miA01111 Re: RT KA fg; N, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board on as presented ✓ or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, BY CHERI' R. NOTTINGHAM. Page 104