The URL can be used to link to this page

CEB Minutes 08/26/2016 August 26, 2016 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, August 26, 2016 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Robert Kaufman Robert Ashton Ron Doino Gerald J. Lefebvre James Lavinski Sue Curley Tony Marino (Excused) Kathleen Elrod (Excused) Lionel L'Esperance (Absent) 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: August 26, 2016 at 9:00 A.M. Location: 3299 Tamiami Trail East,Naples, FL 34104 NOTICE: THE RESPONDENT MAY BE LIMITED TO TWENTY (20) MINUTES FOR CASE PRESENTATION UNLESS ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE BOARD. PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. ALL PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN THE PUBLIC HEARING ARE ASKED TO OBSERVE ROBERTS RULES OF ORDER AND SPEAK ONE AT A TIME SO THAT THE COURT REPORTER CAN RECORD ALL STATEMENTS BEING MADE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL Robert Kaufman,Chair Ronald Doino James Lavinski,Vice Chair Tony Marino Gerald Lefebvre Robert Ashton Lionel L'Esperance Sue Curley,Alternate Kathleen Elrod,Alternate(Excused) 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. July 28,2016 Hearing 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. Motions Motion for Continuance 1 Motion for Extension of Time B. Stipulations C. Hearings 1. CASE NO: CESD20150023307 OWNER: PAM GREEN DAHL OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR SHERRY PATTERSON VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION(S) 10.02.06(B)(1)(a)AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(e). STRUCTURE BUILT WITHOUT REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 36810480004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 381 31ST SW,NAPLES 2. CASE NO: CEV20160005802 OWNER: ENIDE DENIS AND TREVIS J STEADMAN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR SHERRY PATTERSON VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 130,ARTICLE III, SECTION 130-96(a)AND SECTION 130-95.RECREATIONAL VEHICLE BEING USED FOR LIVING,SLEEPING,OR HOUSEKEEPING PURPOSES AND NO LICENSE PLATE AFFIXED. GREEN UTILITY TRAILER WITH EXPIRED LICENSE PLATE. FOLIO NO: 40991920000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3330 12TH AVE SE,NAPLES 3. CASE NO: CESD20150024661 OWNER: THEODORE CANALES OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). RENOVATING INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE PRIOR TO AN ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 30681960005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1402 ORANGE ST, IMMOKALEE 2 4. CASE NO: CESD20150020164 OWNER: YUDISLEIDY ROSA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHAEL ODOM VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 1.04.01(A),2.02.03,AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). A MOBILE OFFICE TRAILER,RECREATIONAL VEHICLE,AND SHED STORED ON THE PROPERTY WITH NO PERMITTED PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE. FOLIO NO: 222160003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1155 SHADY LN,NAPLES 5. CASE NO: CEOCC20160012333 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). REPEAT VIOLATION OF 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 D. Motion for Reduction of Fines/Lien. 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. CASE NO: CEPM20150021043 OWNER: PORT OF THE ISLANDS TRUST OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVE ATHEY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 22,ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22-231(12)(B),22-228(1),22-242,22-231(12)(I),22-231(15),22-231(12)(C).EXTERIOR WALLS IN DISREPAIR, WINDOWS AND DOORS BROKEN/MISSING,STRUCTURE IS UNSECURE,POOL IS NOT MAINTAINED,ROOF IS IN DISREPAIR. FOLIO NO: 1058920500 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 12323 UNION ROAD,NAPLES 2. CASE NO: CEPM20160004343 OWNER: 12323 UNION TRUST OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVE ATHEY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 22,ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22-231(12)(B),22-231(12)(I),22-231(12)(C). ROOF IN DISREPAIR. WINDOWS AND DOORS MISSINGBROKEN. EXTERIOR WALLS IN DISREPAIR. FOLIO NO: 1058920513 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 12400 UNION ROAD,NAPLES 3 3. CASE NO: CESD20150024052 OWNER: K&R HOMETECH LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR VIRGINIE GIGUERE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A). INTERIOR ALTERATIONS CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO;THE REMOVAL OF INTERIOR WALLS,PLUMBING,AND ELECTRICAL WORK ALL DONE PRIOR TO OBTAINING COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS FOLIO NO: 63100120005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4810 AZTEC CIR,NAPLES 4. CASE NO: CEROW20150014167 OWNER: JOHN E PRICE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 110 ROADS AND BRIDGES, ARTICLE II,CONSTRUCTION IN RIGHT OF WAY,DIVISION 1 GENERALLY, SECTION 110- 30(A).THE CULVERT/DRAINAGE PIPE HAS FAILED;THAT IT HAS COLLAPSED OR RUSTED THROUGH.ORDINANCE 2003-37,REQUIRES THAT NECESSARY REPAIRS ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROPERTY OWNER. PLEASE ARRANGE TO HAVE THIS PIPE REPAIRED OR REPLACED AS NECESSARY. FOLIO NO: 65271840005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 112 FAIRWAY CIR,NAPLES 5. CASE NO: CESD20140010232 OWNER: MANSOLILLO IRA LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A)AND THE 2010 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE CHAPTER 1,PART 1, SECTION 105.1. COMPLETE REMODELING OF THE INTERIOR OF THE HOME AND GARAGE BEING CONVERTED TO LIVING SPACE INCLUDING PLUMBING,ELECTRIC AND STRUCTURAL WORK AS WELL AS A FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD,ALL WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 37161440006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 120 7TH ST SW,NAPLES 6. CASE NO: CESD20150013679 OWNER: LIN LIN WANG OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHAEL ODOM VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41, SECTIONS 10.02.06(B)(1)(A) AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(E)(I).UNPERMITTED STRUCTURAL, PLUMBING,ELECTRICAL AND HVAC ALTERATIONS TO THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. FOLIO NO: 193560004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1747 ACREMAKER RD,NAPLES 4 7. CASE NO: CESD20150002237 OWNER: EDWARD M MILLER AND BRITTANY L MILLER OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(E)(I). COMPLETE REMODEL OF THE KITCHEN,MASTER BATHROOM,BATHROOM, AND FAMILY ROOM,REPLACED WINDOWS AND REPLACED SOFFITS. ALL WORK DONE WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 38051960006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3875 31ST AVE SW,NAPLES 8. 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 B. Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order C. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order 7. NEW BUSINESS 8. CONSENT AGENDA A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. 9. REPORTS 10. COMMENTS 11. NEXT MEETING DATE- SEPTEMBER 22,2016 12. ADJOURN 5 August 26, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board to order. The respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation unless additional time is granted by the Board. Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes unless the time is adjusted by the chairman. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Robert's Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and, therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. If you could silence your cell phones and stand for the Pledge. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't we start out with the roll call. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Robert Kaufman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKI: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Ronald Doino. MR. DOINO: Present. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Robert Ashton? MR. ASHTON: Here. Ms. Sue Curley? MS. CURLEY: Here. Page 2 August 26, 2016 MS. ADAMS: Mr. Tony Marino has an excused absence, Ms. Kathleen Elrod has an excused absence, and Mr. Lionel L'Esperance is absent. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And so for this meeting, Sue, you're going to be a full voting member of the Board today. Let me put the minutes ahead just for fun. Do we have any comments on the minutes from the last meeting? (No response.) MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to accept. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. We'll start with the agenda. MS. ADAMS: Number 5, public hearings, motions, Letter C, hearings, No. 1, Tab 1, Case CESD20150023307, Pam Green Dahl, has been withdrawn. Number 2, Tab 2, Case CEV20160005802, Enide Denis and Trevis J. Steadman, has been withdrawn. And that's all the changes to the agenda. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Get a motion to accept the agenda as modified? MR. ASHTON: Motion to accept the agenda as modified. Page 3 August 26, 2016 MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. MS. ADAMS: Okay. The first case will be from Letter C, hearings, No. 3, Tab 3, Case CESD20150024661, Theodore Canales. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, Steven. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Good morning. MR. ASHTON: Is that mike on? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The mike's on, but Steven has a low voice. No, it's not on. I have a suggestion. That's my suggestion. Oh, it must be the operator. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: How about now? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Ah, much better. We'll note that the respondent is not present. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Good morning. For the record, Steven Lopez-Silvero, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20150024661 dealing with a violation of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Violations is in reference to renovation -- or renovating interior Page 4 August 26, 2016 and exterior of single-family residence prior to an issuance of a building permit; located at 1402 Orange Street, Immokalee, Florida, 34142; Folio 30681960005. Service was given on June 13, 2016. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: It's going to be four pictures taken by Investigator John Connetta on December 11th, 2015. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to accept the exhibits. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: What's depicted here is the front of the dwelling where they've changed the siding and the front door. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Must be hard to open that door. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yeah. It's currently unoccupied. And this is a shower insert which indicates there's some plumbing work being done. And here you will see new framing, new electrical, new drywall. And this is more drywall work; new drywall being placed inside in the interior of the home. On January 6th, 2016, a site visit was conducted by Investigator Page 5 August 26, 2016 Shirley Garcia where the mentioned unpermitted improvements were made to the improved unoccupied residential property. The property owner was later known to be deceased, and the son of the property owner later became the property caregiver. The property caregiver was advised of the violation and provided with the corrective action needed for compliance. The property caregiver mentioned that a local contractor has been hired to obtain required building permits. The contractor has advised that a survey has been completed, and in reviewing the flood elevation requirements, a part of the dwelling may have to be reconverted back into a previously existing carport in order to satisfy permitting requirements. A building permit application has been recently found to be submitted for mentioned improvements. As of today, August 26th, 2016, the violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So the home or the structure, the person who owned it passed away. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: During the construction phase? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Back in 1964; years ago. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, years ago they died. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So who was actually doing this? Was that the respondent, Theodore -- MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: The respondent is the deceased property owner, and then his son, Adam Canales, is the property caregiver, and he was doing the work to the dwelling. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Okay. Any comments from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: Make a motion a violation does exist. MR. DOINO: Second. Page 6 August 26, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second that a violation exists. Any comments on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? You have a suggestion for us, Steven? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes, sir. And I'd like to add something. This dwelling is currently unoccupied, like I mentioned. There's no imminent safety or health issues at the moment. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Has the permit been picked up yet? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: They just applied for it earlier this week. MR. LEFEBVRE: Oh, okay. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: So it's pending reviews and fees, et cetera. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you've been in contact with the respondent in this case. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes, the respondent and the contractor. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: The recommendation of the Code Enforcement Board order 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: Number 1, obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion and/or occupancy within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Number 2, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to Page 7 August 26, 2016 bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, it looks like they have plumbing and electrical to do and button it up. I don't think it should take too long to do that. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, once they receive permits, then this violation will go away. How long does it usually take to review something like this? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: It could take anywhere from weeks to months. MR. LEFEBVRE: No, for the county to review the permit. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: I'd say maybe two weeks. For review. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we give 30 days or a fine of$150 per day, and then 30 days to pay the operational costs. MR. DOINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And we have a second on the motion. Any discussion on the motion? I don't know if you can complete everything, personally, in 30 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: Not complete; get the permit. MR. ASHTON: Just get the permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Just to get the permit. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. It says -- MR. ASHTON: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- obtain all county permits. MR. ASHTON: And demolition. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You don't want to put a final on -- and get a CO on it? We'll cross that bridge when we get there? MR. LEFEBVRE: Well -- MR. ASHTON: If he gets the permit, then he's -- inspection, he's, Page 8 August 26, 2016 you know -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: It says "and a certificate of completion," though. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yeah. That's including permit, review, inspection, CO. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I would -- I'd suggest maybe do exactly what you said and then add to that "and obtain a CO within 90 days." MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. So we can make number -- make it No. 2. Number 2 would be to obtain a certificate of completion within 120 days, let's say; 120 or a fine of$150. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Sounds good to me. Do we have a second? MR. DOINO: Yeah, second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Second goes along with that? Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thanks, Steven. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Thank you. Have a great weekend. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 4, Tab 4, Case CESD20150020164, Yudisleidy Rosa. And I just received a Page 9 August 26, 2016 stipulation for this case, so this case will be a stipulation. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Since this is a stipulation... MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. Good morning. Michael Odom, Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore, ifs agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: One, pay operational costs in the amount of$66.27 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of the hearing; abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy for both the proposed principal structure and the accessory structure within 180 days of this hearing or a fme of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Obtaining all -- correction. Obtaining and affixing a current license plate to the recreational vehicle. Additionally, making it immediately operable or having the recreational vehicle removed from the property to a conforming location; If the proposed principal structure is not approved within 180 days of this hearing or -- a fine of$200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Number 3, respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Number 4, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of the abasement -- correction -- abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So if I understand what the violation is, is that they put probably a construction trailer on the site -- Page 10 August 26, 2016 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- and they're building a new structure? MR. ODOM: This was an interesting case. Actually, it was a construction trailer, and the owner's husband, his intent was to change that into a principal residential structure and make it into a living quarters and make the shed an accessory structure. And Mrs. Rosa will tell you they are currently going through some family issues, plans have changed, and she would like to ultimately remove those three items from the property, which would fall under the demolition permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the 180 days is to give the respondent enough time to get through the family issues, through the other situation? MR. ODOM: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Nobody's living there. MR. ODOM: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Comments from the Board just on the county's testimony? MR. LEFEBVRE: One hundred eighty days appears to be a long time, and part of the reason why I say that is this violation was first observed back in November 3rd, 2015, so that will give them 15, 17 months, somewhere around there, to remove these items. I think that's kind of-- kind of a long time, personally. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think if that was the case and that was the only part of the case, I would certainly agree with you. Having been in the situation that the respondent's been in myself, it's not that work that takes the time as much as it is to resolve other issues that it appears that the respondent has. But let's hear from the respondent. Good morning. Page 11 August 26, 2016 MS. ROSA: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name on the mike for the record. MS. ROSA: Yudisleidy Rosa. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you are the owner of the property. MS. ROSA: I'm the owner, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Or are you co-owner with your husband? MS. ROSA: I am the owner. My name is on the deed. MS. CURLEY: She's the sole owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sole owner. MS. CURLEY: As of right now, my husband and I are going through a separation. I live at the woman's shelter with my five-year-old. I've been a victim of domestic violence for seven years. I did not want my husband to put those things on the property, but I didn't have a say. He has a -- I have a restraining order against him right now, and I just ask for that time to resolve this problem and my personal problem as well. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: Are there any issues with safety or anything the way the property currently is? MR. ODOM: No, sir. The county does not have any objections at this time. It's in an area where -- it's Shady Lane out in the -- it's ag zone. There's not a lot of folks out there. It does need to be taken care of, but the county has no objections to the time at this time. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. I make a motion to accept the stipulation as written. Page 12 August 26, 2016 MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. If you have any problems down the road and you need to come back, you know who to get ahold of. MS. ROSA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 5, Tab 5, Case CEOCC20160012333, Pee-Wee's Dumpsters, Incorporated. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. PULSE: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is a case that we have heard from this respondent in the past. Is this a new case? MS. PULSE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is a brand new case? MS. PULSE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. PULSE: Good morning. For the record, Dee Pulse, Collier County Code Enforcement. Page 13 August 26, 2016 This is in reference to Case No. CEOCC20160012333 dealing with violation of 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 04-41, as amended, Section 2.02.03 and Section 2.02 -- or, I'm sorry, Section 2.03.01(B), prohibited business activity taking place on the property which includes, but not limited to, delivering and removing dumpsters. This is a repeat violation of dumpsters on the property. It's located at 721 Logan Boulevard South, Naples, Florida, 34119; Folio 38280090006. Service was given on May 4th, 2016. I would like to now present case evidence in the following exhibits: A photo taken August 1st, 2016, by myself, an aerial view for the property of 2016. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to accept and a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. LEFEBVRE: I have a couple questions. When was the violation first observed? MS. PULSE: For this case was August 1st. Page 14 August 26, 2016 MR. LEFEBVRE: And when was the notice of violation given? MS. PULSE: In a previous case. May 4th he was noticed, 2016. MS. CURLEY: Wait a minute. MR. LEFEBVRE: Don't you give the notice after you -- MS. PULSE: This is a repeat violation, so he was notified that the violation had occurred again and that the case would be prepared for hearing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Typically, on a repeat violation, you can go back to the original violation time, and fines can be assessed, if the respondent is found in violation, from that date rather than the second violation observation. Have I said that correctly? MS. NICOLA: It's fine to me. MS. CURLEY: So is that why -- is that why Line Item 7 says May 31st? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. CURLEY: Well, it can't be corrected in the past. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, but the first violation was -- when you have a second violation, you can go back to the original date as far as imposition of penalties are concerned, so that's why that date is shown on there. MS. CURLEY: The first violation was supposed to have been corrected by May 31st, 2016. Was it? MS. PULSE: Well -- MR. LEFEBVRE: This case is from, like, five years ago, or four. MS. PULSE: Right. That was -- yeah. The previous one before this one was corrected July 1st. MS. NICOLA: I think the only thing we have to be careful about is that we did do an imposition of fines last time for the period that he was in violation on the prior violation. So if we end up there, which I think we probably will, we're going to need to credit him or at least Page 15 August 26, 2016 note it that the prior order imposed the fines for a period of time, because we don't want to run into, like, a double jeopardy issue on this. MR. LEFEBVRE: Was this case from June? MS. PULSE: No. MR. LEFEBVRE: When was this -- the original case? MS. PULSE: Oh, the original? MR. LEFEBVRE: '09? MS. PULSE: Pardon? MR. LEFEBVRE: Was it '09, '10, somewhere around there? MS. PULSE: Well, we have record of this issue 2007, but the original -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Ken Kelly -- Ken Kelly was the chair at the time. MS. PULSE: The original case was in 2011 -- MR. LEFEBVRE: '11, okay. MS. PULSE: -- that we heard through the Board. MR. LEFEBVRE: I remember the case. We were at the Horseshoe Drive building, and there was about eight or 10 residents that were in the audience that were putting up with this noise. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And then we heard it again with about -- I remember the head of the Vineyards was here with half a dozen or more residents at that time. The Board wrote a letter because we understood that there were violations from 2011 that were still pending; nothing was resolved with that. So -- as a matter of fact, the letter was sent right after, when the order came out, so -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Chairman, can I say a few things? For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. This property owner and this business -- Page 16 August 26, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Jeff. MR. LETOURNEAU: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You've got to do your Indian thing here. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: This gentleman's been before the board numerous times. I believe the first time that it's been adjudicated for the actual dumpsters was just recently, right, Dee, a couple months ago, for the dumpsters itself? MS. PULSE: Yes. MR. LETOURNEAU: So we're just looking at the repeat of the dumpsters right now. MS. PULSE: Actually -- actually, it was business activity. The dumpster issue was back in 2011. MR. LETOURNEAU: Oh, okay. All right. So what we're looking at here is just the dumpsters and not anything else -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: -- because he's been taken before for permitting and other things. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If memory serves me, the original case on this, going way back when, was there was a structure on the property -- and I may be off. MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: A structure on the property without a primary structure, and that was the -- was that the beginning of this thing? MR. LETOURNEAU: No. He's got a primary structure, but he was building a garage-type structure without a permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: He pulled the permit but never got the Page 17 August 26, 2016 required inspections and certificate of occupancy, and that case is still open with fines accruing at this time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So this particular case is the second violation of all of those statutes that you mentioned, which have to do with running this business there and the result of running the business there. MS. PULSE: Prohibited business activity and land use. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, fine. MS. PULSE: And I'm going to read into the record the previous cases at this time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You said you had some -- MS. PULSE: Yes. I have a photo taken August 1st, and that's the aerial for 2016. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The area to the left on our screen is the area where the dumpsters have been? MS. PULSE: Usually, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. PULSE: Which is in the rear of the property. It's not visible from the Logan Boulevard. It is visible from the Vineyards. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Those property owners that abut it? MS. PULSE: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. PULSE: This is a prohibited business activity on this property as a repeat violation. Previous case, No. CELUPM20110000047, heard by the Code Enforcement Board dated April 28th, 2011, OR4681, Page 2045 and Case No. CEOCC20150022849 heard by the Code Enforcement Board on June 23rd, 2016, OR5290, Page 3455, and on August 1st, 2016, observed two dumpsters on the ground. Owner has been notified. And as of yesterday the dumpsters were removed. I have not talked to the owner. He has not answered my calls. Page 18 August 26, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And if I recall correctly, he was not present at the last hearing as well. Okay. MS. CURLEY: What, is Pee-Wee's Dumpsters owned by one person? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. MS. PULSE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: His name is George? MS. PULSE: Victor George. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Have you received this complaint from the adjacent neighbors? MS. PULSE: I began receiving phone calls about the end of July for activity, hearing activity going on. I began making some site visits, and then on August 1st I did see the dumpsters back on the ground. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They're on the ground, okay. MS. PULSE: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So, do we have a motion from the Board or discussion as to whether a violation exists? MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll state that I think there's a violation -- I make a motion that a violation does exist. MR. ASHTON: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Page 19 August 26, 2016 You have a suggestion for us, I'm sure. MS. PULSE: Yes, sir. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$65.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: No. 1, paying a civil penalty for repeat violation in the amount of blank within blank days of this hearing; No. 2, he must cease all prohibited home occupation business activities and follow the guidelines of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 5.02.03, within blank days, or there will be a fine of blank per day until the violation is abated; Must cease any and all uses other than what this Estates-zoned property is intended for by removing all unauthorized dumpsters to an area designed for such use or by keeping them loaded on approved commercial vehicles or storing them in a completely enclosed permitted structure within blank days, or there will be a fine of blank per day until the violation is abated. 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. MS. NICOLA: I have a point of clarification, and I -- you know, this is the first time I've dealt with this since I've been participating with this board. But if the dumpsters have, in fact, been removed and they're gone as of today, does it make sense to put 2 and 3 in there? I mean, I understand 1 because what we're doing is we're going to give him a penalty for repeat violation which I think, you know, is proper, but I don't know why we would put in the language in 2 and 3 if they're, in Page 20 August 26, 2016 fact, already gone. If they were still there, I could understand that, but they're gone. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This seems to be a case where the respondent, A, doesn't show up to the hearings to -- so we can't go by any other side of the story, if you will -- MS. CURLEY: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- and continues to flaunt the orders from the Board, and that's why I could understand that being there. Yes, you have a question? MS. CURLEY: So I was curious about the Pee-Wee's Dumpsters, Incorporated, so I ran it on SunBiz, and that corporation was dissolved in 2013, and there is nobody by that name as the registered owner at the point of being dissolved. Dennis Stratton -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So he's conducting business without a -- MS. CURLEY: -- Jerry Parker and Four Kids, LLC, are the current three owners of that corporation. MR. LEFEBVRE: That's kind of irrelevant because you go back to the landowner, and the landowner is Victor George. We're not going after the business per se. We're going after -- MS. CURLEY: Well, Victor George deeded over to Pee-Wee's Dumpster, Inc., in 2007. Victor George does not own this property anymore according to the information we've been given. February 14th, 2007, Victor T. George quit claimed this to Pee-Wee Dumpster, Inc. And you're allowed to transfer title to something that's -- a company that's not in existence, but if he's operating a business, he dissolved this business in 2013 for not filing the proper state paperwork. That's of public record. MR. LETOURNEAU: We're not actually going to put the lien on Mr. George. It's going to be on the property owned by -- well, according to the tax collector -- it's going to be whatever property Page 21 August 26, 2016 owner is there at the time, this lien's going to be on that particular property, not Mr. George. But I do believe Mr. George is still operating under Pee-Wee Hauling. I think that's still a company. MS. CURLEY: Yeah, but not related to this property. MR. LETOURNEAU: Right. So we're just asking that the fine, like we always do, be put to the property. It's not actually the property owner. It stays with the property. MS. NICOLA: Bob, I just have another comment on what you commented on on the issues of 2 and 3. I mean, I'm thinking maybe outside the box on this one, because it seems to me that what he's going to do, what he did last time, and what he's probably going to continue to do is once he finds out that code enforcement is after him, he's going to remove the dumpsters, and as soon as he gets the order, he's going to put it back on. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. MS. NICOLA: So maybe putting some language in there that says, you know, something to the nature although, you know, seemingly in compliance at this time, understand that repeat violations will continue to be assessed, repeat violation fines, something that let's him know that he's just not going to come into compliance the day of the hearing and then skate past us; that he's going to continue to be fined. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Let me say a couple of things: Number one, if I'm not mistaken, none of these fines that were assessed going back to 2011 have even been paid; is that correct? MS. PULSE: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So that's number one. Number two, I'm looking at Paragraph 4 where it says, use the Sheriffs Office to ensure that the provisions of this order are taken care of. And since fining or putting a lien on the property for the past five years hasn't done anything, we are looking out for the people who have Page 22 August 26, 2016 shown up here on numerous times -- and I was going to ask if there's anybody in the audience now that wants to speak on this. Are there any neighbors here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- that we need to do something to stop the problem. So I think that Paragraph 4 in this is more important than everything else. MS. CURLEY: Well -- and to the point the corporation is the property owner, and so you can go to the registered agent, who's a local attorney in town, and he should be -- since you're not notifying -- you're notifying an address, but if you also include the notification to the registered agent, you might get a little bit more attraction. MS. NICOLA: Who is it, Sue? Who's the attorney? MS. CURLEY: Stratton, I think. Dennis Gold. MS. NICOLA: Oh, okay. I know him. He might be the person -- he'd be a good person to include in the notice when we -- when we draft this order and we send it out, we should include Dennis Gold as the registered agent so he's on notice, too. MS. CURLEY: Yeah, because -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Our effort here on the Board is to ensure compliance. Obviously, putting a property lien has not gained us compliance. You do it. It's like the little kid that does something, his mommy catches him, and he stops, and then -- stop hitting your sister, and he starts again. So that's a problem that we have. So I think our focus needs to be on how do we stop this effort by this entity, whatever it is, from conducting illegal operations. If it was a drug house, I know what would happen. So I think Paragraph 4 in this may come to play. MR. LEFEBVRE: Most of us, I think, were on the Board back then. But for the members that were not, I remember this case. We Page 23 August 26, 2016 were on Horseshoe Drive, much cozier than here, and about 20 feet from us, sitting in the audience, were about 10 of the neighbors that adjoined this individual. And I saw their faces and saw the disgust that they had, that even on Easter Sunday he was moving concrete and everything and causing noise and disruption. Our board chair at the time, Mr. Kelly, stated that, well, people that provide services by using their house as their business residence, their services are less expensive. And my comment to that was, these neighborhoods don't care about spending -- paying less for service when their livelihood, their peace and quiet is disturbed on weekends, on holidays and everything. I think we have to be as strong as physically possible with this order to make sure that this behavior stops. There are multiple people that are adjoining his property. And I would not want to have this type of noise going on at all hours, weekends, and so forth. So I think this board has to make a statement that this cannot happen again and there will be repercussions if it does. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any other discussions from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, would anybody like to fill out the blanks? I think we had a discussion the last time on what the maximum fine was. It doesn't seem to affect the outcome of this one way or the other. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is there any way to order a cease and desist order? MS. NICOLA: I mean, you can say that. And, actually, if you look at No. 2, it says, must cease all prohibited home occupation business activities, but that's what he's done; as soon as he knows the code enforcement official's coming in here, he removes the dumpsters. So, I mean, he comes into compliance but then kind of waits a few Page 24 August 26, 2016 weeks, and then he just moves the dumpsters back on there. You know, I don't know the solution. I think the solution is either the Sheriffs Department's going to have to take some strong action or the County Attorney's Office is going to have to take some strong action, which we wrote a letter, we included our orders -- it was on this case, right -- to ask -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. MS. NICOLA: -- them to take action? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I signed the letter. MS. NICOLA: Right. And unless they do something, we can sign order after order after order against this guy, and unless it's ever enforced -- it's like saying, you know, pay your child support or go to jail. Well, they don't go to jail, they're not going to pay their child support. He's not going to stop it. This isn't going to stop him. We've got to get a county attorney involved probably to file a foreclosure of the liens, and then maybe that will get his attention. If he's going to lose his property, he loses his livelihood, he loses his house. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This property is not homesteaded, from what I understand. MS. NICOLA: If it's -- MS. CURLEY: Corporation. MS. NICOLA: -- in the name of a corporation, it is. It might be a little more complicated if the corporation's been dissolved, but I would assume that once a corporation is dissolved, then you can go after the owner, but that's a question for a civil attorney. I don't know. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How about the language in Item 4 on here, "may use the assistance of the county Sheriffs Office to enforce the provision of this order"? MS. NICOLA: You know, I think maybe a question would be for the Sheriffs Department, because I know that sometimes what they will do is they will -- they'll go to the house, and if they're not allowed Page 25 August 26, 2016 into the house, then they'll say, we don't have the authority. So I think sometimes you have to put language in. I think we could do this, and I think maybe it might be a good idea to check with somebody with Sheriff Rambosk's people to find out for sure, but a lot of times when we have, like, a contempt order in civil court, we'll put in language that says that they can use all reasonable means including breaking and entering, because unless you have that language, I don't think that the Sheriffs Department can physically go on the property unless they have, like, a warrant or they have language that allows them to go on property. And there was an officer here earlier. I wish he was here to tell me what -- MR. ASHTON: He's still here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He's hiding in the back. MS. NICOLA: There he is. That's the kind of language you guys look for, right? You want to have something that allows you to not just knock on the door but to be able to actually physically enter. Because you can't violate somebody's civil rights just with an order that says that, you know, you can enforce it by reasonable means. That's the problem. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, let me ask this: These dumpsters are coming and going. They don't grow there. So they enter and leave the property. The Sheriffs Office, I would think, would have the ability to stop and discuss this with the people who are driving these trucks that are picking up and dumping off these dumpsters. MS. NICOLA: I suppose so. I mean, the difficulty with this is it's a civil issue, and I'm guessing that Sheriff Rambosk doesn't have, you know, some kind of a truck that he can go remove these dumpsters from the property and take them offsite and say, well, you violated the code order, so we're going to enforce this code order by removing the dumpsters ourselves. Page 26 August 26, 2016 I mean, and then he hasn't -- at least I don't think he has committed a crime, so you can't get him criminally; you can't arrest the guy. I think you've got to hit the guy in his livelihood somehow, and the only way to do that is to file the foreclosure of the lien, and that has to be done by the County Attorney's Office. So whoever read that letter put that letter either in a stack to be done later, or maybe they're working on a petition for foreclosure. But that's what they need to be doing if they're not. It doesn't -- it shouldn't be in a stack right now. Pee-Wee's needs to be a priority. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Would you suggest that we hold off on the recommendation until our next hearing and, in the meantime, contact whoever we need to to find out what can actually help the residents that abut this individual's property? MS. NICOLA: I mean, we could do that but, I mean, I would be happy to -- if you want to recommend that the strongest language that we can, you know, use under the law be placed in order as far as enforcement, I'd be happy to contact the County Attorney's Office and, you know, first of all, ask them if-- and the Sheriffs Department, you know, number one, the status of our other violations that we've asked them to pursue and, number two, to ask if we can put that breaking and entering language in a code enforcement order and, you know, that would be something that could be complied with. I don't think we should kick the can on this one. I think we should -- personally think we should enter it today and then -- because we're going to be back here again anyway, I think. This guy's, you know -- we were just here -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, what's happened in the past is you issued the order, somebody fills in the blank, and that's it, and then he has continued to violate, obviously, the edict. He'll stop for a week, as you said, and then will continue. So that is kicking the can down Page 27 August 26, 2016 the road. MR. LEFEBVRE: How about this: Can we put this case off to the end of this hearing and maybe have a county come -- attorney come down? MS. NICOLA: We can see if we can find somebody. MR. LEFEBVRE: See if we can find someone and try to draft this a little bit better with tighter language that might have a little more teeth to it? MS. NICOLA: We can try that. I mean -- MS. CURLEY: I have a question. Can you confiscate the dumpsters? MS. NICOLA: That I don't know. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Again, county attorney. MS. NICOLA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And Sheriffs Department. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think we need to have -- MS. NICOLA: I mean, I think that if you -- you know, if you have a lien, a lien can be against real property and a lien can be against personal property. And so, you know, we're getting into areas I don't know about. But I would certainly say that the two ways to get this guy is to, number one, not be able to have the property to run the business out of and, number two, is if he doesn't have the dumpsters, you know -- I mean, if these fines are running, I would think -- and I don't know for sure. Again, it's another thing that's a little bit out of my comfort zone. But I would think that if you have a lien, you could get a lien against personal property too. But the problem is now what Sue's pointing out is that Pee-Wee's Dumpster, Inc., no longer exists. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Exist. MS. NICOLA: So if this guy's as crafty as it seems like he might be -- and maybe we're paying him too much credit -- he might not even Page 28 August 26, 2016 have those dumpsters in his name. They might be in a different, you know, corporation name. He might be going around trying to protect his interests knowing that this is all coming down eventually on him. MS. CURLEY: He is, because the corporation that Jeff had mentioned is completely different, and it's owned by a female. MS. NICOLA: Point in fact. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, I think we need the help of the county attorney -- MS. NICOLA: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- in this particular case. It's just not fair to the residents that have been complaining for five years on this to just sign an order, impose a fine, which becomes a lien, and nothing happens to it. MS. NICOLA: I agree. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And that was the letter that I remember you drafted, I signed, and we sent up; what's going on with this? And that's where we are right now. Yes, special news from -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Once again, for the record, Jeff Letourneau. I just spoke with Kevin Noell, and at this point he said that they're going to look into an injunction with the civil -- with the Court. And if he violated that, then that would be a possible criminal offense, and that would be a lot stronger than what we could do here today. But they're looking at all angles at this point. I believe that the foreclosure was kind of, you know, put to the back burner, because the penalty that all the fines are on at this point are just -- it's a permitting penalty, and they're kind of loathed (sic) not to foreclose on just a permitting penalty, although now that we have this repeat, I'm sure they're going to look into that also. But he did say that they're going to look into maybe taking this to court. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm sure if the residents that appeared Page 29 August 26, 2016 here on several occasions would show up, you know, at a different venue to complain, something would be -- somebody would get the message to do something. You have to alleviate the problem. I mean, we're all about compliance. If he'd just stop doing what he's doing, everybody would be happy, you know, so... MR. LETOURNEAU: I agree. MS. NICOLA: Well -- and I think you had brought up the issue, too, of, you know, the fact that you have to have a license to conduct business and having the business license revoked, you know, for continuing to violate the code, but then that would be up to, obviously, the licensing division of Collier County. So there's a lot of different factions involved in here, and if we can get them all -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He changed the name -- if he changed the name of the company, then going after his license doesn't help either. MS. NICOLA: Well, yeah, and I'm sure that's exactly what he would do. MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, I mean, the license right now doesn't match up to the one that's attached to the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So if that's the case, then that's being done illegally. If you have a license and somebody else is conducting business there -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, I mean, he does have a Pee-Wee's Hauling that's associated with that, but the actual property is Pee-Wee Dumpster. So that's where he's kind of-- you know, that's why I don't believe we can take his license away, because it's two different entities and I think different officers and the whole nine yards at this point. MS. CURLEY: There's no connection to him. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Ossorio, you'd like to be sworn in? MR. O S S ORIO: I would. Page 30 August 26, 2016 (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. OSSORIO: For the record, Mike Ossorio, the division director of Code Enforcement. I just want to make sure we stay on task. It's not about the noise. It's not about the fire. We are working with the County Attorney's Office about life/safety issues and about foreclosures and about injunctions, so we can put that in the order that we request the county attorney to look at ordering an injunction in the civil proceedings. That's fine. But just make sure we understand this is considered Estates-zoned property. With a business tax receipt, without a business tax receipt, you could have a dumpster. Pee-Wee can have two dump -- he can have his vehicles, his dump trucks there, he can process them, come home, go to lunch; with a business tax, without. It's the act of putting the dumpsters on the ground that constitutes a violation. The beeping noise of his big trucks, you know, those kind of items are really outside the scope, because this is not considered residential. So I understand we're all getting caught up of business tax receipt; that really doesn't concern me as much as the prohibited use as the dumpsters. There was no, really, violation on the noise in 2009. There wasn't any violation of the fire. This is strictly just a prohibited use of Estates-zoned property, putting dumpsters on the ground. So we have to make sure we understand what we're talking about when we go for the injunction, when we talk to the -- if we do that, so... MS. CURLEY: I have a question. Can you expand on business tax receipt; what do you mean by that? MR. OSSORIO: Well, a business tax receipt, if you want to conduct business in Collier County, you need a business tax receipt. It Page 31 August 26, 2016 used to be called the occupational license. This is Estates-zoned property. And when an individual does get a business tax receipt, they have to comply with certain aspects of the business tax receipt. MS. CURLEY: And that's the property owner? MR. OSSORIO: Property owner. MS. CURLEY: And so the property owner doesn't have a business tax receipt because it was shut down in 2013, so he doesn't have the right to operate that way. MR. OSSORIO: Exactly right, but he's not operating. He is taking his vehicles home and -- his big trucks and storing them, which is a prohibit -- which is prohibited -- or not prohibited, but a use in the Estates. Commercial vehicles in the Estates are allowed -- is a use. MR. LETOURNEAU: It doesn't necessarily have to be the homeowner either. It could be any occupant or renter can have a business tax receipt for a home. MS. CURLEY: So can you do it with or without a business tax receipt? MR. OSSORIO: Exactly right. MS. CURLEY: Okay. Thank you. MR. OSSORIO: The issue is, is the dumpsters. Once the vehicles bring the dumpsters, or Pee-Wee or Mr. George or the owner or the occupant or the tenant -- I believe it might be two -- two people that reside there; am I correct? MS. PULSE: Yes. MR. OSSORIO: And they have commercial vehicles and they drive on them, and they have the dumpsters on the back of their vehicles, that is a use, and that is allowable in the Estates. Once you take the dumpster and you put it on the ground, that is a prohibited use. That's storing. And this is what we have today. So we've just got to make sure we narrow the aspect of what the Page 32 August 26, 2016 violation is. I know there's a lot of rhetoric about the noise and about the smoke, and we have to make sure -- this is the Estates-zoned property. Commercial vehicles are allowed. Beeping noise are going to continue. It's the use of the dumpsters. We don't care about who the corporation is. It's about the use of the property. And Mr. George is living there; am I correct? MS. PULSE: Yes. MR. OSSORIO: And he has his family members living there, and they are allowed to do so. So we need to make sure we narrow the fine to the maximum fine because, obviously, there was a violation. It's been corrected. And then we'll work with the County Attorney's Office for an injunction or possible -- or foreclosure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think, if I could say, if you didn't put the dumpster on the ground, you wouldn't have trucks backing up. You would eliminate a lot of ancillary complaints from the residents. If you just drove a truck in and you drove a truck out, you know, you put the trucks to sleep at night and they go out the next day, I think that that part of the business would help dramatically just not putting them on the ground, and that's the violation that we're talking about. MR. OSSORIO: Correct. MS. CURLEY: So you're saying loading and unloading it is requiring the backup? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. They have to put them on the ground. If you, you know, go from one to another, et cetera, I think that might just resolve the situation. Is there language -- and maybe we can come back to this later on to vote on this and fill in the blanks -- that we can put in the order that would address the injunction portion that was mentioned earlier? MS. NICOLA: I don't think so. I think that's up to the County Attorney's Office. I don't think we can direct them to take that action. Page 33 August 26, 2016 I think it's good that they're thinking about that. But, you know, one of the things that Jeff said that surprised me was that you could have a civil injunction entered that would be enforceable criminally. I mean, I know that you can when you have, like, an injunction for protection against domestic violence, but I was unaware that there was a provision in the civil rules that would allow you to get an injunction that could be enforced criminally. If there is, that's great, but I was just not aware of that. MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, I mean, I just had a brief conversation with the county attorney. I might have misquoted that, but I think he said maybe something about contempt or... MS. NICOLA: Yeah, I think you can enforce -- you can enforce a blatant violation by criminal contempt, indirect criminal contempt. But, again, that's a little out of my comfort zone on that. I'm glad that they can do it, but... MR. LETOURNEAU: It's way out of mine, so... MS. NICOLA: Yeah, so -- but I don't think we can put it in the order to direct them to do it, but I think it's great that there -- it sounds to me like they're thinking outside the box, which is great. If they can come up with a solution we don't even think about, that's wonderful. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Which brings us back to the order here. I think we need to -- anybody from the Board want to attempt to fill out the blanks on this one? MR. LEFEBVRE: What's the maximum fine for a repeat violation? MS. NICOLA: It's a thousand. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: A thousand. MR. LEFEBVRE: One time. MS. NICOLA: Thousand. Make sure I'm right. MR. LEFEBVRE: Civil penalty, I should say. MS. NICOLA: Yeah, it's -- let's see here. Fine shall not exceed Page 34 August 26, 2016 $1,000 for each day the violation continues past the compliance date and $5,000 for repeat violations for each day. So -- make sure. MR. LEFEBVRE: But if it's a one-time amount, what is that amount? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, let me just -- while you're looking that up, if it's $5,000 a day on a repeat violation and we can go back to the original date, this would be a huge fine. But, as in the past, the fines aren't paid. So I think less attention needs to be paid to what the fines are. More attention needs to be looked at as far as compliance and how we gain compliance. So we can go with the $1,000 a day. I think we did that on one of the past orders, if I'm not incorrect. I think we did that. MS. NICOLA: Well, it's interesting the way that this -- that this provision is written. It says $1,000 for each day the violation continues and $5,000 for repeat violations for each day the violation continues past the specific compliance date. So my thought in reading this -- and I'm just thinking out loud -- is that maybe the intent of this is to -- when you have the first, you know, violation, that you have the $1,000 fine that, you know, you can impose. And in this particular case we've already done that. So what we could do, I think, is we could impose the $5,000 violation. The only difficulty with that is we don't know how many days Pee-Wee's Dumpster had that dumpster on the property before they removed it. Because I would see the $5,000 fine as a violation of what -- the order that we just entered last time. I mean, this is -- it's not a new violation. It's the same violation. He took the dumpsters off and he put them back. That's what -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And he did not pay the fine. MS. NICOLA: Right. I kind of think that's where the $5,000 kicks in. Again, the difficulty is -- if we were able to enter No. 2 and No. 3 Page 35 August 26, 2016 and say that he was currently in violation by having dumpsters on the property, which he doesn't right now, because he figured it out that we were coming after him, then we could put that $5,000 in there, and every single day that dumpster sat there, he would be imposed the $5,000. But the dumpster's gone. I think it's a loophole. MR. LEFEBVRE: But it was seen -- first seen on August 1st. MS. NICOLA: So how many days was there until he removed it? MS. PULSE: I can't answer. I just know I was there yesterday, and they were removed. MS. NICOLA: And it was gone. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. So if we go from August 1st, we can go from the August 1st date until yesterday, because you were there on the 1st of August, correct -- MS. PULSE: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- and they were there? MS. PULSE: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: And you went back yesterday. MS. PULSE: Yesterday. MR. LEFEBVRE: Which was the 25th, correct? MS. PULSE: Uh-huh. MR. LEFEBVRE: So for that period in between, we can fine him because we know -- we know for a fact that they were -- he could argue that -- MS. NICOLA: Violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: He could argue that I took it away on the 2nd and then brought it back on the 24th, but he didn't call us to say -- MS. NICOLA: Right. No, I agree with you. I think there's opportunity to come in and say, I learned about the issue on August 1st, and then, you know, you said the last time you were out there was August 5th (sic). He could have come in here today and said, I removed it immediately -- Page 36 August 26, 2016 MR. LEFEBVRE: August 25th, yes. MS. NICOLA: -- but he's not here. I'm sorry, August 25th, excuse me. I removed it immediately, and he's not here. So, I mean, I think it's reasonable to assume that we can impose that fine because he's not complaining about it. He had an opportunity to come here and state his case and, again, he's not here. So I think we could reasonably impose the $5,000 fine for the days that the violation occurred until the day that the Code Enforcement investigator -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Inspector. MS. NICOLA: -- inspector, excuse me -- did not notice that the dumpster was gone. So -- and, again, I mean, I even think with a $5,000 fine, what's going to get his attention? A five-day, $25,000 fme. He's still not going to pay it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Fines continue to accrue. MS. NICOLA: Fines continue to accrue. MS. CURLEY: What's wrong with this? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me just -- the civil penalty is 65.43. MS. PULSE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That should be paid within 30 days. By the way, do you happen to know whether he paid the court costs in the past? MS. PULSE: I do not believe he has. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So -- and then the $5,000 can be assessed as of August 1st, and they continue to accrue. MR. LEFEBVRE: Through the twenty -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Til' compliance. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They're still on the ground yesterday. Page 37 August 26, 2016 MS. PULSE: No, yesterday -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Yesterday it was removed. MS. PULSE: -- there was no dumpsters on the -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yesterday, okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: So through yesterday. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: So for those 24 days or whatever it is, it would be $5,000. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: But then we go -- what's the fine if it happens again? Do we have to hear the case again? MS. NICOLA: For the record, that's $120,730. MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. NICOLA: For a dumpster. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. I expect him not to pay that either. So the other fines that were accruing -- MS. NICOLA: I can't imagine him coming in with a check. He didn't pay the $65. I don't think he's going to come in with 120,000. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Probably not. Okay. But as I said before, I don't think the fine is the essence of this case. It's compliance. That's what the Code Enforcement Board is trying to get; compliance. So we can use that language which equals X amount of dollars, and a lien will be placed on the property, et cetera. But I believe if there's any way -- and maybe that's some discussion with the Sheriffs Office, that Item 4 can be implemented to see what can be done as far as the sheriff. They have their little ways of doing things that might help this particular case out, and it is part of the order. MR. LEFEBVRE: Mr. Chairman, we spent a lot of time on what the fine was going to be, and if that is a -- that's not a motivator, then Page 38 August 26, 2016 we need to really craft this with some expert advice that this has some teeth to it. So I think we really need to have the county attorney advise us on what language we could use or put in, insert in here to make it -- that it's enforceable, because that's what it seems like our past orders have been lacking. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, then the only thing to do is to not do the recommendation or do any order now and to do a continuance till the next meeting and request that the county attorney provide us with their idea of what the best way to gain compliance would be. MR. LEFEBVRE: Or see if-- MS. NICOLA: Whatever works for you guys. I'm happy to get ahold of the County Attorney's Office and see what -- you know, if you want to shelve it until next time, I'm happy to -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I think we should definitely -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I agree. And, again, we're looking for compliance. It's not fair to the residents out there that are -- the ones who are doing the complaining, to fine him again. As a matter of fact, it was said -- stated the last time, you fined him back in 2011. He's still -- almost an exact quote. And he's still doing the same thing. He just never pays his fines. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we continue the recommendation to next month, and -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And gain input from the county attorney how to make this order as strong as possible. MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct; thank you. So I think I have a second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any comments on that? (No response.) Page 39 August 26, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thanks, Dee. MS. PULSE: Okay. Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is from No. 6, old business, Letter A, motion for imposition of fines/liens, No. 1, Tab 6, Case CEPM20150021043, Port of the Islands Trust. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, Steve. How you doing? MR. ATHEY: Good morning, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you want to read this order in for the record? MR. ATHEY: I will. For the record, Steven Athey, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in regards to Case No. CEPM20150021043, Board of County Commission versus Port of the Isles Trust. Violations of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Articles VI, Sections 22-231-12(B), 22-228-1, 22-242, 22-231-12(I), 22-231-15, and 22-231-12(C). The location is 12323 Union Road, Naples; Folio 1058920500. Description of the violations were the exterior walls in disrepair, windows and doors broken/missing, structures unsecure, pool is not Page 40 August 26, 2016 maintained, and the roof is in disrepair. Past orders: On June 23rd, 2016, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR5290, Page 3458, for more information. The violation has been partially abated by the county as of August 10th, 2016. And if the Board would allow, I have photographs of the partial abatement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. One quick -- were you sworn? I forget. MR. ATHEY: I was. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ASHTON: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. ASHTON: Has the previous assessment been paid? MR. LEFEBVRE: No. MR. ATHEY: Previous assessment has been paid. MR. ASHTON: It has? Because on our thing it says it has not. MR. ATHEY: I'm sorry. Operational costs have not been paid for this particular case. MR. LEFEBVRE: And what were the costs of the abatement, partial abatements by the county? Because that's not included in here. MR. ATHEY: What have the costs been to date? MR. LEFEBVRE: To partially abate by the county. MR. ATHEY: Mr. Letourneau could probably better speak to that. MR. LEFEBVRE: Because that should be added in the imposition of fines. MR. ATHEY: That's correct. MR. LETOURNEAU: I believe right now we're at -- I think the Page 41 August 26, 2016 pool was eight -- right around $8,000, and we're also looking into the -- you know, getting it boarded, and we're going to probably get a fence put up around it down the road here, so... MR. LEFEBVRE: Because usually partial -- any kind of abatements are added to this imposition of fines, which -- MS. ADAMS: The reason it isn't is because we don't -- we're still in the process of getting the vendor's invoices. We don't have all that yet. The pool has been -- has been abated, and we did receive an invoice for them. But we have to let 20 days pass before we can impose the -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: As I understand, the first payment that is made by anybody is to reimburse the county for any money that they have put towards it, then comes other liens, fines, et cetera. So that's a -- I forget the name of the lien. MS. CURLEY: Super priority. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Super priority liens. Okay. MS. ADAMS: We're just not able to include the abatement costs on this lien at this time because the time has not passed yet for them to allow them to pay the invoice. And the abatement is ongoing, so we still -- there's still invoices we haven't received yet from vendors. So, I mean, we would like to include in the order to include any future abatement costs that the county may incur, because it is ongoing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: We may have to -- you may have to come back in front of us and amend this order. MS. ADAMS: If the Board's willing to do that, we could just state in there that we'd like to include any future abatement costs that may be incurred. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, you want it to be recorded because if this property transfers at all, you want to make sure the county gets Page 42 August 26, 2016 reimbursed for the abatement costs. That's a hard cost that the county's out. MS. CURLEY: Well, in addition, Mr. Shapiro mentioned that they might walk away from this property the last time he was here. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. Even more the fact that if it goes into foreclosure, if that lien is going to be paid, we want to make sure that any abatement costs are recouped by the county. MS. CURLEY: That's what I mean. MR. LEFEBVRE: So it's very important that this -- MS. CURLEY: Somebody's going to pay it, whether it's the property owner or someone else. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. So it's very important that this order has some kind of abatement amount on it now or in the future because, again, it's probably going to take a little bit for this to be foreclosed on. But if there's recurring expenses by the county, hard costs by the county, we want to be reimbursed for it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, you can also say we'd like to continue this until you have the information to come back. We'll listen to Mr. Shapiro, and we can go forward with that, if that's your pleasure. MS. CURLEY: Yeah, that's -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Well -- or just record this and then amend it and rerecord a subsequent imposition of fines. MS. CURLEY: There's accrual of fines happening with -- the lien's going to be on top of the Code Enforcement violations that are already in existence if the property transfers anyways. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MS. CURLEY: There's no getting past this. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. But what I'm saying is, if someone does a title search now -- and you're the title expert -- somewhere there's a title search and this is imposed, all that will be shown is that Page 43 August 26, 2016 there's fines. It will not show that there -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The abatement costs. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right, the abatement costs. I want to make sure that if anybody does come and purchase this property, they're aware there's going to be -- MS. CURLEY: That's what Kerry said. There's a certain seasoning time they have to wait. MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, they can put the language in there that any additional abatement cost will be made part of this order MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- and that should take care of it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. CURLEY: Then it sits on the public record as if it's a covenant. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Until such time that you have the number, which probably won't take more than a couple of weeks. MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, I mean, yeah, for the pool. I'm not really sure how long the boarding and the fence are going to take, but, yeah -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: -- it's going to be more than a couple weeks. MS. CURLEY: So the county took on this task to manage the expenses for the property owner because the property owner didn't have the money to do that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It was a safety/health type issue. MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah. We had to weigh, you know, the safety issue of it, and we don't want anybody going in there at this point, especially the pool area, so... Page 44 August 26, 2016 MS. CURLEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't we -- you're done, Steve? MR. ATHEY: Do you want to hear the fmes and costs to date? MS. CURLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Fines and costs to date, and you said you had some picture of the partial abatement. MR. ATHEY: I have six photos taken by myself and, I'm sorry, two additional taken by the Sheriffs Department of the pool area. And we, in addition, in regards to another case, nuisance abatement case, recently had the grass mowed, and I just had the photos taken. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen the pictures? Have you seen the pictures? MR. SHAPIRO: I haven't, but I don't have any objection. I mean, I'll stipulate to all this if it's -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's fme. MR. SHAPIRO: -- if it helps things move along. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We need a motion to accept the photos. MR. ASHTON: Make a motion to accept the photos. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Page 45 August 26, 2016 MR. ATHEY: Fines and costs to date are as follows: Part B of the order: Fines have accrued at a rate of$150 per day for the period from June 29th, 2016, to August 26th, 2016, 59 days, for a total amount of$8,850. Part D of the order: Fines have accrued at a rate of$150 per day for the period from June 29th, 2016, to August 10th, 2016, 43 days, for a total fine amount of$6,450. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of$67.11 have not been paid. Operational costs for today today's hearing are $62.31. Total amount to date: $15,429.42. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Which brings us to you, Counsel. MR. SHAPIRO: Well, I guess I'm in a little bit of a weird position where my client has basically said, you know, they don't object to anything you do. They've kind of washed their hands of it. They bought this at a foreclosure sale. When they bought it, I guess there was a community improvement district lien of somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 million. There are back taxes somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 million. They were trying to kind of put this all together and do a project there. They've realized that, I guess, after the Code Enforcement last meeting that it wasn't going to be possible to put this all together, and they didn't want to put, you know, hundreds of thousands into a property that was upside down anyways. They haven't completely walked away from it. I have been in talks about donating the property to the Veterans Association or some other group that can actually do something with this so it doesn't say in the state it's in perpetually. I think it's been in this state for 15 to 20 years. It's just after my client bought it, you know, they actually started calling the police Page 46 August 26, 2016 about people breaking into it, so that's kind of what brought it to light. But it is -- so I want you to know my client didn't cause this. This has been this way for well over a decade. And they could just completely wash their hands of it, but they're trying to get it in the hands of someone that can do something with it so it's not just sitting in this state for another decade. But it's not an easy task. And they're donating it. I mean, they're taking a complete loss on it. But as you can imagine, it's a somewhat difficult case from their standpoint because, knowing that it's basically a worthless property, you know, it's difficult for them to put tens of thousands into -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It seems difficult that you would consider donating a debt to somebody else. MR. SHAPIRO: Yeah. Well, maybe they can work something out with the CID, you know. MS. CURLEY: I have a question. Is this involving both the properties, the bunkhouse and the resort? MR. SHAPIRO: No. MS. CURLEY: They're going to keep the bunkhouse. MR. SHAPIRO: The bunkhouse is a completely different owner. The bunk -- MS. CURLEY: Different trust? MR. SHORT: Yes. MS. CURLEY: Different entity, but same -- MR. SHAPIRO: No. MS. CURLEY: -- gentleman. MR. SHAPIRO: No. And that one is -- no, that's a completely different story. That one is -- they have already boarded. I mean, I guess that's another case. If you want to get into that now, we can. MS. CURLEY: I'm just curious. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is 12323 Union Road. Page 47 August 26, 2016 MR. SHAPIRO: No, I just mentioned -- because she brought that up. No, that's a different story. That one will be completely in compliance, but this one, you know, whatever you want to do, what's ever best for the Board, my client will sign it over to the Code Enforcement if that helps you, but I don't know what to do. I don't know what to tell you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, typically -- when the operational costs have not been paid, the Board typically imposes the fine. So having said that, would somebody like to make a motion? MR. ASHTON: Make a motion we impose the fine. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. MS. CURLEY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Before we vote on this, do we want to add the portion, Kerry, about future costs to this order, to this imposition? Can we add that language to it? MS. ADAMS: Yes, the county would prefer that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. If you could. So that would be part of this order, that any future abatement costs that the county has would be also included in this imposition. Okay. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you, Counselor. Page 48 August 26, 2016 MS. ADAMS: The next case No. 2, Tab 7, Case CEPM20160004343, 12323 Union Trust. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. ATHEY: For the record, Steven Athey, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CEPM20160004343, Board of County Commissioners versus 12323 Union Trust. Violations of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Sections 22-2 -- I'm sorry -- 22-231-12(B), 12(I), and 12(C). Location is 12400 Union Road, Naples; Folio 1058920513. Description of the violation is a roof in disrepair, windows and doors missing, and/or broken, and the exterior walls in disrepair. Past orders: 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, OR5290, Page 3461, for more information. Violation has not been abated as of August 26th, 2016. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of$150 per day for the period from June 29th, 2016, to August 26, 2016, 59 days, for a total fine amount of$8,850. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of$67.11 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing, 62.31. Total amount to date: $8,912.31. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Jeff, do you want to say something? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah, I'd like to say something. They did CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh. Page 49 August 26, 2016 MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. I'm sorry. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. LETOURNEAU: Once again, for the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. The owners did have this particular building boarded up pretty quickly. MR. ATHEY: I have five photographs I could enter, if you'd like. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That would be good. MR. ASHTON: Make a motion to accept. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion and a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. LETOURNEAU: And -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hold on one second, Jeff. Just to make sure counsel has no objection. Any objection? MR. SHAPIRO: No objection. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: I didn't feel comfortable issuing the boarding certificate due to the fact that there was a few things that weren't done completely to the property maintenance ordinance. Now, having said that, this is a huge structure. I believe that the Page 50 August 26, 2016 ordinance was probably written for, you know, single-family homes and stuff like that. And they did board it up. Now, I believe Mr. Shapiro's going to ask that the Board maybe retroactively go back to that date and stop the fines at that date because they did board it up. I just couldn't issue a boarding certificate because they didn't paint it the color of the building, it wasn't quite form fitting, and a couple other things. But, you know, the county would have no objection to, you know, working with Mr. Shapiro and the property owner at this point. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That's the last picture? Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: So, in other words, they don't have the certificate, but they did board the building. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. And had they had the certificate, it would be "the violation has been abated"? MR. LETOURNEAU: Partially abated. I mean, the property maintenance issues still have to be taken care of, but that would have bought them that six months with Section C on the order. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So it was partially abated June, the end of June 2016, someplace close to that? MR. LETOURNEAU: Steve, when was it actually boarded, or when was it that you noticed it was boarded? MR. ATHEY: Mr. Shapiro, do you know the date? MR. SHAPIRO: I know it was within probably two or three days it was -- MR. ATHEY: Days of the hearing? MR. SHAPIRO: Yeah, of the hearing. MR. LETOURNEAU: So I think they had it boarded in time. I just couldn't issue the boarding certificate. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I understand. Mr. Shapiro? MR. SHAPIRO: Yeah. So I guess my client had it boarded up as Page 51 August 26, 2016 soon as possible. Now, I want you to understand, this is -- it's not a single-family house. There's a lot of windows, and the boarding certificate -- I guess we discussed at the last hearing that the boarding would just be a primary solution. So there is -- in fact, I can represent to the Board, there will be permits and this will be a complete rehab done on this. So, you know, I would hope that the boards are just going to be temporary. They're going to be taken down, and a complete rehab is going to be done on this property in short order. So I guess, technically, because they weren't painted the color of the building, he didn't want to say that we were in compliance. But the building was secured, the doors were secured, the windows were secured, and, you know, it's -- this is a primary fix. In the next, probably, couple months a re -- a full rehab will be begun on this property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have they started with building permits already? MR. SHAPIRO: That will be done within the next couple weeks. Actually, the property is going to be transferred to someone who is going to be doing a complete rehab on the project. MS. CURLEY: Sold, you mean. MR. SHAPIRO: Sold, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ATHEY: That is today, correct, Mr. Shapiro? MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. Closing's supposed to be this afternoon. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Wow. Okay. Comments from the Board? MR. LEFEBVRE: They are aware of this case? MR. SHAPIRO: They are. In fact, the person that's buying it is the contractor that put the boards up. As he was putting the boards up, you know, we told him of the issue, and he's like, oh, I'm a contractor. Page 52 August 26, 2016 I'd like to buy this because I can fix it up, and that's who we're going to be selling it to is the actual guy that put the boards up. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: Are they making any profit on it? I'm just curious. Sony. MR. ATHEY: I don't know. It's going to be pretty close to -- I don't think they're going to be losing money. It will be pretty close to a breakeven. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I just still -- I mean, this board here looks like even if it's an 8-foot board, there's gaping holes there. I mean -- MR. SHAPIRO: To form fit it and paint when in the next two months you're just going to rip it down anyways to do a complete rehab project, I mean, I think, would just be a little bit of a waste. By the time you're done formfitting and painting it, you'd be ready to -- you'd probably have the building permit to start the demolition -- I mean, not demolition, but the rehab on it. MS. CURLEY: So the contractor said it would probably cost more than $8,912 to form fit it and paint it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, I'm not asking them to form fit it and paint it. MR. ASHTON: More security. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah, cover up more than eight feet of the opening. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You don't understand. It says "keep out." That should be enough. MS. NICOLA: I think what we had done last time -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, the white on the "keep out" is almost the color of the building. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: By the way, I mean, my client has been Page 53 August 26, 2016 actively going to the building on an almost daily basis, at least on -- you know, every several days to make sure that nobody has taken down the boards or got into it. I mean, they have been pretty conscientious about this. They've been showing up there just to make sure no boards were torn down or, you know, anybody has broken into the place. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So can I assume that you are here to ask the Board to abate the 8,850, the $8,850? MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. I would request the Board to abate the 8,850. And, you know, I think it's -- I think it's already a condition, because this boarding certificate -- I think at the last time we were here we said that this would only be a temporary fix for six months, and within the six months that there would be a more permanent solution, so -- and we're okay -- I mean, that is the plan, to do a -- and I think that's already in the order, by the way, the previous order. MS. CURLEY: As of today, they're not -- the owner of the property is not your client anymore, right? MR. SHAPIRO: No, but believe me, the new owner -- I mean, they're aware of this, and they don't -- I mean -- MS. CURLEY: Are they going to retain you for after today to -- MR. SHAPIRO: No. Their attorney is Marc Oates. MS. CURLEY: I'd like to make a motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And what is your motion? MS. CURLEY: To just impose the $8,912.31 fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? (No response.) MR. LEFEBVRE: This is a tough one. Well, we're not in discussion yet, so... MS. NICOLA: I have a question, and I guess it's because it -- I'm thinking from memory, and then I'm looking at C. I thought that the Page 54 August 26, 2016 requirement at the last hearing was simply for them to board up the first floor, and that's what it looks like happened. MR. LETOURNEAU: And I'd like to also point out, I want to clarify that the county has no objection if we just waived the boarding certificate part of the -- that part of the order. And I don't want to gum up the works of this sale with an imposition at this point. If it looks like they're going to follow through and get this thing rehabbed, that's the ultimate goal the county wants, so... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me interrupt you for a second. We have a motion on the floor, and it dies for lack of a second. Okay. Now continue, Jeff. MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, like I was saying, the county's looking for compliance, and it looks like Mr. Shapiro and the owners are on their way to doing that, or getting it to a new owner. And I believe if we impose because they didn't get a boarding certificate, it probably wouldn't be in the best interest of the county or -- and also that there's no, you know, activity going on in this particular structure anymore, you know, like they were having kids and whatever parties going on. That's been eliminated at this point, so... MR. ASHTON: Is the building secured? I mean, is it -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes, sir. It's secured. It's just not secured with the paint and all that. MR. ASHTON: I know. They just can't get in there through a little opening or something. MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. MR. ATHEY: It's secure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And, Steve, you're going to keep an eye on this after today when the new owner takes possession of the building to make sure -- MR. ATHEY: Without a doubt. Page 55 August 26, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- that there's progress -- MR. ATHEY: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- a building permit's pulled, and all the rest of that stuff? MR. LAVINSKI: So, Jeff, is the only reason it says here this has not been abated is because of that certificate? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes, sir. Well, you know, partially abated, yeah. The only reason that we didn't -- Section C isn't in compliance is because a boarding certificate wasn't -- I just couldn't issue it because it wasn't -- it wasn't up to the actual ordinance standards. But the intent of the boarding was done. It just wasn't done according to the actual property maintenance ordinance. MR. LAVINSKI: All right. I'll make a motion, then, to abate the fine under those circumstances. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'll second it. Okay. Any discussion on the motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. The issue I have is counsel here doesn't represent the new owner. He's saying that the new owner's going to do this, that, and the other thing. There's just so many ifs on this property. MS. CURLEY: We don't have evidence of a sales contract. And if I was the buyer, I'd be here at this meeting. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. All points well taken. Now, the quandary I have, abatement, I don't think that's in order. MR. SHAPIRO: I can speak to that when you're finished. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Abatement I don't think is in order, and then a full fine isn't in order. I just -- we've had cases like this where buyers Page 56 August 26, 2016 come in and buy a property, and it just languishes, and there's issues and so forth and so on. So this is kind of a tough one, but I can't see abating the whole fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. SHAPIRO: If I -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Counselor? MR. SHAPIRO: If I could speak to that. I mean, the new buyer would have been here if we thought it was necessary. I can tell you the new buyer has been in contact with the -- with the code enforcement investigator. I think the attorney is for the buyer is also, I mean -- but this buyer I can represent to the Court, that -- is aware of this, plans on immediately getting a building permit to rehab the property. I mean, I know that is taking place. I didn't bring any proof or any of that with me, but I can say that this -- the boarding certificate, just the boards -- and I think this is in the previous order -- and the new buyer would take subject to that order when they bought it, they would be under that order, that this is -- the boarding is only for six months. We agreed that there would be a permanent solution that would take place before that -- the boarding, I guess, expired, that the boarding would only be valid for six months, and if they -- if there wasn't a rehab or a demolition done in the six months, then the fines would start accruing. And I believe that's already been ordered, and the new buyer is aware of that. So I think there's not going to be an issue with this. I mean the new buyer is going to be -- is aware of it and is going to be highly motivated to get this done fast. MR. LEFEBVRE: The other option would be just to continue this. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you been -- yeah, Steve, have you been in contact with the new buyer? Page 57 August 26, 2016 MR. ATHEY: I met with the potential buyer immediately after the original hearing on site and gave him specific instructions how to board the dwelling, and this is what they did. Since that meeting, I have had no contact with him at all. MR. LETOURNEAU: Would the Board be okay with the county withdrawing this for a month and see where we sit at that point with the fines continuing to accrue? MR. LEFEBVRE: Now, would that impact the sale if there's still fines on this? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, there's no order there, then there's no order there. MR. LEFEBVRE: But there's a case, and there's fines that are -- well, there's still fines. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I would think that if the new buyer -- if we were to -- if the county would withdraw this and the new buyer knew that the Board would look favorably on an abatement of this, if the new buyer would agree that he's going forward, he's going to be pulling building permits, et cetera. MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, yeah, at least showing up to the next month's hearing and explaining his plan. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think that would be good. And let me check with the motion maker; would that be okay with you? MR. LAVINSKI: No, I don't think so. You know, this is a bad enough deal to begin with. I just can't see throwing another pound of salt into the wound of this thing. And I'll assume for the minute that Mr. Shapiro is honest in his statements about what's to happen. And I think we should just step out and take a chance and abate this and let them move on and see what happens. MS. CURLEY: He just said that the new buyer had been in conversation with the county officer over here when, in fact, the Page 58 August 26, 2016 county officer just instructed him as a vendor how to board up the building. He didn't say that he had had ongoing conversations with him about the anticipation of him purchasing it. So I don't find all of the conversation to be -- MR. LAVINSKI: No. I stand behind my motion to abate the fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, we have a motion and we have a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Those opposed? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Nay. MR. ASHTON: Nay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One, two, three. Okay. Motion fails. MR. ASHTON: I think we ought to let the county pull it and then let the new buyers come in next month to get this abated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ASHTON: They know it's here. They know that they have the opportunity to abate this, and they should show up and do it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Being that he installed the boards, too, I think he should be here and explain. By then it will close, and then hopefully by then he can say this is what I did to submit. And he's the new owner, and maybe Mr. Ship -- Mr. Oak, Oates? Oaks, is it? MR. SHAPIRO: Marc Oates. MR. LEFEBVRE: Mark Oates. Thank you, thank you -- he can come in front of us and explain what's being done. MR. SHAPIRO: And he's just the attorney that's doing the closing. I don't -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Page 59 August 26, 2016 MR. SHAPIRO: I don't know if he's -- MS. CURLEY: So what if nothing changes and we're back here next month? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Then we'll make a decision at that time. Mr. Ashton, would you like to make a motion to that effect that -- MR. LAVINSKI: Mr. Chairman, I still feel that by doing this continuance you're still leaving a cloud out there about this fine may happen. And if that spoils the sale that's potentially going to happen to have this thing rehabbed, I wouldn't feel very good sleeping at night, that for an $8,900 fine we botched or we partly contributed to the botching of this sale. MS. CURLEY: Okay. Then I have a motion. I'll make a motion that we impose a $2,000 fine. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion to impose a $2,000 fine. Any discussion on that motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. LAVINSKI: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. Okay. It passes. MS. CURLEY: We've got to recoup something here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ATHEY: Good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So it's a $2,000 fine, and Page 60 August 26, 2016 that's the end of it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Now, the question: This isn't going to be recorded until after the closing. How is that going to be -- MS. CURLEY: The client's attorney is here. He has knowledge of this. MR. LEFEBVRE: I understand. MR. SHAPIRO: Yeah. I mean, they have to get, I guess, an estoppel -- well, yeah. MS. CURLEY: They just hold their money. They can escrow their money. MR. SHAPIRO: Yeah. MR. LETOURNEAU: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, Jeff. MR. LETOURNEAU: So on Section C, we're saying that they did not comply with Section C and get the boarding certificate and didn't get it taken care of right, so the fines from that at this point are continuing to run; is that correct? MR. LEFEBVRE: No. MR. DOINO: No. MR. LEFEBVRE: No? MS. ADAMS: The case is still open. MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah. Because the violation still remains. Section C was the boarding. That was the Band-aid. That bought them six months to get the property maintenance issues taken care of. So you -- I'm just curious about going forward in the future how this case is running. MR. SHAPIRO: So I thought when he said if-- 2,000 and then it was done, that it was a $2,000 fine, and they would take this -- the boards as they were to be good for -- you know, until the six months expires. MR. LETOURNEAU: Is that how we're at, and the fines aren't Page 61 August 26, 2016 continuing to run? MR. LAVINSKI: I thought we agreed that we would waive what little it is to get the certificate, and this $2,000 fine would settle it. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. But -- all right. So what about Section D, though? That's still in play. No, not -- Section C they still have to fix the property maintenance issues within six months. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. We didn't hear that at all now. That was heard in the past. MR. LETOURNEAU: I'm just kind of-- I just need some clarification at this point what you guys are -- MS. CURLEY: Do we have to address it? MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, I don't know. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't think we have to address it. It's not on the agenda. MR. LETOURNEAU: No, but it's -- MR. LEFEBVRE: It's part of the order. MR. LETOURNEAU: It's -- so do we -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The original order. MR. LETOURNEAU: Say the sale falls through and we come up to six months, do we -- is that -- we bring that back at this (sic) time or -- I'm just kind of confused at where we're at. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. All right. Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And should the respondent -- the new buyer want to come before the Board to make us feel more comfortable about the six months, or if they need more time. MR. SHAPIRO: And, yeah. And I guess it's moot now, but I was going to suggest, you know, if there wasn't a fine, that maybe the solution to this is to have the new buyer sign something at closing saying that he will -- agrees to be bound by the Code Enforcement Page 62 August 26, 2016 order that was imposed on the former buyer. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. As you said, ifs moot now. Okay. We're going to take 10 minutes. Be back -- 38, 48 -- 10 of. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board back to order. I think we left off at Tab 9. MS. NICOLA: Eight. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Eight. MS. ADAMS: It's No. 3 from imposition of fines, Tab 8, Case CESA20150024052, K&R Hometech, LLC. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. ROJAS: Good morning. MS. GIGUERE: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. Would you like to read the order into the record? MS. GIGUERE: Yes. For the record, Vicky Giguere, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is dealing with violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location is 4810 Aztec Circle, Naples, Florida; folio is 3 -- I'm sorry, 63100120005. Description: Interior alterations consisting of but not limited to the removal of interior walls, plumbing, and electrical work all done prior to obtaining Collier County building permits. Past orders: On April 29th, 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, OR5270, Page 63 August 26, 2016 Page 2590, for more information. The violation has not been abated as of August 26th, 2016. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of$250 per day for the period from July 29th, 2016, to August 26th, 2016, 29 days, for a total fine amount of$7,250. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of$68.79 have been paid, and the operational costs for today's hearing are $62.61. Total amount to date: $7,312.61. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, thank you. Good morning. MS. ROJAS: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name on the record, please. MS. ROJAS: Maria Rojas. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you are associated with? MS. ROJAS: With K&R Hometech, LLC. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. ROJAS: Yes, we do have a permit. We submitted the permit in March, but there were situations. There were -- the person who did the plans, they were back and forth with the county because they were par (sic) for an affidavit, the other one. They were assisting. So -- and they were changing. We do have the word -- the last word that we got that will be for affidavit. So the work was done, but we never called for rough inspection. So when we called, when the -- all the job was done, we called for the final inspection and didn't pass because we supposed to call for rough inspection, but we didn't know. And we already went to the -- we talked to Jonathan Walsh yest -- Fri -- Wednesday, and I think, you know, we are -- we're going to fix it, and we're going to open the place that they need to be opened to Page 64 August 26, 2016 pass the rough inspection to able to do the final. Because the miscommunication in here in the affidavit we thought they had to be done the job, and after will be one inspection. So we wasn't aware about that -- the rough inspection, we couldn't done because it was done by, you know, electrician, plumbing, and the build -- I mean, the contractor. So we didn't -- we done everything by what they say. You know, we got a permit, we got a contractor, we got licensed plumbing and electric. But the miscommunication in between the system and the new part that we added, the laundry room and one wall, we supposed to call for rough inspection, and we didn't know that. So on Monday they coming to the -- we call for Monday for the inspection, and they're going to tell -- you know, to pass the first one, and then we call for the final, and that will be it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This case goes back to April. You have a licensed plumber and electrician working on this? MS. ROJAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And they didn't know to call in a rough inspection? MS. ROJAS: What happened is in the plan, when they looking in there, it's the system, and they only showing in here -- I give it the word, and I say, I only need one inspection. So they came to do the job, and we finished. So framing came to do the wall, electrician came to do the job, and plumbing came, and then we finished everybody. When we called the final inspection, everything failed because electric and plumbing have to be done by rough. So now we're going to open the space that they needed to look at it -- they coming on Monday -- and we're going to pass inspection, and then we call for the final. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: My question is, though, you had a Page 65 August 26, 2016 licensed electrician and plumber who did work. They pulled a permit, I'm assuming? MS. ROJAS: No, nobody pulled a permit. Because when you haven't -- what they did is they gave me -- I went to get other form when in this affidavit they signed they put the license in there. So the permit never was -- it was pulled by -- I think that is a company that we used for -- MS. CURLEY: She's getting a permit by affidavit. The work was already done. MS. ROJAS: Yeah. MS. GIGUERE: If I may, I believe they were under the impression that because it was by affidavit, they would just have to send in the affidavit and sign off saying that the work was completed. But I guess there was a certain portion of it that they required rough inspections that they weren't aware of at the beginning. So they have gone back to do the rough inspections and then now the finals. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And this is going to be solved on Monday, you said. MS. ROJAS: Monday they coming to tell us, okay, open this part, open this part, and then they coming when it's open to do the rough. And then after doing that, in past, we have to finish and then call for the final. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So you are here today -- MS. ROJAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- to ask for... MS. ROJAS: You know, I can -- we can -- I wanted the fastest. You know, I want to move in the next week if I can. MR. LEFEBVRE: You need more time? MS. ROJAS: Probably we need, I don't know, probably two weeks. But I put 30 days in case, you know, if something happened that I have to go back and in for -- Page 66 August 26, 2016 MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to -- MS. CURLEY: Wait, wait. Can we hear from the county? MS. GIGUERE: The county doesn't have any objection to more time. MS. CURLEY: Okay. MS. GIGUERE: There is no one living in here. It is secured. There's no immediate health and safety issue at this time. They are working. They had inspections done as late as the 18th of August, so just a week ago. So they are working on it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to continue for 60 days. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. We have a motion and a second to continue this for 60 days, okay. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Continuing this means that the fines continue to add up until 60 days when you can -- you will come back here and let us know that everything is done or not done or whatever, okay? MS. ROJAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Page 67 August 26, 2016 MS. ROJAS: What happened -- MS. CURLEY: Won't our meeting -- won't our meeting be less than 60 days away, our second meeting? MS. NICOLA: Sixty days is October 25th, and our next -- the October meeting would be -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, if she can come back -- MS. NICOLA: Twenty-eighth. MS. ROJAS: What happened if we done next -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What'd you say? One person at a time. MS. ROJAS: Oh, okay. MS. NICOLA: October 25th would be the 60 days, and October 29th is the next Code Enforcement hearing in October. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's fine. Okay. Thank you. MS. GIGUERE: Thank you. MS. ROJAS: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 4, Tab 9, Case CEROW20150014167, John E. Price. MR. PRICE: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. LETOURNEAU: Once again, for the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is for an imposition of fine request. The violation being of the Collier County right-of-way permit, Chapter 110, roads and bridges, Article II, construction in the right-of-way, Division 1, generally, Section 110-30(A). Violation location is 112 Fairway Circle, Naples; Folio No. 65271840005. The violation description is a culvert drainage pipe that has failed, that has collapsed or rusted through. Ordinance 2003-37 requires that Page 68 August 26, 2016 necessary repairs are the responsibility of the property owner. Past orders: On March 14th, 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, OR5257, Page 897, for more information. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at the rate of$150 per day for the period from July 23rd, 2016, to August 26th, 2016, 15 days, for a total fine amount of$5,250. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of 64.59 have not been paid -- oh, excuse me, have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing, 62.61. Total amount to date: $5,312.61. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. Could you state your name on the mike for the record? MR. PRICE: Yes, John E. Price. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Move the mike up so we can hear you a little bit better. You are here to request... MR. PRICE: Well, I was here, actually, to clarify my situation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. PRICE: I didn't know I was being fined. I've taken out a building permit, and the problem that I've been having is trying to find a contractor to come out and do work for an individual. I've contacted five different people. Three of them said they would be out to take measurements and write me up a proposal. I've gotten one proposal. That's it, and I about fell over when I saw what it was for. It was over $10,000. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is this one culvert underneath your driveway? MR. PRICE: It's -- actually, the culvert runs 100 feet. It runs from -- on the east end from a -- my property line to the west end, Page 69 August 26, 2016 which ties into the culvert of my neighbor, and -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you don't have swales. You have culverts there? MR. PRICE: Exactly. There are swales in the neighborhood, and that was another problem. Even the new swales, we have standing water in them. So it's not a matter of water flow. It's a matter of the water table being so high right now. The ground's saturated, so the water just stands in these swales that the county has made the people in Palm River Estates dig. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. Water is supposed to stay in swales until it goes down. MR. PRICE: Exactly. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have water in my swales right now. That's just the way swales work. That's why they're superior to the culverts, actually. MR. PRICE: But it's a nursery for mosquitoes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's true. We live in Florida. What can I say? Okay. This began March 24th. MR. PRICE: Last year. Last year I was notified. And, in fact, Steve Athey, I think, the fellow that was just here a few minutes ago, I called his office several times, and I wanted a clarification because it says repair/replace. I didn't know what they wanted me to do. So I went out and I inspected it, and the only thing that I could find that was wrong was the western end, I couldn't find the culvert. So I went out there and prodded and found it and uncovered it, dug it up, and I could see from about five feet back it was rusted, and it had been pushed down at the very end instead of it being, you know, nicely cut. And I waited for about a week. And after we had some strong Page 70 August 26, 2016 rains, I went out there, and I could see the water flowing through it into my neighbor's culvert. So I called Steve's office and left a voice mail saying that, you know, I uncovered it, and if you want to send somebody out to inspect it, it's -- you know, let me know. Never heard back from him, nothing, until I guess it was in 2016, maybe February or March, when I got another notice and it said, you know, the same thing. You have to get a permit. Now I did get the permit. I was late. I admit that I was late, and I did pay the fine, the $65 fine. But everything else that I've done, it's just a matter of getting financing. I'm retired. I have limited income. And I have called the VA, and they said that they would try to help me out. But other than that, it's just finding a contractor to come out. And most of them, they don't want to do individual work. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, we're in a position here where, obviously, there's a violation, and it needs to be resolved. If you're requesting more time to resolve this situation... MR. PRICE: Yeah, that would help. Either 90 days, or if I could get 120 days, it would be nice. MS. CURLEY: We've seen this problem in the Willoughby Acres in this area. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. CURLEY: We have had a couple people here this summer, and it is a hardship because of the contract issue, and some of those people were, you know, getting their community together to try and get one proposal. So it is an issue. It's expensive. MR. PRICE: There's one other issue that I spoke with the gentleman outside that there was a newer development north of us called the Horse Creek Estates. MR. LEFEBVRE: Horse Creek. Page 71 August 26, 2016 MR. PRICE: And I was told that they were supposed to put in culverts that would drain water from our property into their retention ponds. And after they got their CO, they didn't put any pipes in there at all. They just kind of damned it up, and it's kind of after the fact now. And I mentioned that to Ms. Humphreys, and she said, well, there's not much we can do. I said, well, can't you do what you did to me, and that's send somebody out there from Code Enforcement and say, hey, you're supposed to have culverts in here. And she said, well, she'll think it over. So I don't know. It's -- MS. CURLEY: It's a good retirement project for you. MR. PRICE: For me? MS. CURLEY: Look how much you're learning. MR. PRICE: I haven't been down here in 30 years. This is the first time I've been down here at the complex in 30 years, so this is all new to me. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Jeff, do you have any comments on the situation? MR. LETOURNEAU: We have no objection to any amount of time you want to give this gentleman. There's no, really, health or safety issue at this point. MR. DOINO: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. PRICE: What about the fines, though? I mean, can you waive those? MR. LETOURNEAU: This board can look into it once, I believe, you come into compliance, yeah. MR. PRICE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You haven't actually paid a fine. MR. PRICE: Yeah, I did. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What you actually paid -- Page 72 August 26, 2016 MR. PRICE: I paid a $65 fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me explain. It's not a fine. Those are the costs involved in paying all of us and the room and whatnot. We don't get paid, by the way, so -- but that's what they call, like, court costs. Fines are the amount on the bottom that says 5,312. That includes the daily fines for passing the date when this was supposed to be resolved. And fines, once it's resolved, can be abated. MR. PRICE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You come back before the Board. What we're looking now to do is to give you sufficient time to get done. MR. PRICE: Okay. Well, on your original permit it's good until the 8th of October. So that would be extended then? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That has nothing to do with the code violation. You need to contact the people in the building department to tell them that you need a little more time. If you opened it up -- MR. PRICE: I see. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- you can probably call them back, and they'll take a look and see that you've done something, and then they'll extend it for six months or whatever it is. But in the meantime, as far as the Board is concerned, you're looking for additional time. Sue, did you want to make -- or you want to make a motion? MR. DOINO: A hundred and twenty days would be fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ASHTON: Second. MR. PRICE: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: What is it, extension or continuance? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Continuance? MR. DOINO: Continuance, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So -- and we have a second Page 73 August 26, 2016 from Mr. Ashton. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Carries unanimously. So you have 120 days. I suggest that you go back to the people who issued you the permit and say you need an extension of time on that. And four months, hopefully you should be able to find somebody to do it. MS. CURLEY: And make sure you come back here when you're done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. PRICE: To let you know, or just come back here to -- MS. CURLEY: Because these fines are accruing still. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So if you want the fmes to go away, this is the place to be. MR. PRICE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. PRICE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So it will be twice you've been here in 30 years, okay. MR. PRICE: All right. Just a little aside. When you were talking about Port of the Islands, the condemned building, did you know that Page 74 August 26, 2016 used to be a horse stable? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Really. MR. PRICE: Yeah. They used to have horse rides out there. It used to be the old Remuda Ranch. That's how long I've been down here in Collier County. It was really a nice place, and it's sad to see it. MS. NICOLA: I remember that. I've been here that long, too. I didn't realize that. MR. PRICE: Do you remember that? MS. NICOLA: Oh, yeah. MR. PRICE: It was really a nice place; beautiful place. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well -- MR. PRICE: Thank you, sir. MR. LETOURNEAU: Have a good day, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Board. MS. CURLEY: Do you have any pictures of that when it was a ranch? I'm serious. MR. PRICE: No, but I'm sure it's probably in the archives. MS. NICOLA: Naples Historical Society. MS. ADAMS: Okay. The next case is No. 5, Tab 10, Case CESD20140010232, Mansolillo IRA, LLC. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You want to read the order into the record, Jeff? MR. LETOURNEAU: I will. Once again, for the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. The violation is of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and the 2010 Florida Building Code, Chapter 1, Part 1, Section 105.1. Violation location is at 120 7th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida; Folio 37161440006. Description of the violation: Complete remodeling of the interior Page 75 August 26, 2016 of the home and garage being converted into living space including plumbing, electronic, structural work, as well as a fence in the front yard, all done without first obtaining required Collier County building permits. On November 21st, 2014, the Code Enforcement Board granted a continuance. See the attached order of the board, OR5101, Page 2772, for more information. 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 the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR5138, Page 1187, for more information. On October 22nd, 2015, an extension of time to comply was granted. See the attached order of the board, OR5210, Page 294, for more information. On May 26th, 2016, an extension of time to comply was granted. See the attached order of the board, OR5278, Page 2553, for more information. The violation has not been abated as of August 26th, 2016. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at the rate of$250 per day for the period between July 26th, 2016, and August 26th, 2016, 32 days, for a total fine amount of$8,000. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of$131.70 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing are $67.95. Total amount to date: $8,067.95. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Now, sir, you've given some pictures that you wanted the Board to see. Would the county take a look at those and see if they're okay? MR. LETOURNEAU: We have no objection. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Page 76 August 26, 2016 MR. MANSOLILLO: It's finished, finally. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, it may or may not be finished according to the order that we have. MR. MANSOLILLO: Right, but I was going to explain that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you want us to see the photos first? MR. MANSOLILLO: Just if you want to. It's structurally done. We went last week to go for final inspection. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me stop you a second so that you don't spin your wheels. As they say, it's not done until the paper's done; you understand that? MR. MANSOLILLO: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Okay. So do you want to describe the photos as he shows them or as Kerry shows them? MR. MANSOLILLO: If you feel you need to. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, probably do. MR. ASHTON: Make a motion to accept. MR. DOINO: Second. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and second to accept the photos. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Page 77 August 26, 2016 MR. MANSOLILLO: That's the bathroom in the carriage house. Oh, by the way, we did not convert that garage. That was done on a previous building permit. We just -- we improved it. That's the laundry room in the main house. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Looks like the same picture. MR. MANSOLILLO: It's a duplicate; I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Unless you have two of those rooms. MR. MANSOLILLO: That's one of the bedrooms. No, that's the hallway leading in -- you know what I did with this is I made it all wheelchair accessible; that's why the wide hallways. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: Is this the main house right here that we're looking at? MR. MANSOLILLO: Yeah. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. MR. MANSOLILLO: That's the master bathroom, one corner of it. We don't have a wide-angle lens, so we do the best we can. That's the living room areas; living room, family room, whatever you call it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is all unoccupied space right now? MR. MANSOLILLO: All unoccupied, yeah. That's one of the -- that's a secondary bedroom. That's the kitchen. That's the back porch, which was all rebuilt. That's part of living room going towards the kitchen; living room going to the bedrooms. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's it, okay. So, now, what hasn't been done? MR. MANSOLILLO: Nothing. We went down for our final inspections, I think it was Monday, and one of the contractor's insurance has expired, so they can't give me final inspection. We got a new certificate for -- everything's all taken care of. Now we'll go reapply on this Monday for the final inspections, and we'll be done. Page 78 August 26, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This is news to you, Jeff? MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, no, I just -- I did check the house permit, and I haven't seen any inspections done yet, so I'm not -- MR. MANSOLILLO: All the roughs are done. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. I didn't see that on the permit. But if all the roughs are done, you know -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: It does look like it's close from the outside also, so... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Just -- I mean, this case goes back to 2014. It's been here a long time. And the Board has, on several occasions, in essence, erased all the fines, because if you were paying a $250 fine from November of 14th (sic), you could buy a 747 or something, okay. Every time we did an extension, it erased the fines prior to that. MR. MANSOLILLO: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the last extension that was done was done a month ago. That's why there's only fines for the last month, from July 26th to August 26th. Now, my first inclination on this is if you say this is going to be completed and done by next week -- MR. MANSOLILLO: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- I would suggest that either the Board grants a continuance, imposes the fines, or the county withdraw it. Those are the three options that we have right now. Let me hear from the Board. MR. LEFEBVRE: If we withdraw it, then -- if inspections are done, they pass, come back next month, and he asks -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He can ask for an abatement at that time. MR. LEFEBVRE: So I think maybe -- Page 79 August 26, 2016 MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, I mean, I'm just looking at all the extensions we've had so far. It's just -- I would -- the county would be more comfortable with -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Continuance. MR. LETOURNEAU: A continuance is where the fines continue to run? Just to put a little fire under the gentleman. Yes, that's what we would -- MS. NICOLA: I think they still run, though, even if you withdraw it, Mr. Letourneau. I don't think they stop accruing. MR. LETOURNEAU: That is true. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I just wanted to throw out the three options. MR. LETOURNEAU: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Lefebvre, would like to make a motion? MR. LETOURNEAU: I'll let the board decide. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, if you do continuance now, you have to file paperwork and everything, correct? MS. NICOLA: Correct. And I just advised Kerry that I'm not going to be able to get the paperwork done this week, unfortunately. So for me, preferably -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Let's -- MR. LETOURNEAU: We'll -- MS. NICOLA: -- if it has the same effect, withdrawing it would be helpful. MR. LETOURNEAU: The county will request to withdraw it for a month. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, it doesn't have to be done this week. We're talking about 30 days, our next meeting, whatever date that is. MR. LETOURNEAU: The county will withdraw till next month, Page 80 August 26, 2016 then, at this point if the Board's okay with that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We are. MS. NICOLA: You're going to come back at the next meeting. MR. MANSOLILLO: Yeah. MR. LEFEBVRE: Please have every -- MR. MANSOLILLO: We asked for 30 days. She's been doing the running back and forth to the county for me. You know, I just want to tell you, this has not been the usual situation. You fellows should know that just before -- this was a drug house. They had overdosed bodies in the front yard just before I bought it, okay, and they had torn this place completely apart, okay. When I bought it, the county -- I couldn't close. I couldn't close for almost a year because the county had an $85,000 lien against Fannie Mae, and they had to go in there and remove all the pepper trees. It cost Fannie Mae more money to remove the pepper trees than they got from me for the house. We went in, and we started the construction, and someone stole the electrical lines on the outside of the house, so we had to stop the construction. And we had to get a permit to go underground with the cable. It took six months to get electricity back in the house. I mean, it's been a nightmare, right, and then we got -- we got the air conditioning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We don't need to hear the history. MR. MANSOLILLO: Well, I don't -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We understand that you -- we understand that you've had lots of difficulties, and that's why the Board acted as they have in the past by granting extensions rather than continuances. MR. MANSOLILLO: And I appreciate it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we're at 2014. Next month you'll come back, hopefully everything will be done, and you can Page 81 August 26, 2016 request whatever you want to request at that time. MR. LETOURNEAU: Just to clarify, though, that we're talking about both structures are going to be CO'ed? MR. MANSOLILLO: Both. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay, all right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: Very good. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MR. LETOURNEAU: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 6, Tab 11, Case CESD20150013679, Lin Lin Wang. MS. WANG: Hello. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ODOM: Good morning. For the record, Michael Odom, Collier County Code Enforcement. This case is dealing with violations of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(1). Location: 1747 Acremaker Road, Naples, Florida; Folio 193560004. Description: Unpermitted structural, plumbing, electrical and HVC -- correction -- HVAC alterations to the residential structure. Past orders: On September 24th, 2015, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See attached order of the board, OR5200, Page 1246, for more information. On January 29th, 2016, a continuance was granted. See the attached order of the board, OR5241, Page 1393, for more information. On May 26th, 2016, a continuance was granted. See the attached Page 82 August 26, 2016 order of the board, OR5278, Page 2545, for more information. The violation has not been abated as of August 26th, 2016. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of$200 per day for the period between December 24th, 2015, and August 26th, 2016, 247 days, for a total fine amount of$49,400. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of$65.85 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing, $65.43. Total amount to date: $49,465.43. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Could you state your name on the mic for the record. MS. WANG: Lin Lin Wang. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you are here to... MS. WANG: I already try best I can. Whatever under my control, I already finish. And a couple months ago -- one month ago I try to go to county to get a CO and certificate of the complete everything, and the county tell me, say they need a letter about the rebar from the FEMA. And then I try to contact the architect, the one who draw the plan to me, and they said they cannot give me rebar, the letter. So I back to the county say they cannot do. They cannot have the letter to me. What I need to do? Well, your guy come in, inspect the pass (sic), you need let me know. It's not passed. On the time I can't do anything. I cannot get a letter, what I need to do? I need to knock down everything, redo it again? And they say, no, you need to get the letter. So I go back to the architect to ask. The county say they just want a proof to see that I have rebar in there. And then architect just say, nothing they can do. They cannot give me the letter. So I don't know what I need to do. And then I just -- the time waiting, they forward back to me is more than a one month. Page 83 August 26, 2016 And last week -- last couple week I went to the county, speak to the supervisor. I say if things had been like, what you want me do? You want me knock it down or you want me to redo? And they say -- they don't want me to knock it down, the building. I say, I need to fix the problem. I have the county court. I want to try to finish. Just tell me what I need to do. You guys accept the problem. And they say, find a company to make, like, the body screen to check I have rebar in there. And I say, who I need talk to? He said I need to talk to the -- whenever the guy made the print for me. I say, I already talk to them. They don't want to -- they say nothing they can do. The county supervisor suggest me go ahead, sure (sic). I say, I don't want to take a long time. I just want to finish. Just tell me anything else I can do, try to finish whole thing case. He say, okay. And I give you the company. They can make the screen to check that I have rebar in there or no rebar in there. And then I go find an estimate with a company I called, they had different company in there, and they would try to estimate how much it would be cost to fix -- I have rebar in there. And I go -- they ask me, say, they will be cost a lot of money. And I back to building, I go and make the picture. I don't bring the -- print the letter. I just my -- with the phone (sic). They told me that it's old -- I put a concrete, little bit in there. I -- it allowed the concrete, add to the concrete. The part I do, I do have rebar in there, and the old -- the pre-existing building in there, I don't know it have rebar in there or no rebar in there. So before I come here, I went to the county. I show a picture, talk to the supervisor. I say, thing right here, the bottom, I don't know because I don't do that. That was -- you can see the picture. It's pretty Page 84 August 26, 2016 old building. Maybe more than the 20 year. As a new one, I have -- I do have rebar in there. And they say, okay, you just show me you have rebar or no rebar. If no rebar in there, and just change the print. They say, if I later on I sell the house, the new owner they find it is a print and the building is not same, they will sue the county building department saying this is not -- the permit is not same the building. They say, you just tell me what's it there. Give me the new print. So last couple day, I just find, oh, I had the best way to do, just changing the print so I don't need the -- and I just find that they say this morning the company called me that will cost me $3,000 to screen the -- these thing have rebar or no rebar in there. I just talked to him before the meeting. I say, I try to go back to county. They will be costing me $3,000 to screen it to find have rebar or no rebar. Is there any way I can make a hole? You can't -- it better to come in to show you I have rebar in there or rebar. And then we do something else to cheaper, saving me money, way too fast, way to fix the problem. And I don't get the county yet so because if I go make a hole to see the -- to see the rebar, there will be more easy, first, with me, because that way I only go call up Home Depot to rent a machine and make a hole. If I waiting for the company to make a screen, I had to waiting estimate, and the money is costing me a dollar, too, to find rebar. And that is causing me more time. I try to close the case. I finish everything I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So let me see if I understand. I'm going to try to do a little quick summary. There was a structure that you redid. You did new plumbing, new electrical, a new air conditioning; is that correct? MS. WANG: Yeah. This already pass. Only for the FEMA. Page 85 August 26, 2016 When they come inside -- it's when they come inside, and they sign pass. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So for plumbing, electrical, and A/C you have a final CO on those three trades. MS. WANG: Yeah. Right now I only want to try get a certificate of the -- MR. ODOM: If I may, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. ODOM: Excuse me. I just want to clarify a little bit. This property owner is diligently working towards compliance. We were here on May 26th. There were five activities pending, including an elevation certificate. There are now -- there is now one activity pending, which is a footings inspection. The problem she's referring to it is the old concrete underneath what she had put in. That's the last piece of the puzzle here. And she's really working towards getting that done. My understanding is it's very costly, and she's trying to get an estimate by today, which she hasn't done; however, that's the only thing that's left to do. It's a big thing. Everything else has passed. It's just concrete footings, which is -- that's the main issue. So there's nobody living in there. It's secure. Everything is up to code. It has -- except for the footings, so that's kind of where we're at. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I could ask you if you had some idea of how long do you think it will take till this gets resolved. MR. ODOM: I think that the way Mrs. Lin Lin Wang is going, hopefully it gets done soon. All she has to do, my understanding, is hire the company, have them come in, if it's not, you know, too extensive, and evaluate what the charge is going to be, or work with the county in terms of taking a sample out and seeing if that will suffice to look at the old concrete. Page 86 August 26, 2016 I don't think -- you know, we had spoken. Our recommendation was that 60 days, I think, would be more than enough time after, you know, speaking with the property owner. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to continue this case for 90 days. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and second to continue it for 90 days. Okay. MR. ODOM: The county has no objections. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And any comments from the Board? MS. CURLEY: I just have a question. Is that a process that the county's used to going through, allowing her to bring a sample out for -- rather than that extensive procedure of having it X-rayed? MR. ODOM: Ma'am -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm familiar with that. MR. ODOM: -- I do not know. MS. CURLEY: Okay. MR. ODOM: Building department. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: As a matter of fact, when they pour columns, the contractor leaves a portion of the bottom block exposed to see all of that before you close that back up. So it is a normal situation. MS. CURLEY: So then the lesser-priced option is hopefully available for her. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm assuming that you'll find out what's best for you, and you'll do that. MS. WANG: Yeah. We've done -- powerful (sic) right now. I try to find what's the saving way, fast way to get that. Everything I can do myself that will be under my control is fine, but if you call company, that will cost me more money and take more long time. And I try to go better county -- it's better way to me make a Page 87 August 26, 2016 hole to show you what in there. So I go ahead, changing the print. I don't want to pay $3,000 more for the -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. You have three months, 90 days -- I don't know when 90 falls on our calendar -- but to get everything done. MS. NICOLA: May 28th. No, I'm sorry. That's wrong. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, let's see. This is August. September, November. MS. NICOLA: I wrote it down wrong. No, it should be November. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We don't have a meeting in November, so it will be in December. MR. ASHTON: We don't have a December meeting. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I mean, we don't have a December. We have a November meeting. MR. LAVINSKI: November 18th. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: So make sure you come back. MS. WANG: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you. MS. WANG: Thanks. Page 88 August 26, 2016 MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 7, Tab 12, Case CESD20150002237, Edward M. Miller and Brittany L. Miller. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Jeff, do you want to read the -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes, sir. Once again, for the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violation is of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Violation location is 3875 31st Avenue Southwest, Naples, Florida; Folio No. 38051960006. Violation description is complete remodel of kitchen, master bathroom, bedroom, family room, replaced windows, and replaced soffits. All work done without Collier County building permits. Past order: 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 ordinance and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR5257, Page 894, for more information. The violation has not been abated as of August 26th, 2016. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at the rate of$200 per day for the period from July 23rd, 2016, to August 26, 2016, 35 days, for a fine amount of$7,000. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of 65.43 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing, 62.61. Total amount to date: $7,062.61. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. If you would state your name on the microphone so we know we have the right people. MS. MILLER: Brittany Miller. MR. MILLER: Edward Miller. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you are here to...Leading question. Page 89 August 26, 2016 MS. MILLER: We purchased this home unpermitted not knowing. It was a surprise after we had closed. So we did not do the remodel. We did not go against Code Enforcement. We walked into this, actually. And so moving forward, I have a permit right here. If you need to see it, I have a permit. The incurred cost is $1,634 for inspections, including an $800 after-the-fact permit fee. That is something that we are not able to do right now. It takes time to -- and we already spent $3,000 on the architect, the building structure, the plans, submitting it, so we're just trying to get this amount now up and going. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't remember this case from the past, but is this a case where you purchased a house? Give me a little MS. MILLER: Basically what happened is, I have -- if you want to see here, in 2014, Code Enforcement went after the builder/owner. He was a contractor. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. MILLER: For some reason or another, it got swept under the rug for nine months. There was no follow-up. And I have all of the dates of Code Enforcement following up. So for nine months this got swept under the rug until after we closed. After we closed, 20 days later -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Let me go back. MS. MILLER: -- we get the -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So now you've found the house that you wanted to buy -- and this goes back, Mr. Lefebvre, to -- did you do any inspections before that? MS. MILLER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did you do a code inspection? MS. MILLER: Not -- I didn't know that was even a thing. MS. CURLEY: They probably did. They closed it with a realtor. Page 90 August 26, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did you -- MS. MILLER: We probably shouldn't have even had the house. Had our bank known, we wouldn't have even been approved. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did you use a realtor? MS. MILLER: Yes. MS. CURLEY: They closed -- yeah, it's a legitimate company. MS. MILLER: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And let me -- I'm just going to step aside for a second. MS. MILLER: That's fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The realtors are obligated, not legally -- MS. MILLER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- to let you know that that's one of the things that you can do before you purchase a house. We put language together that said that you would tell people you're buying this house, could be a brand new house, could be a house that's 50 years old, doesn't matter, that they recommend that you do a code inspection. Jeff, how many of those do you guys do a month; around? MR. LETOURNEAU: We no longer do those preliminary code inspections. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That's done by contractors. But you were doing a -- MR. LETOURNEAU: We did quite a few back in the day, but there's still plenty of private companies that take on this responsibility. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Had that happened, you would have found out about this. MS. CURLEY: No, wait a minute. MS. MILLER: We had a closing attorney who looked into everything. There was no liens on the house, which is what they look Page 91 August 26, 2016 for; however, this case, like I said, was swept under the rug for nine months. And I have the paperwork if you would like me to -- MS. CURLEY: So when was the previous owner -- was the previous owner cited for this? MS. MILLER: Not officially. He was written up. MR. LEFEBVRE: But it wasn't brought in front of us. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Wasn't brought in front of the Board, so there was nothing in the record to show it -- MS. CURLEY: I don't know what "written up" means, Jeff. Can you tell us what that means? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah. I believe that Contractor Licensing was dealing with a contractor and a handyman back in 2014. MS. MILLER: He was a licensed contractor. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. But it wasn't Code Enforcement, per se; it was Contractor Licensing. We got the case turned over to us on February 5th, 2015. So whatever happened then I can't really speak to at this point. I'm trying to look up the contractor licensing case, but it wasn't really a code -- MS. MILLER: I have it right here if you would like it -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. I can get it right here. MS. MILLER: -- by contractor's licensing. MR. LETOURNEAU: There was a previous Contractor Licensing case before, she is correct, but it wasn't Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It wasn't Code, and we didn't vote on it. It wasn't written up and submitted -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct, right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- and it wasn't placed at the Clerk's Office. MR. LETOURNEAU: And I can't speak to why it was taking so long -- why that case -- MS. CURLEY: So that would have come up in a standard lien Page 92 August 26, 2016 search, right? MR. MILLER: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. MR. LETOURNEAU: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. Because there's no lien until we sign an order. MS. CURLEY: No, no, not a lien, but -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Our lien searches, normally what we come up with are -- and correct me if I'm wrong, I think, Kerry, but we look into actual cases that have been adjudicated. And that's, I think, just -- regular code cases that are open a lot of times don't come up in our search or on title searches. MS. CURLEY: So your first -- February 15th -- February 5th, '15, was the first complaint? MR. LETOURNEAU: That's when Contractor Licensing turned the case -- turned the violation over to us. I don't believe they -- I'm not really sure what Contractor Licensing did at this point. MS. MILLER: Literally days after closing -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mike, do you want to put those sheets up on the view graph. We can accept them as respondent's documentation. MS. MILLER: All in all, I know you guys are looking for compliance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. MS. MILLER: We're fully compliant. We're doing everything we can. Just this fee -- I literally have to go to the county after this because they have multiple inspections that aren't even necessary. They put insulation on twice. That's $65. MS. CURLEY: Check your closing document to see if you were charged -- for what searches you were, and go back to your closing agent. Page 93 August 26, 2016 MS. MILLER: I did, I did. Yeah, it's kind of an open-ended case. MR. ASHTON: Basically, you've done everything. Just need $800 to finalize your permit; is that correct? MS. MILLER: Well, it's 1,634, including the $800 for an after-the-fact permit fee, which I find really harsh considering we didn't -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, the reason they have the harsh fees after the contract (sic) is someone tries to do something without getting a permit. If they get away with it, this is part of the risk. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well -- MS. CURLEY: It wouldn't seem harsh if you were the one that actually did it. But since you're sort of a victim in this, it seems a little CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mike, do you think that that -- I should get you sworn first. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you think that would be helpful to us, that documentation that she has? Is that from Contractors Licensing? MR. OSSORIO: No. It's just the -- my speculation is is that there was a complaint from the building official basically saying that there's some unpermitted items, and we went out -- Licensing went out and issued a red tag and maybe did some penalties, and then we turned our case over to the building, and the building didn't turn the case over to Code Enforcement for several months. And then -- we've done a little better job on that, but sometimes cases do sit in licensing for a couple days or a couple months, and then they get shipped over to Code. But right now I think our procedure is, what, two weeks? MR. LETOURNEAU: Our procedure is, like, almost -- Page 94 August 26, 2016 MR. OSSORIO: Pretty quick. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- within a week at this point. MR. OSSORIO: Pretty quick. My question is, is that the after-the-fact fees are typically done by the -- a violation by a contractor. If you were -- is this an owner/builder permit? MS. MILLER: Permit by affidavit. MR. OSSORIO: But is it an owner/builder permit? You're pulling the permit, or was this a contractor pulling the permit for you? MS. MILLER: I pulled the permit. MR. OSSORIO: Owner, that's right. Well, one of the things that -- in the fee schedule, basically it spells it out that if a homeowner comes in compliance, there is no ATF fee. So I can talk to the building official and see if we can get the after-the-fact fees somewhat waived or dismissed for you. MS. MILLER: Okay. Because I've talked to a bunch of people, and they're all up in the air, so I appreciate that. MR. OSSORIO: My speculation is is that the previous owner was doing some remodeling with an unlicensed contractor. We went out there and issued some penalties to the unlicensed handyman. The homeowner decided to say, I'm not going to get building permits and sold it to you in between us turning the case over to the Code Enforcement. So you just got into the shift of the wave of the previous owner not disclosing that he did this work without a building permit, and you took possession, and Code Enforcement went out there and issued the red tag when you took possession. So that does happen. It's unfortunate. But I'm not an attorney, but I guess if a homeowner does some work without a building permit, they should really disclose that as the new buyer comes on board. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. What we're faced with here Page 95 August 26, 2016 is, again, we're looking for compliance -- would be to probably grant the respondents sufficient time to get themselves in a position where this thing gets a CO, and then at that time come back before the Board and ask for some relief. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we grant 120 day continuance to get everything in order. And are you in construction yourself? MR. MILLER: Not really, no. MS. MILLER: I am. MR. LEFEBVRE: I see you have a shirt on. MR. MILLER: Yeah, a locksmith. MR. LEFEBVRE: Oh, a locksmith. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you can get in the door; you just can't fix anything. MR. MILLER: Exactly. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second on that? MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a second. Now discussion on the motion. MS. MILLER: All right. Well, that's awesome. Thank you so much. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hold on. We didn't vote on it yet. MS. MILLER: Oh. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any discussion on the motion? MR. LAVINSKI: So the bottom line is there's nothing to do? Everything is done? MS. MILLER: Everything is done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Yeah, it needs a final CO. MR. LEFEBVRE: They're looking to get the fees waived, so Page 96 August 26, 2016 that's why I'm giving a little bit of extra time, so they -- either one of two things; either they get the fees waived or come up with the money. MS. CURLEY: It's an odd gap that occurred. MR. MILLER: It is. MS. MILLER: And since I'm before the Board, I would maybe hope -- a nine-month gap, I wouldn't even be standing here wasting your tax dollars. MS. CURLEY: We're volunteers. MS. MILLER: Oh, awesome. In general, I wouldn't be standing here if it wasn't for that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. So you have 120 days to get yourself together, and hopefully you'll get everything resolved, come back before us, and we'll see what we can do. MS. MILLER: And the $7,000? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think Mike gave you -- somebody -- did you give the respondent something to help on the $7,000 -- I would think the -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Oh, no. He's going to work on the after-the-fact fees. She's asking about the 7,000 that's stated on this imposition. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's when you come back before Page 97 August 26, 2016 the Board. And don't get a shock. It will be higher than the 7,000. MS. MILLER: Oh, lovely. MR. LEFEBVRE: That fine cannot be abated or looked at until after you take care of the issue. Once everything is abated, inspected, CO'ed, then you can come back to us and say, this is what we did to get the situation corrected. At that point we can look at either reducing it, getting rid of it, doing whatever we feel is necessary. So you will see us again. MR. MILLER: Appreciate it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good luck. MS. CURLEY: Good luck. MR. LETOURNEAU: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 8, Tab 13, CESD20140019519, Stephen Shane Clary and Christopher Jason Clary. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. CLARY: Good morning, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I guess it's still morning; 11:47. I thought we'd be out of here at 10:00. Didn't work out that way. Eric, you want to read the order? MR. SHORT: Sure. 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, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and Section 2.02.03. Location is 18960 Immokalee Road; Folio 00110480002. Description is an unpermitted secondary mobile home with utility connections and a recreational vehicle with utility connections. Past orders: On March 26th, 2015, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent Page 98 August 26, 2016 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 Book 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 Book 5241, Page 1371, for more information. On July 28th, 2016, a continuance was granted. See the attached order of the board, OR Book 5301, Page 934, for more information. The violation has been abated as of August 3rd, 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 August 3rd, 2016, 41 days, for a total fine amount of $4,100. Previously assessed operational costs of$65.43 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing, $67.11. Total amount due to date: $4,167.11. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning, again. And you are here to request... MR. CLARY: Christopher Clary. I'd like to request that you guys maybe waive the fines. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This is now completely in compliance? MR. CLARY: Yes. MR. SHORT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the unpermitted mobile home has gone. MR. CLARY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I remember there was some problem Page 99 August 26, 2016 about clearing out some personal property -- MS. CURLEY: Trash. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- et cetera. Anybody like to -- MR. LAVINSKI: Is this the case -- were you incarcerated during this -- MR. CLARY: Yes, sir. I was incarcerated for a year during this period. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. Your brother or something was trying to help you out. MR. CLARY: Right. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. MS. CURLEY: I'll make a motion to abate the entire balance of the fine. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second to abate. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. It was worth the wait. MR. CLARY: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next item is No. 8, the consent agenda. There's a request to forward cases to the County Attorney's Office. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Can we get a -- Page 100 August 26, 2016 MR. LAVINSKI: Make a motion to forward the cases on a memorandum to the attorney. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Mike, did you want to mention anything about the Contractor Licensing versus Code Enforcement, how the flow works? MS. NICOLA: Guys, if you wouldn't mind, could I please be excused? MS. CURLEY: She's late for lunch. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You didn't raise your hand. Yes, you may. MS. CURLEY: Motion to let Tamara go. MS. NICOLA: Thank you. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, we can wait till next month -- I know it's 12 -- if you want to -- unless you have any kind of pending question about licensing, I was just going to bring it up next month. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I mean, we have till four if you want to -- MR. LEFEBVRE: You might have til' four. MS. CURLEY: I've got to go. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All righty. Page 101 August 26, 2016 MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to adjourn. MR. DOINO: Second. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Seconded. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're adjourned. Page 102 August 26, 2016 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :52 a.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD 4.1.1.4r, StA ROBERT TV MAN, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on CI , as presented t% or as corrected . TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC/COURT REPORTER. Page 103