Loading...
CEB Minutes 09/22/2016 September 22, 2016 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, September 22, 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 Lionel L'Esperance Kathleen Elrod Sue Curley (Alternate) Tony Marino (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Tamara Lynne Nicola, Attorney to the Board Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Jeff Letourneau, Code Enforcement Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA AGENDA Date: September 22,2016 at 9:00 A.M. Location: 3299 Tamiami Trail East,Naples,FL 34104 NOTICE: THE RESPONDENT MAY BE LIMITED TO TWENTY (20) MINUTES FOR CASE PRESENTATION UNLESS ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE BOARD. PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5)MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. ALL PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN THE PUBLIC HEARING ARE ASKED TO OBSERVE ROBERTS RULES OF ORDER AND SPEAK ONE AT A TIME SO THAT THE COURT REPORTER CAN RECORD ALL STATEMENTS BEING MADE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE,WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL Robert Kaufman,Chair Ronald Doino, James Lavinski,Vice Chair Tony Marino Gerald Lefebvre Robert Ashton, Lionel L'Esperance Sue Curley,Alternate Kathleen Elrod,Alternate 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. August 26,2016 Hearing 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. Motions Motion for Continuance 1. CASE NO: CESD20140006223 OWNER: HENRY PEREZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1XA).A VACANT UNFINISHED HOME WITH AN EXPIRED PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 39895880008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2665 OIL WELL RD,NAPLES 1 I Motion for Extension of Time 1. CASE NO: CESD20150021350 OWNER: WILLIAM ROBERT ANDREWS JR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A).OBSERVED SEVERAL PERMITTING VIOLATIONS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO:LARGE SOLAR PANELS,TWO STORAGE SHEDS,DETACHED GARAGE,A LARGE COMMUNICATION TOWER/ANTENNA,A SCREENED WOOD DECK ATTACHED TO THE DWELLING,AND TWO POLE BARNS ON IMPROVED CONSERVATION PROPERTY ALL WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE REQUIRED PERMIT(S),INSPECTIONS,AND OF CERTIFICATE OCCUPANCY/COMPLETION. FOLIO NO: 374240004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1516 PANTHER RD,COLLIER COUNTY 2. CASE NO: CEAU20150020251 OWNER: WILLIAM ROBERT ANDREWS JR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: 2014 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE,CHAPTER 1,SECTION 105.A FENCE INSTALLED ON IMPROVED CONSERVATION PROPERTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE REQUIRED PERMITS,INSPECTIONS,AND CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION. FOLIO NO: 374240004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1516 PANTHER RD,COLLIER COUNTY B. Stipulations C. Hearings 1. CASE NO: CESD20160002752 OWNER: JAMES GADSDEN AND SCOTTIE L GADSDEN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(a).INTERIOR REMODELING INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO NEW DRYWALL, NEW FRAMING,ELECTRICAL,PLUMBING,FLOORING,AND INSTALLATION OF A CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM WERE OBSERVED ON IMPROVED UNOCCUPIED COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 24370240000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 317 S 1ST STREET,IMMOKALEE 2 2. CASE NO: CELU20150007825 OWNER: TOMAS SAN JUAN AND NOELIA LOPEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHAEL ODOM VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTIONS 1.04.01(A)AND 2.02.03.AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE/GARAGE ON THE PROPERTY WITHOUT A PRIMARY OR PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE PRESENT. FOLIO NO: 38054400000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3896 27TH AVE SW,NAPLES 3. CASE NO: CESD20160012452 OWNER: CELESTINO GONZALEZ CHAVEZ AND DELORES SAYONARA MONTALVO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTIONS 10.02.06(B)(1)(a)AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i).UNPERMITTED DIVISION OF THE ELECTRICAL SUPPLY IN THE ATTIC OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE SUPPLYING TO AN UNPERMITTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITH ELECTRICAL,PLUMBING,AND MECHANICAL BEING UTILIZED FOR THE CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA. FOLIO NO: 41047440006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3981 16TH AVE SE,NAPLES 4. CASE NO: CESD20150015376 OWNER: TUSCAN ISLE COMMUNITY LTD OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES KINCAID VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTIONS 10.02.06(B)(1)(a)AND THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2014 EDITION,SECTIONS 105.4.1 AND 105.4.1.1.PERMIT PRFR20150826170 FOR A FIRE ALARM CONTROL PANEL REPLACEMENT,LIKE FOR LIKE,EXPIRED MAY 22,2016. FOLIO NO: 00296840003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 8660 WEIR DR BUILDING 10,NAPLES D. Motion for Reduction of Fines/Lien. 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. CASE NO: CESD20140006223 OWNER: HENRY PEREZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ERIC SHORT VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).A VACANT UNFINISHED HOME WITH AN EXPIRED PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 39895880008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2665 OIL WELL RD,NAPLES 3 2. CASE NO: CESD20140010232 OWNER: MANSOLILLO IRA LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A)AND 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 3. CASE NO: CESD20120013716 OWNER: BRANISLAVA CIRAKOVIC VUKOVIC,GINA RADENKOVICH,AND ALEKSANDAR H. RADENKOVICH OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JON HOAGBOON VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTIONS 10.02.06(B)(I)(A), 10.02.06(B)(1 XE),AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(E)(I).OBSERVED ALTERATIONS/IMPROVEMENTS TO STRUCTURE/PROPERTY AND NO COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS OBTAINED FOLIO NO: 62578800000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 10580 6TH ST,NAPLES 4. CASE NO: CESD20150021350 OWNER: WILLIAM ROBERT ANDREWS JR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A).OBSERVED SEVERAL PERMITTING VIOLATIONS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO:LARGE SOLAR PANELS,TWO STORAGE SHEDS,DETACHED GARAGE,A LARGE COMMUNICATION TOWER/ANTENNA,A SCREENED WOOD DECK ATTACHED TO THE DWELLING,AND TWO POLE BARNS ON IMPROVED CONSERVATION PROPERTY ALL WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE REQUIRED PERMIT(S),INSPECTIONS,AND OF CERTIFICATE OCCUPANCY/COMPLETION. FOLIO NO: 374240004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1516 PANTHER RD,COLLIER COUNTY 5. CASE NO: CEAU20150020251 OWNER: WILLIAM ROBERT ANDREWS JR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: 2014 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE,CHAPTER 1,SECTION 105.A FENCE INSTALLED ON IMPROVED CONSERVATION PROPERTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE REQUIRED PERMITS,INSPECTIONS,AND CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION. FOLIO NO: 374240004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1516 PANTHER RD,COLLIER COUNTY 4 6. CASE NO: CESD20150015459 OWNER: FRANCES POOLE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ARTHUR FORD VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A).A REAR DECK INSTALLATION AND LANAI CONVERSION/ENCLOSURE AND WINDOW INSTALLATION WITHOUT REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS, INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION/OCCUPANCY. FOLIO NO: 24982560000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1865 HARBOR LN,NAPLES 7. CASE NO: CESD20150014619 OWNER: PETER WESSEL TRUSTEE,OF THE PETER WESSEL IRREV TRUST UTD 2/14/06 OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A)AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(E)(I).A SHED TYPE STRUCTURE LOCATED IN THE REAR YARD OF THE PROPERTY WITH NO PERMITS ON FILE. FOLIO NO: 49582200004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6 DERHENSON DR,NAPLES 8. CASE NO: CELU20150014365 OWNER: MASSIMO MAFFEI OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DEE PULSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED,SECTION 1.04.01(A) AND SECTION 2.02.03.OUTDOOR STORAGE OF NUMEROUS MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO SCAFFOLDING,REBAR,BUCKETS OF MISCELLANEOUS PLYWOOD,PLASTIC TUBES/CULVERTS,METAL,BLOCKS,BRICKS, TRAILER FULL OF PLASTIC BOTTLES,HOT WATER HEATERS,LADDERS,PLASTIC CONTAINER FULL OF STAGNANT WATER,ETC. FOLIO NO: 38336640009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5960 GREEN BLVD,NAPLES B. Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order C. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order 1. CASE NO: CEOCC20160012333 OWNER: PEE-WEE'S DUMPSTERS 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 5 7. NEW BUSINESS 8. CONSENT AGENDA A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. NONE 9. REPORTS 10. COMMENTS 11. NEXT MEETING DATE- October 28,2016 12. ADJOURN 6 September 22, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board to order. Notice: The respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation unless additional time is granted by the Board. Persons wishing to speak at any agenda item will receive up to five minutes unless the time is adjusted by the chairman. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Robert's Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and, therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. And now if you'd all stand, we'll have the pledge. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You want to have the roll call, Kerry? MS. ADAMS: Mr. Robert Kaufman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKI: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Ronald Doino? MR. DOINO: Present. MS. ADAMS: Robert Ashton? MR. ASHTON: Here. Page 2 September 22, 2016 MS. ADAMS: Ms. Sue Curley? MS. CURLEY: Here. MS. ADAMS: And, Ms. Kathleen Elrod? MS. ELROD: Here. And Mr. Tony Marino has an excused absence. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Since we are short one member, in our policy of alternating back and forth between the alternates this month, Kathy, you'll be the voting member. And that brings us to -- I'm going to skip -- wanted to go to the approval of the minutes from the last meeting first. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to approve. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. And now any changes to the agenda? MS. ADAMS: Yes. Number 5, Public Hearings, Motions, Motion for Extension of Time, we have one addition. It's from Imposition of Fines, No. 3, Tab 7, Case CESD20120013716, Branislava Cirakovic Vukovic, Gina Radinkovich, and Aleksander H. Radenkovich. Letter B, Stipulations, we have two additions. The first is No. 1 Page 3 September 22, 2016 from Hearings, Tab 1, Case CESD20160002752, James Gadsden and Scottie L. Gadsden. The second Stipulation is No. 4 from Hearings, Tab 4, Case CESD20150015376, Tuscan Isle Community, LTD. Number 6; Old Business, Letter A, Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens, No. 6, Tab 10, Case CESD20150015459, Frances Poole, has been withdrawn. Number 7, Tab 11, Case CESD20150014619, Peter Wessel, Trustee of the Peter Wessel Irrevocable Trust under trust dated February 14, 2006, has been withdrawn, and that's all the changes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So the revisions that we have for both 10 and 11, they're gone also? MS. ADAMS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to accept the agenda as modified. All those in favor? MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. MS. ADAMS: The first Motion, Motion for Continuance, No. 1, Tab 5, Case CESD20140006223, Henry Perez. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) Page 4 September 22, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. SHORT: Good morning. MR. PEREZ: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. You're requesting an extension of time or -- MR. PEREZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You want to give us a little background? MR. PEREZ: I got some paperwork here for you to look at. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Is it different than what we have -- MR. PEREZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- which was the letter? MR. PEREZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't you show Eric, and if the county has no objection -- MR. SHORT: Has no objection. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- then we can show it on the view graph. You probably won't get these papers back; are you aware of that? So hopefully you have copies. MR. PEREZ: All right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you make that a little bigger or make me a little younger? Okay. We have that sheet on our view graph, which shows some dollar amounts. MR. PEREZ: Yes. That shows what I spent from the last time, March of this year that I came here. I spent a little over $40,000. I've been doing all the work myself. I'm not hiring anyone. As I said before, I purchased this home in March or May of 2013. And I got divorced, and one income isn't sufficient to finish the home the way I had planned, so it's taking me a lot longer. Page 5 September 22, 2016 I've been saving up, fixing, saving up, fixing. But I did a lot. I did the stucco, the windows, steps inside; all the framing is done, electrical, plumbing. I'm waiting on the front door that hasn't come. I ordered it. It's in there, too. But I ordered it nine weeks ago; it hasn't come. So that's why I haven't been able to do anything else because the front is still opened. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is the house secured? MR. PEREZ: Yes, it's secure. I have plywood over a lot of it, so the house is secure. My plan is to -- in the next six months, to do enough to get the CO, my certificate of occupancy. That's my plan, if I can get the $50,000 left. In one of those sheets you'll see that my ex-wife did try to help me get a loan on the house that I presently live in, and she was denied. So, you know, I'm trying. I got a $25,000 loan from my police union, so I got at least 25-. So my brother's going to lend me the other 25-, and hopefully six months will be enough and I can get my CO and this will be all over with. The house -- there's a picture in there of the home, too. It's a very, very large home. It's 4,400 under air; 57 -- you know, all together. And it's a lot of work and a lot of money that has to go into this home. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you think that you will be finished with this home in -- MR. PEREZ: I'm hoping to finish by March, by the next time I have to come here, by March. If everything goes right, I don't get sick, I get the money, I can finish it. I have no problem. I don't know what tomorrow holds, you understand, so if I get sick or anything, you know, that will be a different thing. But I'm hoping to finish by March of 2017. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So what you're looking for -- MR. PEREZ: Is a six-month extension. Page 6 September 22, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Six months extension? MR. PEREZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anything else? MR. PEREZ: That's it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. SHORT: For the record, Senior Investigator Eric Short. The county has no objection. I mean, there's been activity on his permits. Unfortunately, there's a financial situation there, and -- but, again, in Golden Gate Estates, there's a lot of homes under construction. This one's just taking a little more time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: Is this -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: There's no swimming pool that's any type of attractive nuisance? I wouldn't think so at this point, probably. MR. SHORT: There is no pool. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Swimming pool? MR. PEREZ: No, no. MR. LAVINSKI: There's been no issue with the neighboring properties over the continuation of the construction? MR. PEREZ: No, there hasn't; no public complaints. MR. LEFEBVRE: In your letter you state that it could take up to three years to complete this? MR. PEREZ: Yeah. That was -- that letter was before I received a loan and received money, but my brother promised to -- my brother is the captain of the North Police Department as well, so he promised that he's going to take some money out and lend it to me. So if that goes well, I should be finished with this house by March. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. So this letter is dated about a month ago, so -- MR. PEREZ: Yeah, that was before I -- I don't like to ask people Page 7 September 22, 2016 for anything, so my last resort was to ask him for the money, because first we tried to get the loan on the house that I live in, and it didn't work out. So I asked him, he said I'll do it, so just give him a little time and he'll do it. So I know he'll come through, and I'm looking for March 6th to be the end date of this thing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, if we extend to March, it will be when the March meeting is. I don't have that schedule. It will be the end of March. MS. NICOLA: Six months would be March 20th, 2017, if we gave him the extension, so I think our meetings usually are right around that time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we extend it for nine months. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you want to extend it or do you want -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Continuance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- a continuance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: I would second that, Mr. Chairman. MR. LAVINSKI: Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering under the circumstances if an extension might be in order where there has been no issues with the neighbors. There obviously is some substantial effort being made to get this thing done and off our books. So I wonder if we might consider an extension rather than a continuance. MR. LEFEBVRE: An extension would stay any fines. So the fines would go to zero, correct? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: Now, you said in your letter that if-- the bank won't give you the financing with fines on the property, correct? MR. PEREZ: That's what I was told from Bank of America. Page 8 September 22, 2016 MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. PEREZ: So we went to another lender -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Good option; good choice. MR. PEREZ: -- and that lender said, oh, don't worry about that as long as there's not a lien on the house, which there is no lien on the house. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. MR. PEREZ: Okay. So... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: As far as the Code Enforcement, we have no lien on the property. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right, we haven't imposed it. MR. PEREZ: So she said as long as there's not a lien on the house, we could go through. So we went through with the -- tried to refinance the house I live in, and it didn't work out. Because my ex-wife is on the house, too, so she had to be put into it. MR. LEFEBVRE: But this house, can you get a construction loan on it? MR. PEREZ: No. MR. LEFEBVRE: Why? MR. PEREZ: No one will allow me. I tried a hard money loan, and it was, like, 15 percent, and then when he came to see the house, he wanted stipulations that it had to have a pool, it had to have -- yes, so -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Pool? MR. PEREZ: And then he wanted 10 percent on top of the 15 percent loan when I sold it no matter what I sold it for. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is that loan sharking? MS. CURLEY: Loan sharking. MR. PEREZ: It's called a hard money loan. MR. LEFEBVRE: Oh, I know. That seems very, very hard. Page 9 September 22, 2016 MR. PEREZ: That's what I found, and that was in -- MR. LEFEBVRE: So you exhausted the option of financing, correct? MR. PEREZ: Yes, yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. So it sounds like there's probably no reason to give an extension versus a continuance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You want to change -- MR. PEREZ: The extension would help me because -- just in case, you know, I do run into problems and I try to -- MR. LEFEBVRE: No, no. What we're talking about, if we give an extension, the fines stop, or there won't be any fmes on the property. MR. PEREZ: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: If we give you a continuance, your fines keep on going. MR. PEREZ: Accumulating. Okay. So my question is, once I do get the CO, will the fines be abated in their entirety? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: There won't be any fines if you finish it in the March time frame if an extension is granted. MR. PEREZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If there's a continuance, the fines would continue to accrue until March, and at that time you could come back and ask for the fines to be abated. So the easiest way, since there is no -- there are no issues with the property, is to probably change your motion to an extension rather than a continuance. MR. PEREZ: I'd appreciate that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And if it's done prior to that, you don't have to come back at all, probably. MR. PEREZ: That would be great for me, because -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you want to change your motion, Mr. Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion -- or I change my motion, Page 10 September 22, 2016 amend my motion to make it an extension for nine months. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I will amend my second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And the second is amended. MR. PEREZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any other discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Get busy. MR. PEREZ: Thank you so much. I will. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. ADAMS: The next case is a Motion for Extension of Time, No. 1, Tab 8, Case CESD20150021350, William Robert Andrews, Jr. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I see the respondent not present. You've been in touch with them? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Before we go ahead, your friend dropped a piece of paper in the front. MR. LAVINSKI: Oh. Glenn, you dropped something on the floor. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Just a little cleanup. Page 11 September 22, 2016 Okay. We have a letter that was written to you regarding this particular request. If you would give us your thoughts on that. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: I've been in contact with the respondent, the property owner, and his attorney, Mr. Patrick White. They are making efforts towards violating -- or correcting the violation. They've obtained, thus far, nine permits to -- for the improvements that have been done. They're in various stages of processing with the permits. Some have been obtained, some are in inspection status, et cetera. He's requesting a 60-day extension. The county has no objection. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: And the reason why he's taking so long, because the property's a conservation property, and he's out in the Big Cypress National Preserve, and he has to get permission or authorization from the National Park Service in relation to obtaining permits, so that's the delay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: So the bottom line on this is that all of these violations are going to remain. Once he gets permits, they won't be violations. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Correct. MR. LAVINSKI: But he's not going to have to tear down all of this solar and these sheds or -- MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: I went out to the property recently. He's removed the solar panels. He's going to demo one of the garages, and he's got permits for all of that. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. And the rest of it will be permitted? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes, sir. MR. LAVINSKI: Hopefully. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sixty days, you think, should be sufficient to get everything done? Page 12 September 22, 2016 MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: He believes so. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any other comments from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motions from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to continue for 60 days. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to continue this for 60 days. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thanks, Steven. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, one small comment. I notice there's a spelling discrepancy. I just wonder if it is Andrew or Andrews. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: The last name is Andrews, with an S. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Andrews with an S. Okay. I see two different spellings here, so... MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Typo. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Scrivener's error. Okay. MS. ADAMS: The next Motion for Extension of Time, No. 2, Page 13 September 22, 2016 Tab 9, Case CEAU20150020251, William Robert Andrews, Jr. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: You look familiar. Were you just here? Oh. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have a similar explanation on this? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you state it for the record so that -- MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: This violation's for the fence he has on the perimeter of the property. He has a permit for this one as well. It's currently in "ready for issuance" status. He should be done with this one within the 60 days as well. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to continue for 60 days. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you. Page 14 September 22, 2016 MS. ADAMS: The next Motion for Extension of Time is from Imposition of Fines, No. 3, Tab 7, Case CESD20120013716, Branislava Cirakovic Vukovic, Gina Radinkovich, and Aleksander H. Radenkovich. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. For the Board, you have a letter that was on your position when you arrived this morning; if you'd take a minute to read it. Okay. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is a long one, to say the least. MS. VUKOVIC: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. Could you state your name on the mike for the record. MS. VUKOVIC: Branislava Cirakovic Vukovic. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you're requesting... MS. VUKOVIC: Extension of time. The good news, the plans have been approved by the building department, and we're awaiting the inspection. And when inspection is done, the case will be closed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you're requesting how much time? MS. VUKOVIC: Forty-five days. According to them, they said that's how much they need to do the inspection and close the permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I would think you could get an, you know, inspection in a week, personally, but I may be wrong. What does the county have to say? MR. HOAGBOON: For the record, John Hoagboon, Collier County Code Enforcement. The county has no objections. The problem with this, what just happened during the last -- since the last hearing is a door was not noted on the plans, and it probably slipped through on previous reviews, so they had to submit a whole new set of engineering plans to have that door noted on there. So that's what took so long, and that's Page 15 September 22, 2016 why we just got the permit ready for issuance just yesterday. I'm just hoping nothing happens. But just in case, that's why 45 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Because normally speaking -- MR. HOAGBOON: It shouldn't take that long. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- it's a call, you schedule an inspection, they come out, they inspect, and you're done. MR. HOAGBOON: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So in all likelihood, this could be done in a week? MR. HOAGBOON: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Discussions from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: And that would be the end of this, after the nine hearings? MR. HOAGBOON: Barring any unforeseen issues, you know, that could come up again, it should be it. MR. LEFEBVRE: I feel like my kids are going to graduate high school before this is going to be finished. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, why don't you have them stay over a few years? Okay. So you want -- an extension of 45 days has been requested. Does someone want to make a motion? MR. LAVINSKI: I'll make a motion that we continue this for 45 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Instead of 45 days, why don't we do it when our meeting is. MR. LAVINSKI: Two meetings? The November meeting? MR. LEFEBVRE: The November meeting's early, isn't it? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: When is the November meeting? MR. LAVINSKI: Eighteenth. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Page 16 September 22, 2016 MS. NICOLA: Sixty days would be November 20th, so if it was the next meeting, it would be sooner than 60. It would be like 58 days. MR. LAVINSKI: The motion is to move it to the November meeting. MR. LEFEBVRE: Continue it to. MR. LAVINSKI: Or continue it, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do we have a second? MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. HOAGBOON: Thank you. MS. VUKOVIC: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is from Letter B, Stipulations, No. 1, Tab 1, Case CESD20160002752, James Gadsden and Scottie L Gadsden. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is a stipulation? MS. ADAMS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Steve, do you want to read Page 17 September 22, 2016 that stipulation into the record? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Good morning again. For the record, Steven Lopez-Silvero, Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of 64.17 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Number 2, abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion and/or occupancy within 180 days of this hearing, or a fine of$200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Number 3, respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the inspector 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 abatement shall be assessed to property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sir, could you state your name on the mike. MR. GADSDEN: Scottie Gadsden. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is a stipulation that you agreed to. You think you can get everything done in 180 days? MR. GADSDEN: Yes, I hope so. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any discussion from the Board? MR. LEFEBVRE: The work's all completed? MR. GADSDEN: No, it still needs -- some work need to be completed. It's just right now it's kind of like a financial problem, so I Page 18 September 22, 2016 just applied for a loan, so I should have an answer by the first of next week. MR. LEFEBVRE: How much of the work is done? MR. GADSDEN: Really, none of it pretty much is done. I got to get still -- probably about -- I'd say about 75 percent of the work still need to be done to the building. MR. LEFEBVRE: It says "with new drywall" -- MR. GADSDEN: Well, yeah, it was a drywall -- it was a wall put up, and so I need tile work, plumbing, also I'm going to do some A/C and also some -- stucco the building. MR. LEFEBVRE: What I'm trying to get at is are you going to be going to get permits to get this work done? MR. GADSDEN: Yes, yes. I do have a general contractor right now, and I'm just waiting to see, do I get approved for this loan? Soon as -- if I do, you know, I'm going to start on it and get the permits pulled. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. You're not going to -- obviously, you're not going to do a permit by affidavit where the work is already completed? That's why -- that's the question I was going to ask. MR. GADSDEN: Permit by affidavit? MR. LEFEBVRE: That's if the work was all done because here it -- the work doesn't sound like it's done. MR. GADSDEN: No, it's not. MR. LEFEBVRE: How big is this house? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's a commercial property. MR. GADSDEN: Thirteen hundred square feet. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. It's unoccupied? MR. GADSDEN: Yes, right now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any other discussion from the Board? (No response.) Page 19 September 22, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motions from the Board? MR. ASHTON: Make a motion to accept the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MS. ELROD: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second to accept the stipulation as written. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? Do you have something to say? MR. LAVINSKI: No. I'd just like to thank the respondent for getting into a stipulation without us going to the hearing and everything else that continues down the road. So I appreciate the effort on your behalf. MR. GADSDEN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All those in favor? MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. You're good for six months. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Get 'er done. MS. ADAMS: The next Stipulation is No. 4, Tab 4, Case CESD20150015376, Tuscan Isle Community, LTD. Page 20 September 22, 2016 (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. KINKAID: Good morning, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name on the record. MS. NARVAEZ: Marysol Narvaez. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you are the -- MS. NARVAEZ: Representative property manager of Tuscan Isle Apartments. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you have a stipulation that you'd like to read into the record? MR. KINKAID: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. KINKAID: For the record, Jim Kincaid Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: No. 1, pay operational costs in the amount of$70.89 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Number 2, abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy within 30 days of this hearing, or a fine of$250 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Number 3, the respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; 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 abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. I just ask the question Page 21 September 22, 2016 because it's a -- when I see the word "fire," my antennas go up. It looks like the panel was replaced. MS. NARVAEZ: Yes, it was. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has been completed? MS. NARVAEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It works? MS. NARVAEZ: It works. THE COURT: It just needs to be certified, if you will? MS. NARVAEZ: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you have no problem with the stipulation that was agreed to? MS. NARVAEZ: No problem. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any discussion from the Board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Was this a licensed contractor that replaced this panel? MS. NARVAEZ: Yes, it was. MR. LEFEBVRE: Why didn't he pull a permit? MS. NARVAEZ: They did. They pulled a permit. It expired. MR. LEFEBVRE: It expired, okay. So it simply should just be an inspection then? MS. NARVAEZ: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: I don't know why it had to take -- to get the stipulated agreement to get this inspected. I just -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. KINKAID: The permit is currently in an expired status, so they have to either pull a new permit or re-up the old permit again and then get the inspection. That's the reason for the case. The permit is currently expired. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. But what I'm trying to get at, July 7th -- when it was first observed July 7th, 2016, not '15. So we're now in Page 22 September 22, 2016 September. Why wasn't this conveyed -- MS. NARVAEZ: It was, actually. I've been working with Suntoss (phonetic) since then to make some corrections that they needed to make. Since then they have made all the work. All the work has been done. I have all of the invoices here for everything that has been done if you want to see it. MR. LEFEBVRE: No, that's fine. MS. NARVAEZ: But all we need is the inspection and to reapply for the permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept the stipulated agreement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. NARVAEZ: Thank you. MR. KINKAID: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 2, Tab 2, Case CELU20150007825, Tomas San Juan and Noelia Lopez. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) Page 23 September 22, 2016 MR. SAN JUAN: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. Could you state your name on the microphone. MR. SAN JUAN: My name is Tomas San Juan. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ODOM: Good morning. For the record, Michael Odom, Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ODOM: Okay. This is in reference to Case No. CELU20150007825 dealing with violations of the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 04-41, as amended, Sections 1.04.01(A) and 2.02.03. Violation description: An accessory structure/garage on the property without a primary or principal structure present. Located at 3896 27th Avenue Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34117; Folio 38054400000. Service was given on July 22nd, 2016. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Five photographs taken by me. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen those photos? MR. ODOM: The respondent has not seen these photos yet, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you show them to him, please. MR. ODOM: Sure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you take a look at these photos and see if they are what we're all here for. MR. SAN JUAN: Yes, they are. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No problem with using those? MR. SAN JUAN: No, no problem. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. Page 24 September 22, 2016 MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to accept the photos. All those in favor? MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. ODOM: Oh, the first photo was taken on December 9th, 2015. The last four photos were taken on July 13th, 2016; additionally, an aerial view, which was obtained via Property Appraiser website. Concerning the details on this case, on April 17th, 2015, Code Enforcement received a complaint that there was a detached garage on the property at 3896 27th Avenue Southwest that had been built without a permit. Upon investigation, it was determined that the accessory structure/garage was permitted and had been finaled. Furthermore, it was found that a fire had destroyed the principal structure on this property in approximately 2004, leaving the accessory structure unharmed. Next, an accessory structure -- correction. A notice of violation was written for the accessory structure without a principal structure present. The violation was then monitored for the next several months via site visits and phone calls to the owner inquiring when he had Page 25 September 22, 2016 planned on beginning construction of a new single-family home, which is his goal. Additionally, and for further clarification, a case determination was reviewed by the zoning department in terms of land use. On June 27th, 2016, the violation was verified and a new notice of violation was subsequently served to the property owner for the land use violation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you know whether or not that structure is occupied? MR. ODOM: Yes, I do, sir. That structure is not occupied. It's a just there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's a garage, for lack of a better term? MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Water, electric? MR. ODOM: I do not know. Is there electricity hooked up to there? MR. SAN JUAN: No. MR. ODOM: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All right. Sir? MR. SAN JUAN: Well, I purchased this property in two thousand -- March 2015. I didn't know that I was going to buy a new property with all these problems. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: When you bought the property, was the structure -- this is before the fire? MR. SAN JUAN: Yeah, this was before the fire, and -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. SAN JUAN: The pre-owner (sic), they didn't do anything. So this thing was already gone. It was gone since 2013, so I didn't even know about it. I just found out when they send me the letter that I Page 26 September 22, 2016 supposed to do something about it, to build a main house. And that's the plan, but the thing is, right now, I don't -- I'm trying to get some money and get some permits, general contractor, and build a new house. But I need some time, that's what I need. I need about a year in order to do something. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Are you using that structure at all? MR. SAN JUAN: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's just sitting there? MR. SAN JUAN: It's just there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You said there's no electric in it? MR. SAN JUAN: No electric. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No water? MR. SAN JUAN: Water? There's a water pump there, but, you know, like I say, I bought it like that, you know. I didn't put the water in it. It's just came with it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you think that you can build a permanent structure in the future? Well, the first thing, before we get into that, we have to determine whether a violation exists or not. Anybody want to make a motion whether a violation exists or not? MR. DOINO: Make a motion -- MR. ASHTON: Make a motion a violation exists. MR. DOINO: -- violation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: And a motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second? MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All those in favor? Page 27 September 22, 2016 MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. You're not permitted to have a structure like -- that is there, the garage, without having a main structure. So that's, in essence, what we voted on, okay. MR. SAN JUAN: All right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Now, to resolve the situation; that's probably the most important thing. You are planning to build a house there? MR. SAN JUAN: Yes, that's the idea, but then with all these letters, you know, I changed my mind and put it for sale, but at the same time, you know, I do that, I sell the property without doing anything, of course, this thing's going to go to a new owner again, which it was -- that's what happened to me. So that's why I here, you know, to ask for time. Either sell the property in a few months or if I can get at least a year to see what I can do myself just in case I don't sell the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. SAN JUAN: You know, that's how much time I think I need, you know, in order to do something. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Discussion from the Board? MR. LEFEBVRE: I just have a question. This violation was observed on the 21st of April 2015. Why did it take so long to -- Page 28 September 22, 2016 MR. ODOM: That's a fair, question, sir. We felt that because the property owner, you know, stated, listen, I'm going to build a house, I'm going to build a house there, and since it wasn't a health and safety issue, it was secure -- and every time we went over there it appeared to be untouched, we gave the property owner, you know, as much time as he needed. And then we said, geez, you know, it's been over a year. Let's take it to the Board, so... MR. LEFEBVRE: So you were notified back in April of 2015 -- MR. SAN JUAN: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- shortly after you purchased the property. MR. SAN JUAN: Like three months after. Like I said, I didn't know about this. I didn't know about it. And you check the record, it will show that this violation, it was before I bought the property. You know, the pre-owner, he already knew about this, I guess, but he didn't -- you know, nobody told me about it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, you purchased it in April last year, and it's saying they first saw it -- I mean, sorry, March of last year, and April is when they first saw the violation, so it was after you purchased it. But what I'm trying to get at is it's almost a year and a half now since you purchased this property and since you knew -- since you've been notified by Code Enforcement, and nothing's been done. We give you another year, you'll be here in a year saying, I'm going to still try, I'm going to still try. That's two-and-a-half years now. MR. SAN JUAN: Well, it's not as easy as you think. You know, you get money and you get finance to build a new house; it's not as easy, especially a new structure. I'm a builder, too. We build new houses. I mean, it's not easy. It's not easy at all. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm very familiar with the process. MR. SAN JUAN: You know, this is a private house I would like Page 29 September 22, 2016 to build on it. So it's a different story. It's a different -- I had to go to the bank or, you know, save some money or something. I have to pull the permits. That's why I need more time in order to -- MS. CURLEY: I have a question. Is there any other option besides those two? I mean, can he demo that garage and just move on with vacant land? MR. ODOM: Yes, ma'am, that's part of recommendation option. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We get to that shortly. MR. LEFEBVRE: What size garage is this, 20 by 20? MR. SAN JUAN: Thirty by 60, I think it is. MR. LEFEBVRE: Thirty by 60. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's a big garage. MR. PEREZ: I don't know if you consider it a garage. To me it's just a -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Doesn't matter. It's still -- MR. SAN JUAN: Yeah. Whatever it is, it's just there, and you know -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I wonder if that structure can be converted to a primary residence. MR. ODOM: It's worth looking into if the property owner is -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Instead of building a new structure there, the reason that it's in violation is there's no primary structure. How much work, money, would it take to make it a primary structure? It could be a small primary structure, but that would resolve the situation. MR. SAN JUAN: Yeah. I would think about 60-, $70,000, because it's -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: To make it a house? MR. SAN JUAN: To make it a house. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And to build a new structure would be? Page 30 September 22, 2016 MR. SAN JUAN: At least 300,000. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: A hundred dollars a square foot. MR. SAN JUAN: A house, I want to build at least 300,000. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So that could be one of the possible solutions. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm just concerned that we give him another year, he'll be back here in a year. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. You have something to say, Jeff? MR. LETOURNEAU: I just -- I believe this looks smaller than a thousand square feet, and that's what -- it would have to be at least a thousand square feet to build into a house. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I'm sure, and if it's 900 square feet, to add 100 square feet to it is a lot cheaper than building a whole new structure. So if nothing else, that is a possibility. MR. LETOURNEAU: True. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't we get the suggestion -- any other question from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- suggestion from the county. MR. ODOM: Okay. Recommendation: That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$65.01 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: No. 1, obtaining all required Collier County building permits, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy for the principal -- for a principal structure within blank days of this hearing or obtaining a Collier County demolition permit, inspection, and certificate of completion for the accessory structure within blank days of this hearing, or a fme of blank per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Page 31 September 22, 2016 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 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: Does Paragraph 1 permit the respondent the ability to convert the accessory structure into a primary structure the way it's written? MR. LETOURNEAU: I think that the first part of getting the inspections, permit, and certificate of completion for a principal structure, that could apply to them getting a permit for that particular structure that's already on the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And -- any discussions from the Board? MR. ASHTON: I've got one question. You said that -- excuse me, sir. You said you're thinking of selling it, or you're going to build a home? What is your intent? MR. SAN JUAN: If I sell the property -- that's one other question I was going to ask. If I sell the property in two weeks -- right now the property is for sale. Say I sell the property in two weeks or a month or something, you know, what I have to do? I have to notify Code Enforcement that the property's been sold or -- MR. LEFEBVRE: You have to notify the new owner that there's a case against it. MR. ASHTON: Right. MR. SAN JUAN: Well, that's something they didn't do to me, you know; that's the thing. Nobody -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Is it under contractor now? MR. SAN JUAN: Under contract now. Page 32 September 22, 2016 MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. What's going to happen, if you sell the property now to the new owners, when they take possession of the property, then they'll be in violation. MR. SAN JUAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the proper thing to do would be to let them know that there's a case. Whoever's buying it is not -- I'm guessing, is not buying it just so they have that structure, that they have some idea that they're going to put a house up on it or something to that effect. Are you familiar with what they're going to do with it at all? No? Okay. MR. SAN JUAN: Yeah. With me, I bought it because I was going to build on it. I got a business, and I said, well, it's a big property. Eventually I'm going to build a new house but then, like I said, all these problems they're having now, that's what got me to change my mind, you know. I so busy every day. I said, you know what? I can't deal with this. Might as well put it for sale, but then, like I said, for somebody to get finance on the land, it's hard. So even though it's for sale, I might not sell it until I don't know when. You know, I don't know how long it will take in order to sell. I don't have to sell it, I have to deal with it, so... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You have it under contract now? MR. SAN JUAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And what's the closing date on the contract? MR. SAN JUAN: I misunderstand. No, it's not under contract. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: In other words -- MR. SAN JUAN: It's for sale, but it's not under contract. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, it's not under contract? MR. SAN JUAN: No, no, no. Sony for that. Page 33 September 22, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You don't have a buyer? MR. SAN JUAN: No, I don't have the buyer. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, okay. I understand. Okay. So you need some time to decide what you're going to do, whether it's sell itor -- MR. SAN JUAN: Or build. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- convert it or build -- MR. SAN JUAN: Exactly. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- or demolish it. Those are all the options. MR. SAN JUAN: Exactly. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And to Mr. Lefebvre's point, if we were to grant a year, that means that next year you could come back and say, you know, I haven't decided yet or whatever. So what -- MR. LEFEBVRE: We can stop this right now. I make a motion to -- all operational costs be paid in the amount of 65.01 within 30 days, principal structure within 120 days, or a $250 fine per day. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that. MR. LEFEBVRE: So both -- let me see -- inspections. So you're breaking it down. Let me just look at this. Sixty days to get all the -- get the inspections, or not the inspections, to get permits, sorry, and then 120 days of this hearing to get the certificate of completion, or a fine of$250. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me comment on that. Nobody's going to build a house in 120 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: I understand that, but -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So if-- MR. LEFEBVRE: -- I want to have this case come back in front of us to see what he's -- what he's doing. I don't feel that he's given us Page 34 September 22, 2016 a clear answer on what's being done, and that's my motion. MS. ELROD: To pull the permit to build the house? MR. LEFEBVRE: Sixty days to pull the permit, 120 days to get the CO, or a $250 fine per day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And that would mean that when you pull a permit in 60 days, they'd have 60 days to build a house? MR. LEFEBVRE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's unreasonable. MS. CURLEY: It takes 90 days to get a loan. MR. LEFEBVRE: He's had over a year and a half to do this, to get this process moving. He told us under oath that it was under contract to be sold, and he said that the buyer -- he doesn't know what the buyer's going to do with it. Then he said no, it's not under contract. MS. CURLEY: He restated that he misunderstood your question. MR. LEFEBVRE: But he stated, in fact, that he had a buyer, and he didn't know what the buyer -- so there was follow-up questions to that before he restated what he said. I honestly think that this -- a year is way too long. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: That's my motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And I will speak against the motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: That's fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think that sufficient time should be granted for the respondent to decide what he's going to do and -- not a year -- give us enough time to bring it back here again to find out exactly what is being done on the property. So let me call for the vote on the motion, unless anybody else has any comments. (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? Page 35 September 22, 2016 MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So how many nos do we have? One, two, three, four. So the motion is defeated. Someone else like to make a motion? MR. LAVINSKI: I think you were on the right track, Bob, with your numbers. Why don't you -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I believe that we can't give a year because this has been sitting for that long. At some point in time, you have to make a decision what you're going to do. If you're going to sell the property, if you're going to modify the structure. And I think that 120 days would be sufficient time to come up with a plan of what you're going to do. So I'd like to make a motion in filling in the blanks; that the 65.01 be paid within 30 days; that the fines would accrue after the 120 days at $250 per day; and that we grant the 120 days to adhere to the stipulation that is written in the county's recommendation. MR. DOINO: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Now, let me explain it before we vote. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes, please. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What this means is you have 120 days to either decide that you're going to sell it, that you're going to build a house, or you're going to modify the structure that's on the property to become a principal residence, or principal structure. Page 36 September 22, 2016 MR. ASHTON: Or demolish it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Or demolish it. At that time, in 120 days, you should have a very good idea of what you're actually going to do. That's what my motion is. Any discussion on my motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm still not clear on your motion. So 120 days to decide what to do and pull permits either to build a building or demo, which was my -- what I said could be done. He could demo it within 120 days. And then another 120 days to finish the work? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. Just 120 days to decide what he's going to do. He's going to wind up back here, guaranteed, in 120 days, and he's going to explain to us what he's going to do, because I doubt that he's going to build a house in 120 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: It's not much different than what my -- my motion is I gave 120 days and then 120 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Your motion died. MR. LEFEBVRE: I know, but I'm just saying it's not much different than my motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Then give up. MR. LEFEBVRE: I just want to understand what your motion is. So the 120 days you're giving him to make a decision? MS. CURLEY: It's nicer. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I gave him 120 days basically to come back here and tells us what he's doing. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. That's fine, okay? MR. LAVINSKI: If he comes back and says it's demolished and it's gone, end of the issue. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You've got it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Great. I second that motion. MR. DOINO: You already got it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Third. Page 37 September 22, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. Now, let me explain what we all said here. MR. SAN JUAN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You have 120 days to decide what you're doing with it. If you're going to sell it, we heartily suggest that you tell somebody that there's a Code Enforcement case on this property, that you're going to either have to build a house on it or take down that unit, or you're going to get a permit to demolish that building, okay. And you're going to be given 120 days to do what you're going to do. If you want to demolish it, I'm sure that can happen within the 120 days, and then the case goes away. MR. SAN JUAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If you don't do anything, at 120 days fines start to add up; $250 a day. A lot of money. So you have to get busy now to decide what you're going to do. And stay in contact with Code Enforcement in letting them know. And maybe you could follow this closely and see if we're going to get to some resolution soon. MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. He's been great in terms of communication. He's never not returned a phone call, so... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Great. MR. SAN JUAN: Can I ask another question? Page 38 September 22, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. SAN JUAN: So 120 days I have to come back here, like you say, either with a demolition permit -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If ifs demoed, you don't have to -- MR. SAN JUAN: -- or a permit to build a new building? I have to bring that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That would show good faith that you are going to put a primary structure up, yes. MR. SAN JUAN: Okay. That sounds fair; sounds fair enough. That's enough time to think about it and say -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You don't have to make a decision today. MR. SAN JUAN: No, I don't have to, you know. I got 120 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. SAN JUAN: All right. Wonderful. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MR. SAN JUAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Bye now. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 3, Tab 3, Case CESD20160012452, Celestino Gonzalez Chavez and Delores Sayonara Montalvo. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name on the microphone for us? MS. SAYONARA: Yes. I'm Delores Sayonara Montavlo Jorje. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you are the owner of the property? MS. SAYONARA: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Eric? MR. SHORT: I believe she would like to make a request before we get started. Page 39 September 22, 2016 MS. SAYONARA: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. SAYONARA: I would like to make a request for more days to demolish the structure stipulated. I have done some things. I've -- MR. SHORT: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I thought she was asking for a continuance because her husband was not present. MS. SAYONARA: Yes. And my husband is not present, and I need a continuance for that reason as well. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And how much time do you need? MS. SAYONARA: Well, honestly, I think that at least 90 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is your husband out of the country? MS. SAYONARA: No. He is incarcerated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Now, if I understand -- I'm not quite sure I understand the description of the violation. If you could just explain that. I don't know if it's a safety issue, et cetera. Unpermitted diversion; in other words, they ran electric to a -- go ahead. MR. SHORT: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, no, no. MR. SHORT: This was actually a marijuana grow operation that was taking place in an accessory structure in the rear of the property. The main issue was diverted power in the attic of the principal structure; however, that was -- that was taken care of on August 31st -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. SHORT: -- through permitting that was finaled. But we did have outlying issues with the accessory structure and the alterations done within that that was not permitted. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is the structure occupied? MR. SHORT: The accessory structure, no. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is the primary structure occupied? MR. SHORT: Yes. Page 40 September 22, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Is there any safety issues there? MR. SHORT: The main safety issue was the diverted power; however, that was corrected on August 31st. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: But they're still growing marijuana? MR. SHORT: No. I hope not. MS. SAYONARA: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They haven't applied for a farm permit. MR. LEFEBVRE: Farm extension. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Farm extension, yeah. Okay. I understand your plight that your husband can't here. Can he be here in 90 days? MS. SAYONARA: I would think so. I'm hoping for that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Discussions from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. This is a case -- I don't really believe in granting an extension before we've heard the case and found out whether there's an actual violation that exists. And I think that once we find that a violation does exist, we can take the county's recommendation as to 90 days, 120 days, or a hundred dollar fine per day, whatever, but this will at least bring it to closure, let us know that there is a violation, it's on record, and they have the 30 days or 90 days, whatever they're looking for, to correct the violation. And if it isn't done, it's $200 a day or whatever. So I don't think an extension or -- of time is the proper mode of operandi here. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd have to agree, because there's many a times we hear cases and only one of the two owners of the property are present, and we move forward with the case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Or even none. MR. LEFEBVRE: There you go; yes, sir. Page 41 September 22, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I agree with both of you. MR. LEFEBVRE: So I make a motion to deny the continuance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. We're going to hear the case. MR. SHORT: This is in reference to Case No. CESD20160012452 regarding 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)(i), unpermitted diversion of the electrical supply in the attic of the principal structure supplying to an unpermitted accessory structure that contained electrical, plumbing, and mechanical components for the cultivation of marijuana, located at 3981 16th Avenue Northeast, 34117; Folio 41047440006. Service was given on August 5, 2016. I'd like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Mr. Chair, if I could show these exhibits to the respondent. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. I think we have a lot of Page 42 September 22, 2016 pictures. This is almost going to be like a movie. If I can get a motion to accept the photos. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. ASHTON: Motion to accept. MR. DOINO: Second. Whatever. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. SHORT: I have 10 photographs taken by myself on August 5th, 2016, and two aerial photographs, one dated 2008 and one is a most recent. This case originated on August 5th, 2016. I was contacted by the Collier County Sheriffs Vice and Narcotics Bureau regarding the execution of a search warrant at the subject property. Upon arrival, I observed the diversion of electrical power supply in the attic of the principal structure. The diverted power was ran through the attic and out the rear of the home. That power supply continued to an unpermitted accessory structure in the rear of the property with unpermitted electrical, plumbing, and mechanical components. Within the accessory structure, I observed three different units that were being utilized for the cultivation of marijuana. During my visit I prepared and personally served the notice of Page 43 September 22, 2016 violation to Celestino Gonzalez Chavez who was listed as a property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you go back to that previous picture. Not -- the one after that. The box there, was that ever permitted? Which structure is that actually in? MR. SHORT: That's within the accessory structure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. SHORT: On August 31st, 2016, Electrical Permit No. PREL20160833276 to change the electrical riser was finaled. No permits were applied for or have been obtained for the accessory structure. To date the violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Now, you say that the electrical portion of this has been resolved? MR. SHORT: Yes. There is no power being supplied to the rear -- the accessory structure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: From the primary structure to the accessory structure? MR. SHORT: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The other portion of the violation looks like a tree growing in the house. MR. LEFEBVRE: Upside-down Christmas tree. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Upside-down Christmas tree. Okay. Oh. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Short, may I make an observation? Maybe, Mr. Chairman, you can help us clarify this. As far as I can see, the initial violation was an unpermitted division of the electrical supply in the attic of the principal residence -- MR. SHORT: That's correct. MR. L'ESPERANCE: -- you told me that's been resolved? MR. SHORT: That aspect has been resolved. Page 44 September 22, 2016 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Why are we here then? MR. SHORT: We are here because the accessory structure is not permitted and the alterations. MR. L'ESPERANCE: That's not -- that's not the -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Violation. MR. L'ESPERANCE: It's not the violation. MR. SHORT: Yes, it is; to an unpermitted accessory structure with electrical, plumbing, and mechanical being utilized. It supplies to an unpermitted accessory structure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you have plumbing and -- well, for lack of everything else, you have plumbing in that structure that was never permitted. MR. SHORT: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: As a matter of fact, the structure wasn't permitted. MR. SHORT: Correct. MR. L'ESPERANCE: So there's two violations here. MR. SHORT: Multiple violations. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Correct. MR. SHORT: Two sections of the code. MR. LEFEBVRE: And the statutes mentioned Code 04-41, and then the other ones, those are in reference to unpermitted structures? MR. SHORT: Yes. It's building or land alterations, and that section -- second section there is after-the-fact permitting. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I just wanted to be sure that we were proper in our presentation. MR. SHORT: I understand. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have any discussion of the county at this time? Page 45 September 22, 2016 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, you get to tell us what you want to tell us before we decide whether a violation exists or not. MS. SAYONARA: I understood, and I understand, the severity of what occurred in my property. I took as much as I could; I did what I thought had to be done first, which was the electrical. However, I don't -- I need manpower to demolish that structure in the back, and I need more time. Why? Because at this moment I am not counting (sic) with my husband, for he is not here. If he were to be present, I would say that we could demolish quicker. But because he is not, I have to do it on my own, and it is taking me more time than what I honestly thought it would. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Lavinski had stated before we needed to process this situation to see if a violation exists or not. If there was no -- if it's voted that there is not a violation, then that's the end of it. If it's voted that there is a violation, then we would ask the county what their suggestion for the amount of time, et cetera, would take to do it. So at this time I'd like to see if we have a motion from the Board whether a violation exists or not. MR. ASHTON: I make a motion the violation exists on the unpermitted accessory structure. MS. ELROD: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. I don't know what to do, to be honest with you, with the electrical since that's been resolved. Jeff, do you have some solution for that? MR. LEFEBVRE: Just pull that out. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Just pull that out? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a Page 46 September 22, 2016 second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. So a violation exists. Do you have a suggestion for us? MR. SHORT: Yes. The county recommends that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$63.75 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: One, obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspection, and certificate of completion or occupancy within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Two, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Would someone like to take a Page 47 September 22, 2016 MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, I just have a couple of follow-up questions. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. LEFEBVRE: You said you want to demolish this building? MS. SAYONARA: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is there any reason why you wouldn't want to get a permit for it and get a certificate of completion for it? Is it on a property -- past the property line or -- MS. SAYONARA: No, it is not. Originally, it was a barn. I have no more horses. I want to put this story away. I don't want to see it anymore, and I choose to demolish it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. It just -- it might have been easier just to get it permitted. MS. SAYONARA: I know. MR. LEFEBVRE: But if it's bringing -- MS. SAYONARA: I just don't want to see it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. I understand. Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any -- MR. LAVINSKI: One question: Was -- this marijuana grow operation, were you and your husband running that, or did you farm it out to a third party? MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'm not sure that's a question that is necessarily asked in this venue. MR. LAVINSKI: Well, it's certainly going to affect my opinion how I vote. MS. NICOLA: It's not relevant to today's hearing, everybody. MR. L'ESPERANCE: It's not relevant. MS. NICOLA: I mean, seriously. That gets everybody off on a sidetrack about something that's clearly painful to her and has no relevance in this hearing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Page 48 September 22, 2016 MR. LAVINSKI: I disagree. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have some disagreement today. Today is a disagreement-type day. MR. LEFEBVRE: Would 90 days be sufficient with your husband's release to have this building -- to pull a permit to have it demolished? MS. SAYONARA: If his release would be within 30, 40 days, I would think so. MR. LEFEBVRE: Does he have a release date? MS. SAYONARA: No. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think 120 days would be more in line on getting things done, and maybe even prior to that you can apply for a demolition permit so that when he's available or somebody else is available to start work, you're ahead of the curve on that. MR. LEFEBVRE: You've already shown progress by getting the other items taken care of, permitted and everything, which shows good faith. And what we're looking for is abatement. And, obviously, you already took care of one issue. If we can give you time -- as you probably sat here and listened, as long as you come and -- let's say in 120 days you come back and say, well, you know, this is what progress I've made -- make sure you get a demo permit -- but I've started doing this, this, and this to rectify the situation. MR. ASHTON: Or got rid of it. MR. LEFEBVRE: What's that? MR. ASHTON: Or completely get rid of it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right, right. But what I'll -- I'd like to make a motion that 63.75 be paid within 30 days, 120 days from this hearing, or a fine of$100 a day. MR. DOINO: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Page 49 September 22, 2016 Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. So if-- just a suggestion: If you could start getting your -- MS. SAYONARA: Permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- demo permit so that you have plenty of time to actually get the work done. MS. SAYONARA: Thank you. I didn't think I needed a demo permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, good luck to you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Did you already start working on it? MS. SAYONARA: I already started to look on the -- where to put all the garbage and all of that, and -- I started doing that. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay, good. MS. SAYONARA: It's a matter of manpower now. MR. LEFEBVRE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you very much. MS. SAYONARA: Thank you. And a permit. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes, yes. MS. ADAMS: The next case is from No. 6, Old Business, Letter A, Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens, No. 2, Tab 6, Case Page 50 September 22, 2016 CESD20140010232, Mansolillo IRA, LLC. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What tab did you say that was? MS. ADAMS: Tab 6. How are your fingers doing? Your fingers are okay? THE COURT REPORTER: I'm good. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. MANSOLILLO: Good morning. I feel like this is becoming my extended family. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We feel the same way. MR. MANSOLILLO: I just want to say, the property was finished when I was here last time. This has become a paperwork nightmare. And I understand it as close as I can understand it. And I brought the fellow who represents the engineering company and someone who's getting the things straightened out with the inspection people. And, by the way, I want to tell you, they've been very nice. When -- we had a box we bought with the permits in it at the beginning, and someone stole that box. When we put the permits back inside, the inspector, I guess, who came thought he only had to inspect the little house, not the big house, which is amazing to me, but that's okay. Things happen. Okay. So when we went to pull the final permit, the rough inspections weren't done. Thankfully we have an engineer, okay, and the engineer is doing the paperwork with the inspection department which is -- at this point I believe Mike has the papers from the engineer, which they are going to approve the housing -- downstairs -- in the Horseshoe Drive, and then the engineer will sign it, and then we can call for final inspections. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me stop you for one minute. Has everyone been sworn? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. Page 51 September 22, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the -- everybody's been sworn, okay. So you want your contractor to -- MR. MANSOLILLO: I want the fellow representing the engineer and the other house, and Adise (phonetic), who did all the paperwork with the filings. We've been down there twice a week since we've seen you. We haven't missed anything. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MANSOLILLO: We've paid all additional payments, and we got it all -- but it's just paper. I mean, the house is ready to move into. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't you -- MR. JONATHAN: Hi. For the record, my name is Michael Jonathan. I work in collaboration with Atlas Design & Engineering. And due to all the things he just mentioned, some of the inspections wanted to be recertified by an engineer. We have letters for each of the structures that are going to be submitted. Once they're submitted, it's just a couple final inspections to call that are left, and it's all done. You know, thinking about the time needed for this, once we submit this, that takes about a week to go through. The inspections are called; three or four days later they come out. If they find one little thing, a GFI sticker missing or anything and anyone's got to fix that, 30 days may not be enough because the paperwork's been dragging. But all the work's complete. All we have to do is turn these letters in, get a couple inspections, and this job is done, so I'm recommending maybe 60 days, to be safe, if you would consider it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So you're looking for -- stay seated. You're looking for a 60-day continuance? MR. MANSOLILLO: Yes, sir, just to get through the paperwork. The house is done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. Page 52 September 22, 2016 MR. LEFEBVRE: Can we just withdraw this case? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, the county can withdraw it. MR. LEFEBVRE: I mean, it sounds like they're right there at the edge, and instead of doing a whole bunch of paperwork -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It can't be completely withdrawn because there are fines here that need to be either abated -- MR. LEFEBVRE: But today's hearing could be -- they could -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It could be postponed. MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, for the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. I'm hesitant about asking for a withdrawal because pretty much the same verbiage was said the time they were in here. I just kind of want to make sure that it gets done in the 60 days. We have no objection for the 60 days, but I really kind of want to go through with it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, I think we need to do something where the respondent can come back here in 60 days, say everything is done, and he may want to request, hint, an abatement of the fines that have accrued. So that's a good reason to extend it for 60 days. MR. LETOURNEAU: And the county agrees with that. MR. LEFEBVRE: Continue. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Continue it for 60 days; I'm sorry. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to continue -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- 60 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion for a continuance for 60 days and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 53 September 22, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. We'll see you back here in two months when it's a little bit cooler and everything will be done by then, hopefully. And we'll miss you, our family, but -- thank you. MR. MANSOLILLO: Thanks a lot. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 8, Tab 12, Case CELU20150014365, Massimo Maffei. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We saved the best for last. MR. BALLENGER: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. He doesn't have to be sworn. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We trust attorneys. I don't know why, but... MR. BALLENGER: Well, I don't know if I would, but, anyway, that's -- Good morning. I'm Glenn Ballenger. I'm representing the owner of the property, and I guess we are here for imposition of fines. I want to say, I guess, at least -- so I don't know, I guess at this point, if the county needs to go first or you want to hear from me first. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, if you're going to request something, you go first, but what I'm looking at here on our paperwork, although I haven't finished, it says -- the latest paper we got -- work that we got, everything has been abated. MS. PULSE: Yes, sir. Page 54 September 22, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So you can request whatever you want to request. MR. BALLENGER: And I guess I'll cut right to the chase. I mean, we would be requesting an abatement of the fines. It look a lot longer, and I can -- I don't want to -- I guess I could be (sic) somewhat of an explanation, not an excuse, but at least I could go down that and go through. I know I had Ms. Pulse go out there a number of times. My client thought that the property had been cleaned up. I thought it had been cleaned up. And there was some -- I guess some communication problems with the tenant and I guess the workers that were working there and trying to get the stuff cleaned up. So she went out -- I don't know how many -- I probably called her three or four times or emailed to go out there, and she was kind enough to do that and noticed. And there was a gradual improvement. And I think even the last time there was just a couple of minor things, and -- which was some plastic culvert pipes or something like that. And I think we -- I think the feeling was if you could actually go on the property, you might not have even seen them because of the brush and all that. But just to go -- to start back into how this originally started was my clients bought the property. They were storing stuff there for their business. They thought that they were able to do that; they thought that was allowed. Then when they -- they also bought it as an investment to improve the property for resale. So they actually went in, cleaned out all of the brush, made it -- cleaned out back of the property, which was completely overgrown. That's what precipitated the violations or the complaints from the neighbor because now, once all that brush was cleared out, they can see what was there. So, inadvertently, my client was trying to do a good thing, and it turned out to be -- create some other problems. Page 55 September 22, 2016 Ultimately, what they've done is they've been improving the property for resale. That being said, they thought they could store things. And it was a lot of construction-related material. But they -- and I guess with Ms. Pulse's help and guidance, I mean, they finally did get that cleared off. Now, there were some delays but, again, there was -- they have workers there. The tenant was one of the -- was a foreman for the company. And I think either with a language barrier, or maybe he wasn't being straight with my client in terms of what was going on, the information was, yeah, everything's fine, and then we'd send Ms. Pulse out and it wasn't. So it was kind of a -- so it was kind of a gradual thing, and it took a while, but we finally got it done. I see that the fines that -- there were imposed are close to $8,000. I mean, I think under the circumstances -- I mean, I'm not going to make excuses for my client's behavior. They should have been -- been done a little bit more quickly, but I think they believe that they had been in compliance and they -- the information they got caused them a lot of grief, caused her a lot of grief because she had to go out there three or four times at least. I mean, I kept sending her out so -- because we all -- I wouldn't have done that if I had known that there were problems, and I don't think my client would have suggested to me to send her back out there if they had thought that there was problems. So they did go and get things done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So to make a long story short, you are asking for? MR. BALLENGER: I'm asking for the fmes to be abated. I mean, $8,000 in fines, I think is what I saw. I think that that number's pretty substantial. It's probably excessive, then especially if you consider over the period -- I understand that that's what the stipulation said. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're talking through the close. Page 56 September 22, 2016 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that the fines be abated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. DOINO: Second. MS. ELROD: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. BALLENGER: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I learned that in sales school. MR. BALLENGER: You-all have a nice day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You too. MR. BALLENGER: I guess I'm last. Take care. MS. NICOLA: You're not last. Almost last. MS. ADAMS: The next case is Letter C, Motion to Amend previously issued order, Tab 13, Case CEOCC20160012333, Pee-Wee's Dumpsters. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Jeff, you want to give us a little rundown on why we need to amend this order? MR. LETOURNEAU: I believe that this case was kind of left in limbo as far as any kind of fines back in the previous hearing. And you advised us to go talk with our County Attorney on this, and we did. And we came up with what we think is a fair and a legal Page 57 September 22, 2016 recommendation for the Board at this point that Investigator Pulse is ready to read into the record. MR. LAVINSKI: I'm not sure there was any question about the amount of fines. It's just what was going to happen next, because the fines don't seem to be working. I think we established a fine that's pretty decent. Anyway. MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, I mean, what will happen next, if we have another repeat, obviously the county's going to look into, you know, everything at that point. But right now we only have one day of the violation repeating itself. So we were -- the County Attorney wasn't going to go forward with anything more than our usual business of levying a fine on the property. MR. LAVINSKI: But the previous fines are still there? MR. LETOURNEAU: There are previous fines from other code cases, yes. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The point, I think, that's being made is that we hear the case; we find guilty or not guilty; we impose the fines. We're in the business of imposing. We're not in the business of enforcing. That's a different group of folks. MR. LEFEBVRE: The other question was ownership. Who owns the property? Because, I mean -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, Pee-Wee's Dumpsters, Incorporated, I believe. What was the -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The case was the violation, and the imposition of fines goes against the property owner, whomever the property owner is. MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, actually -- and then it -- you know, if the property's sold or something's transferred, at this point it sticks with the property. So whoever -- if there's kind of a shell game or whatever you're worried about, it's still going to be associated with that Page 58 September 22, 2016 property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Dee -- MS. PULSE: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- you're up. MS. PULSE: Okay. So have we determined a violation? We've confirmed that? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I thought we did that at the last meeting; is that correct? MS. NICOLA: I thought it was tabled and continued for this meeting. In all honesty, I was a little confused about what we had done at the last meeting. I thought we had just simply withdrawn it, but when I spoke with Kerry, it was actually continued. So in my notes I thought we had not found the violation because it was continued to allow there to be some discussion at the county attorney level about this issue. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I thought that we had voted that a violation existed. MS. NICOLA: And then it was continued. It was withdrawn. We never -- I don't believe we ever got to the point of an imposition of a fine or determination. It was -- unless I'm wrong, my recollection was that it was continued and that we shelved the determination of the final order, because I certainly didn't -- MS. ADAMS: I have the minutes. The Board did vote that there was a violation -- then there was a lot of discussion that went on -- and decided to continue the part about what the punishment or the penalty was going to be. MS. NICOLA: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And I believe, if memory serves me, it was a $2,000 -- and the discussion was, was it on one day or all the Page 59 September 22, 2016 days. MS. ADAMS: I don't believe there's a dollar amount discussed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I thought there was. Remember we had that discussion? MS. NICOLA: I remember there was a lot of discussion, a lot of discussion with the statute and what could be accomplished in the statute. And what I thought my role was going to be would be to review the ordinances and determine whether there could be properly imposed fines and repeat violation fines. And we had talked about this issue at the last hearing about the idea of whether the county could impose a $5,000 per day penalty and whether it would be appropriate in this situation. And when I was, you know, kind of on the spot at the last hearing, I took a look at, you know, my little cheat sheet here that outlines what we can and cannot do, and in looking at it at first blush -- and I'm really glad I had more time to look at it. I'm reading a provision under C which says, you know $5,000 per day and $15,000 per violation. That is incorrect. That provision says that a county or municipality having a population equal to or greater than 50,000 may adopt by a vote of at least a majority plus one of the entire governing body. That hasn't been done. That's the wrong provision. The provision that we need to be focusing on is actually above that provision which says that a fine to this section shall not exceed 250 per day for a first violation and shall not exceed $500 per day for a repeat violation; however, if the Code Enforcement Board finds the violation to be irreparable or irreversible in nature, it may impose a fine not to exceed $5,000 per violation. So I think that that is the section that controls. And then the only other issue is, in this particular case, while I think that Jeff is right that there was a finding that there was that one day that the violation had not been corrected, that there was Page 60 September 22, 2016 insufficient evidence presented at that hearing to be able to make the determination that from, say, Day 1 to Day 30 there was a continuing violation, because there's only been one day that there was evidence to suggest that the violation existed. So I can't, in good conscience, recommend to the Board that a -- that a fine in this case would be proper, you know, of any amount per day that would exceed the statutory guidelines. And in this case, the statutory guidelines would be that it could not exceed $500 per day unless this court found that it was irreparable or irreversible. And my recollection of the hearing was that there was not testimony to that effect. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I disagree with what you've said in that my readings on our rules say that it could go to $2,000 in our rules at some point in time, but I'm not here to argue that point. MS. NICOLA: Well, I'm reading the statute, 162.09. So I don't think -- if there is a rule, I don't know about it. But I don't think a board can impose a rule that's in violation of a statute. That would just be my legal opinion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't you give us what you have, Dee, and we'll go from there. MR. LETOURNEAU: And I will say that ours is differing from Tamara's recommendation, and I do agree that her recommendation is the correct one. So ours is -- well, Dee can put it up on the board. MS. PULSE: For the record, Investigator Dee Pulse, Code Enforcement. I recommend that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$62.01 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: No. 1, paying a fine of$5,000 for the repeat violation of business associated dumpsters being observed on the property on August 1st, 2016; Page 61 September 22, 2016 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 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. MR. L'ESPERANCE: This is a one-time fine of 5,000, not per day? Just one amount? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Let me put the numbers aside for a second. So this is a description of the violation. This is the county's recommendation, forgetting the number for a second. If the Board were to vote a motion to this description of the violation, then at some point in time, since the situation -- since it was only observed one day -- has been abated, it would come back at some point next meeting or whatever for the imposition of fines; is that correct? MS. NICOLA: I'm sorry. Excuse me. I was looking at the two statutes in conjunction with each other again. I apologize. What was the question, Bob? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right now, forgetting the dollar figure that's on here -- MS. NICOLA: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- if we were to vote to accept the county's recommendation, whatever the number is -- MS. NICOLA: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- at some point in time this would come back to the Board for the imposition of fines; is that correct? MS. NICOLA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That's just one thing I wanted to clear up. MR. LETOURNEAU: If it wasn't paid. Page 62 September 22, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, if it wasn't paid. MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So now we can argue about the -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, could we put in there that, let's say, paying a fine of$500 for the repeat violation and any subsequent -- upon any subsequent inspections, if you see this same violation, that it be a $500 fine each time? MS. NICOLA: I think it has to be a new violation that has to be brought before the Board. I don't think you can legislate that within the body of an order. Maybe this guy's going to be a repeat violator and we'll be dealing with him all the time, but I don't think that it could be -- I just don't think it can be put in the order that way. I think the Board would have to bring it back on another violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Has there been subsequent inspections since last meeting? MS. PULSE: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Are we going to be here on another case? (No response.) MR. LEFEBVRE: This is just going to be recurring. There has to be some kind of endgame to stop this. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The job of the Code Enforcement is the second word, "enforcement." It's in their ballgame, not in ours. So that's something that they're going to have to come up with. MR. LETOURNEAU: And I will say that there were dumpsters observed again after August 1st; however, he does have other violations on the property, and it appeared that he was using those particular dumpsters to abate the other violations, so it wasn't -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Does he have a permit for -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, it's a litter violation, so he would need to use the dumpster to get rid of the litter. So it was a difficult Page 63 September 22, 2016 decision whether or not, you know, it was -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. LETOURNEAU: We weren't confident that it was a business operation. We were pretty sure that it was an abatement situation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. If I could, I'm reading from the Article 11 of imposition of fines that was signed by the Board. It was revised on 3/26/15. And I'll read Section 4. So, Tami -- MS. NICOLA: And I agree with you, but -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The Board -- well, let me read it. The Board shall determine the amount of fines applicable to be imposed. In determining the amount of the fines, if any, the Board shall consider the following factors: The gravity of the violation, which you mentioned; any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation; any previous violations committed by the violator; and any other relevant factors. Such fines shall not exceed $1,000 for each day of the violation of(sic) the violation continues past the specified compliance date -- which is a violation of English, but be it what it is -- and $5,000 for repeat violations for each day the violation continues. So my question is, are these the rules or not? MS. NICOLA: And so when I was, unfortunately, not paying attention, it was because I was reading Article 11 in conjunction with the Florida Statute, and I agree with you that the rules are properly in effect; however, I think on the issue of the $5,000 fine, I think what the county is saying -- and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Letourneau -- is that the recommendation is for the $5,000 fine because there was only a finding that there was one day of a repeat violation in this instance. There may be other things that are coming up, but I don't think that we can consider those at this time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, I understand. MS. NICOLA: Right. Page 64 September 22, 2016 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But the $500 that you mentioned -- MS. NICOLA: I stand corrected. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. NICOLA: And my -- you know, unfortunately, I had to have these both in front of me in order to make that determination, and I hate to do it on the fly because it makes me uncomfortable, but this is how we figure things out sometimes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So now that we have this all here, we understand what's going to happen for the next meeting. Does the county want to change the Item 1 on the recommendation? MR. LETOURNEAU: I would say that if your attorney's comfortable with that amount of money, then the county would like to go with that particular amount. MS. NICOLA: I'm not uncomfortable with it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So then can we get a motion from the Board to accept the county's recommendation? MR. LAVINSKI: I'll make a motion that we accept the county's recommendation of the $5,000 fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, the recommendation, the whole thing. MR. LAVINSKI: The recommendation, okay. MR. ASHTON: Second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And we have a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 65 September 22, 2016 MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you, Dee. MS. PULSE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How are your fingers doing? THE COURT REPORTER: I'm good. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I didn't want to take a break and then say "go." Kerry? MS. ADAMS: There's no other items on the agenda. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, then I'll take a motion from the Board to adjourn. MR. ASHTON: Make a motion to adjourn. MR. DOINO: Second. MS. ELROD: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion to adjourn. We are adjourned. ***** Page 66 September 22, 2016 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:37 a.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD f %o►.r►��i RO: ' T • ,' MAN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on ( 0- Lk 1 , as presented ✓ or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC/COURT REPORTER. Page 67