The URL can be used to link to this page

CEB Minutes 03/23/2017March 23, 2017 Page 1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, March 23, 2017 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 Sue Curley Ron Doino Gerald J. Lefebvre James Lavinski Lionel L'Esperance Kathleen Elrod (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Tamara Lynne Nicola, Attorney to the Board Danny Blanco, Code Enforcement Jeff Letourneau, Manager of Investigations CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA DATE: March 23, 2017 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 Robert Ashton Gerald Lefebvre Sue Curley Lionel L'Esperance Kathleen Elrod,Alternate 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. February 23,2017 Hearing 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A.Motions Motion for Continuance Motion for Extens'on of Time 1 B. Stipulations C. Hearings 1. CASE NO: C SD20160015133 OWNER: E MERIDO CASTRO OFFICER: I I VESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 11.02.06(B)(1)(A).OBSERVED A NEW EXTERIOR DOOR,A WALL-MOUNTED AIR C I NDITIONING UNIT,PARTITIONED WALLS,AND PLUMBING FIXTURES I 'STALLED/ADDED TO THE EXISTING ATTACHED GARAGE ON IMPROVED OCCUPIED R SIDENTIAL PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 3 378000007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5.60 21st PLACE SW,NAPLES 2. CASE NO: C NA20160018888 OWNER: L• URA E.ANZUALDA OFFICER: I VESTIGATOR JUAN GARCIA VIOLATIONS: CI LLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 2.02.03 A D COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 54,ARTICLE VI, S 1 CTIONS 54-179 AND 54-181. OUTSIDE STORAGE CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO MULTIPLE APPLIANCES IN VARIOUS STATES OF REPAIR AND CONDITION, VARIOUS A'PLIANCE PARTS,ALUMINUM SCRAPS,GLASS,STACKS OF CINDER BLOCKS, WOOD, B CKETS,HOSES AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION RELATED DEBRIS. FOLIO NO: 0 122600003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 119 N 9T}'ST, IMMOKALEE 3. CASE NO: C SD20160010142 OWNER: 516 PALMETTO AVE TRUST OFFICER: I VESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: Ci LLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 1-.02.06(B)(1)(A)AND SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(E)(I).AN UNPERMITTED SINGLE-WIDE MOBILE HOME INSTALLED ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 6 070520005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 516 PALMETTO AVENUE, IMMOKALEE 4. CASE NO: C VR20160020159 OWNER: M RICIA NOEL INC OFFICER: I VESTIGATOR JUAN SERNA HERRERA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 3.05.08(C). P'ESENCE OF PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION INCLUDING,BUT NOT LIMITED TO, B"AZILIAN PEPPER UPON PROPERTY DEVELOPED AFTER NOVEMBER 13, 1991. FOLIO NO: 71373120002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1: 45 ROYAL HAMMOCK BLVD,NAPLES 2 5. CASE NO: 1ESD20140013027 OWNER: S :NNY LANE LLC OFFICER: I ESTIGATOR JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: 'JOLLIER.COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06 (:)(I)(A)AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(E)(I).NUMEROUS UNPERMITTED STRUCTURES WITH E ,ECTRIC,PLUMBING AND NATURAL GAS. FOLIO NO: "0720360004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1 181 KEEWAYDIN ISLAND,NAPLES D. Motion for Reduc ion of Fines/Lien. 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposi 'on of Fines/Liens 1. CASE NO: C SD20140010232 OWNER: ANSOLILLO IRA LLC OFFICER: I 'VESTIGATOR JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: C•LLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (:)(1)(A)AND THE 2010 FLORIDA BUILDING CODE CHAPTER 1,PART 1, SECTION 105.1. C S MPLETE REMODELING OF THE INTERIOR OF THE HOME AND GARAGE BEING C'INVERTED TO LIVING SPACE INCLUDING PLUMBING, ELECTRIC AND STRUCTURAL ORK AS WELL AS A FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD, ALL WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING ' QUIRED COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 161440006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1 .0 7111 ST SW,NAPLES 2. CASE NO: C SD20150003296 OWNER: TABLE ISON ET AL AND THOMAS ARCHIE JOHN SR.EST OFFICER: I VESTIGATOR BENJAMIN PLOURD VIOLATIONS: C4LLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (:)(1)(A)AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(E)(I). UNPERMITTED STRUCTURE DOES NOT MEET THE S'TBACKS ON EITHER FOLIO NUMBER 00434520004 6905 ST.JOHNS RD OR 0043452004 6'17 ST.JOHNS RD. FOLIO NO: 01434520004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6'17 JOHNS RD,NAPLES 3. CASE NO: C SD20150009085 OWNER: P YLLIS J KEPLER OFFICER: I VESTIGATOR BENJAMIN PLOURD VIOLATIONS: C 0 LLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06 (:)(I)(A)AND 10.02.06(B)(I)(E)(1). UNPERMITTED STRUCTURE DOES NOT MEET THE S.TBACKS ON EITHER FOLIO NUMBER 00434520004 6905 ST.JOHNS RD OR 0043452004 6'17 ST.JOHNS RD. FOLIO NO: 0 M35240008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6'05 JOHNS RD,NAPLES 3 B. Motion to Rescin I Previously Issued Order C. Motion to Amend l'reviously Issued Order 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Elections B. Rules and Regulat ons Review 8. CONSENT AGENDA A. Request to Forwa d Cases to County Attorney's Office as Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. NONE 9. REPORTS 10. COMMENTS 11. NEXT MEETING DA E- Friday April 28,2017 at 9:00 A.M. 12. ADJOURN 4 March 23, 2017 Page 2 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, everybody. We have a big crowd here today. Oh, wait. I think I have a telephone call, or a phone on the floor; one of the two. Okay. 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 on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes unless the time is adjusted by the Chairman. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Robert's Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertain 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. I suggest if you have a cell phone, turn it off now; it will be a good time. And we'll stand for the pledge. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Slightly out of order. Everybody's received the minutes. Does anybody have any changes on the minutes? (No response.) MR. LAVINSKI: Move to accept. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to accept and a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. March 23, 2017 Page 3 MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. Why don't we start with the roll call. MR. BLANCO: Mr. Robert Kaufman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Here. MR. BLANCO: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKI: Here. MR. BLANCO: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MR. BLANCO: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MR. BLANCO: Mr. Ronald Doino? MR. DOINO: Here. MR. BLANCO: Mr. Robert Ashton? MR. ASHTON: Here. MR. BLANCO: Ms. Sue Curley? MS. CURLEY: Here. MR. BLANCO: And Ms. Kathleen Elrod is absent. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And let's move on to the agenda. Any changes on the agenda? MR. BLANCO: Yes. Number 5, public hearings, motions, Letter A, motions, motions for continuance, we have one addition: Number 5, Tab 5, Case No. CESD20140013027, Sunny Lane, LLC. That's all the changes. March 23, 2017 Page 4 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That's, like, a record; the fewest changes in a meeting. MR. LEFEBVRE: Fewest cases. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the fewest cases as well. Okay. Why don't we begin. I have a piece of paper that I don't remember seeing before -- we all have it -- that says Tab 5 on the top. MR. ASHTON: Yep. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is a -- do you have that, Tami? MS. NICOLA: I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you seen that before? MS. NICOLA: No, sir. But, I mean, I suppose, you know, it looks like a motion for continuance. The very odd thing is that -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It looks like a motion for continuance that's blank. MS. NICOLA: Well, yes, except for it says -- it's blank. It has a bunch of blanks on it, but it does say we received this notice of hearing yesterday for a hearing next week. We're unable to be prepared by that time and respectfully ask that the hearing be continued to your next hearing date, but it's not signed. It's interesting. It's kind of -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, Jeff's standing there. Yes, Jeff. MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. We have been in constant touch with Mr. Sheflow (phonetic), and I believe that he sent an email before this one that contained a document we couldn't open with Windows. So I asked him to send this one, and he might have forgot to sign it. I'm not sure what happened. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Basically it's a motion for continuance that we're going to hear next, or now. MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. March 23, 2017 Page 5 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we'll either grant it or not grant it. MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ASHTON: Makes it easy. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So this is the motion. You're going to speak on that, Jeff, since he's not here? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah. We don't have any objection to the continuance, as long as we can schedule it for next month. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We should do that first. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. LETOURNEAU: So, you know, my last statement still holds. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The only thing that I had written on my copy of this, which bothered me the most, was the natural gas on this one. And I have a little note that I wrote there: "Safety, question mark." Has anybody looked at this place? I mean, I don't think the Board would have any problems granting a continuance if it's a safe location. MR. LETOURNEAU: I'm no natural gas expert. It's on Keewaydin Island, so the availability to get out there is very limited for the county. I can't really say whether or not it's safe. Nobody's ever inspected anything on this property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So this is propane, not natural gas? MR. LETOURNEAU: I'm thinking it's propane, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't think they ran a gas line to Keewaydin. MR. LETOURNEAU: No. Yeah, right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: The case is -- notice of violation's from the March 23, 2017 Page 6 24th of July 2014. MR. LETOURNEAU: The case is quite old. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. MR. ASHTON: Very old. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have a comment? MR. LEFEBVRE: That was my comment. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: I would like to also say that, I mean, I think it's always in the best interest to have the respondent here if we're going to hear anything. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you're recommending that we push this till the next meeting? MR. LETOURNEAU: I mean, that's what I recommend, yes. MR. L'ESPERANCE: So moved, Mr. Chairman. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion to grant the continuance on this case till the next meeting date, which is... MS. NICOLA: April 27th. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: April 27th. Do we have a second on the motion? MR. ASHTON: Second. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Several seconds. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. March 23, 2017 Page 7 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. LETOURNEAU: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Has the respondent stated that he'll be able to make the next meeting? MR. LETOURNEAU: He has not told me that, no. I would expect that you would be less lenient if he didn't show up for the next meeting. MR. BLANCO: The next case is from Letter C, hearings, No. 1, Tab 1, Case No. CESD20160015133, Esmerido Castro. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, Steven. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Good morning, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Looks like you're flying by yourself today. I don't see a respondent. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: It appears that way. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Good morning. For the record, Steven Lopez-Silvero, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20160015133 dealing with a violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Observed an -- correction. Observed a new exterior door, a wall-mounted air-conditioning unit, partition walls, and plumbing fixtures installed and/or added to the existing attached garage on improved occupied residential property located at 5260 21st Place Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116; Folio 36378000007. Proof of service was received on November 12, 2016. March 23, 2017 Page 8 I have something I want to add before I continue with the exhibit. I received a letter from the respondent's caregiver, property caregiver, yesterday for an extension and/or continuance. I didn't -- it isn't included in your agenda or in your packet because it was submitted last minute. I don't know if you want to present it as an exhibit or not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I would think you should include it in the package to be fair, and maybe you want to show it on the screen. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Sure. MR. LEFEBVRE: Are we looking at a continuance, or are we looking at hearing the case now? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, let's see what they're requesting that just came in. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept the exhibit from the respondent's caregiver. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. Let me just ask some questions as I read through this. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What hurricane was there? March 23, 2017 Page 9 MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: It was the last one, a couple -- a few years ago, the last hurricane. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So where it says many areas of the property were damaged completely, it says in early 2016. That's not correct; is that correct? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: It must have been a storm. This was translated by the respondent's attorney. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: So translated from English to Spanish. So they just did a direct translation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You can push it up a little farther. You can go up a little further now. Okay. Anybody have any comments on the request? MR. ASHTON: Have they been working on this property at all? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: No. As far as construction, no. MR. LEFEBVRE: Any building permits pulled? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Not to this point. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: I think we ought to deny the case request; hear the case. We can accomplish the same thing if they want 90 days, 120 days, but at least at the end of that time, then fines go into existence rather than just hearing this again and again. I move to deny the request for extension. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to deny this particular request. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. March 23, 2017 Page 10 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. So we acknowledge the fact that we received the letter, and now we'll begin with the case. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Sure. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How many pictures do you have? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: It's two -- two exterior pictures taken by Investigator Boris Morlina (phonetic) on September 23, 2016, and three interior pictures taken by myself on October 12th, 2016. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Ordinarily we'd ask the respondent if he's reviewed the pictures, but since the respondent is not here, we need a motion. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and second to accept those exhibits. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: The first picture you notice there's March 23, 2017 Page 11 plumbing. He added this section of -- this is actually in the garage, part of the garage. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me just stop one second. This was a house that was damaged, whatever. Is this a new toilet, or is this a toilet that was broken that was repaired? I'm a little -- MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: This is a new toilet with new plumbing fixtures. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Was this a garage conversion? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes. But it's not for living space. The gentleman uses it for, like, a home office. You'll see in the next picture. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: There is a desk in there. On the picture on the left you'll see a vanity there, possible for a sink, a second plumbing fixture. The picture on the right, you'll see there's a new partition wall that was put up. This is all within the garage. And through that doorway is where that vanity and the toilet's at. And on the left you'll see the work desk and seating on the right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Next picture. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: And these next two pictures are of the exterior. The top picture's demonstrating a wall air-conditioning unit, and then the bottom picture will show where an exterior door was added to the garage. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is the garage door still there? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes. The existing door is the one on the left, and the one that was put in new is the one on the right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. But if this was an existing garage, do they have a garage door that was there that was removed? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes, sir. That's the original door. They just added an extra door. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm talking about a seven-foot-wide March 23, 2017 Page 12 door to put a car in. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: For the garage? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, a garage door. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yeah. It's in the front. This is a side view of the -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Fine. MR. LEFEBVRE: It's right next to where the doors are leaning up against it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I see; yeah. Okay. Next picture? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yeah. Where that -- the white vinyl fencing is on the far side of the picture, the garage opening door is just in front of that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: On October 12th, 2016, I conducted -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is this the last picture? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: That's it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: I conducted a site visit and observed the mentioned violation. I researched the property history, and no building permit was obtained for the recent improvements. I met with the property caregiver and explained the details of the violation and provided the corrective action needed for compliance. After several follow-up inspections, no building and/or demolition permits have been obtained. As of March 23rd, 2017, the violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Is the floor level in the -- in this area the same as the floor level in the house? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: To my knowledge, it is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Really? That's unusual for the garage to be the same level as the floor in the house. Okay. I mean, it has all the earmarks to me as being a garage conversion March 23, 2017 Page 13 rather than anything that was destroyed in a storm. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Right. There was other non-related property maintenance issues, and that's where all this came about. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Comments from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: Make a motion that a violation does exist. MS. CURLEY: I'll second. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second that a violation exists. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Do you have a suggestion for us? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: I do. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay operational costs in the amount of $65.01 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Number 1, ceasing the use of the unpermitted converted garage as living quarters and shutting off unpermitted utilities until a certificate of occupancy and/or completion is issued within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; March 23, 2017 Page 14 Number 2, obtain all Collier County building permits and/or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion and/or occupancy within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; And, No. 3, 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 Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I'd like to comment on what Mr. Lavinski said earlier; that if we had granted 30 or 60 or 90 days on this, there's just no way in the world, if there are no building permits that have been applied for or granted, that 30, 60, or 90 days would bring us to a point in time where this could be CO'ed. Having said that, is there anybody who would like to comment on my comment or on the suggestion by the county? MR. LAVINSKI: Well, yeah. I'd like to make a motion that the 65.01 be paid within 30 days and, going by our standard recommendations, that the violation be corrected within 120 days or a fine of $200 per day be imposed. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think that the motion, if nothing else, should provide the respondent enough time to at least apply for a building permit or building permits and can come back to the Board prior to the expiration of the 120 days to show good faith that they have applied for building permits and they're working on that or, if March 23, 2017 Page 15 they don't show up, there's a very strong possibility that the fines will be imposed. That's my comment on it. Anybody else have any comments on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thanks, Steven. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Thank you. MR. BLANCO: The next case is No. 2, Tab 2, Case No. CENA20160018888, Laura E. Anzualda. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is this gentleman going to testify. MS. ANZUALDA: He's my husband. He knows more about this. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Then he needs to be sworn in. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. NICOLA: Sir, what's your name, for the record: CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name on the microphone so we can -- MR. de la ROSA: Andres de la Rosa. March 23, 2017 Page 16 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And your name, ma'am? MS. ANZUALDA: Laura Anzualda. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All righty. So you're on. MR. GARCIA: Good morning. For the record, Juan Garcia, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CENA20160018888 dealing with violations of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 2.02.03 and Collier County Code of Laws Chapter 54, Article VI, Sections 54-179 and 54-181: Outside storage consisting of but not limited to multiple appliances and various storage -- outside storage consisting of but not limited to multiple appliances in various states of repairs and condition; various appliance parts, aluminum scraps, glass, stacks of cinderblocks, wood, buckets, hoses, and other construction-related debris. This property is located on 119 North 9th Street, Immokalee, Florida, 34142; Folio 00122600003. Service was given on February 15th, 2017. I would now like to present case evidence of the following exhibits: Six photos taken on November 10, 2016, at approximately 1:56 p.m. and two additional photos taken yesterday, March 22nd, 2017, at approximately 3:28 p.m. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen those photos? MR. GARCIA: Yes, they have. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any problems with those photos; can they be entered? MS. ANZUALDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. DOINO: Second. MR. ASHTON: Second. March 23, 2017 Page 17 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion and a second to accept the photos. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. GARCIA: All right. This first photo in relation to the -- if you're looking at the house, this is on the left side of the house, all those cinderblocks to the left-hand side adjacent to the fence. Again, in relation -- if you're looking at the front of the house, this is on the right side of the house, all the outside storage, the ladders, doors. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that a -- if you can put the other one back in. Is that a building that I see on the left-hand side? Looks like -- MR. GARCIA: Yes. That's the actual house. So if you're looking at the house, this is on the -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So that's to the respondent's house? MR. GARCIA: Yes. Again, if you're looking at the house, this is on the left-hand side. He has a concrete slab where he's keeping all these appliances outside. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You have enough refrigerators to store all my beer for years. MR. GARCIA: Go to the next photo. Again, consisting of friges, washers, dryers, stoves. All right. Again, this is on his front -- on the front side of his March 23, 2017 Page 18 property. Looking out, street side, he has a trailer with multiple refrigerators on it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is the trailer registered? MR. GARCIA: Yes, it is. MR. LAVINSKI: And the multiple -- you've been to the site multiple times? MR. GARCIA: Yes, I have. MR. LEFEBVRE: Has that trailer been there in the same state, or has it -- have there been different -- MR. GARCIA: Throughout my visits to the property, it has moved. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. GARCIA: I was there yesterday, and it was on that property yesterday. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This was -- MR. GARCIA: But it has moved to, like, the front of the house. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Was this reported by a neighbor or a driveby or -- MR. GARCIA: This was -- this was a field observation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. GARCIA: But I've received numerous complaints on it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. GARCIA: All right. This photo was taken yesterday. So, as you can see, the trailer's there. MR. LEFEBVRE: Different appliances. MR. GARCIA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. MR. LEFEBVRE: What I'm getting at is it looks like there's a business being run; appliance repair business or whatever the case may be. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And your discussion with March 23, 2017 Page 19 the respondents has yielded what? MR. GARCIA: So my discussion with him is that he stated he owns multiple trailer park homes that he fixes these appliances, and he swaps them out or something along that nature. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you happen to know what the zoning is where this house is located? MR. GARCIA: It's a single -- it's residential single-family. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: RSF-1 maybe? MR. GARCIA: Three. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Three? Okay. MR. GARCIA: And it also has a main street overlay as well. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Okay. We've heard from the county. And what do you have to say? MS. ANZUALDA: We submitted -- MR. de la ROSA: Well, we already submitted for permits which, you know, were -- the first time we brought them here, they were denied because we need more specifications on trusses and things like that. Everything's being held up in that department. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me stop you for one second. You're applying for a permit for what? MR. de la ROSA: For a storage building to -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: For a building, okay. MR. de la ROSA: Right. And right now, the -- our architect has -- is waiting for paperwork from the people that have to send him some paperwork to finish his part so we can submit it, because we've already submitted once, and it was a -- MS. ANZUALDA: Rejected. MR. de la ROSA: It was rejected because of several things that were needed to be done. And all those appliances are things that we use for our rental business. And I fix them. I have, you know -- and the trailer's there because we were eliminating everything that's not March 23, 2017 Page 20 being used. We're putting it there and throwing it away. That's why it's been moving back and forth. We're just getting rid of as much as we can right now and leaving just the better ones that we can put inside the storage. All the rest is things that can be, you know, thrown -- or put inside the storage, the ladders and things like that, that they can be all in storage. The only thing I'm going to have a problem with is the blocks, because those blocks go for a fence that I'm going to do in one of my trailer parks, and just moving those blocks -- there are about 2,000 blocks that I have to -- even if I have to move it two, three blocks away, that's still going to be a violation because the fence is not going to be started yet. See, I bought them years ago, and they've been there for 10 years or more, and I still haven't been able to get to the fence. And -- but right now I'm trying to get to the -- just getting the permit for the building so I can put everything inside, and that's where we stand right now. But I'm getting rid of everything; that's why the trailer's like that, because I keep filling it up and throwing it away, not actually throwing it, but I take it to the metal place. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Recycle place, yes. MR. de la ROSA: Recycle place, yes. So right now I'm here for a continuance so that my architect can finish his blueprints to resubmit for the permit, and that's where we stand right now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you have an application, or you applied for a permit? MR. de la ROSA: Yes, yes; we already came here, but it was denied, so we had to redo -- his surveyor still got -- I mean, we're waiting on the survey and the truss company to submit their part of what was needed, so my architect can finish his work to take it back to reapply. March 23, 2017 Page 21 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you shown the application or the permit that you applied for to the officer? MR. de la ROSA: I think I've shown everything because the Code Enforcement -- not Code Enforcement -- zoning is right next to him, so, I mean, he should know that everything that we've got is right here. MS. CURLEY: I have a question. What is the size of the shed that you are anticipating installing on -- MR. de la ROSA: It's 24 by 34 that we're getting the permit for. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Juan? MR. GARCIA: So our records show that he applied originally for a 24-by-34 storage shed. The permit was denied on February 7th, 2017, and no new permit has been applied for since. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the permit was denied. Do you know why? MR. GARCIA: It was due to not having a full site plan. There were structures on the property that weren't added to the original plan that he had, so additional structures needed to be added to the permit, details, and he didn't have any setbacks on the -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: From a zoning perspective -- you're probably not the expert on this, but from a zoning perspective there are certain things that are allowable uses and other things that are not, and I'm just curious as to whether this, what they're applying for, is an allowable use. Jeff? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah, this is an allowable use. A shed in a residential district is one of the accessory uses. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So once the permit is granted and the building is completed, the appliances can be moved inside, I'm assuming. MS. ANZUALDA: Yes. March 23, 2017 Page 22 MR. de la ROSA: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And then this problem would go away. I'm not sure about the block. What will you be doing with the block once your building is finished? MR. de la ROSA: Well, those blocks were intended for a fence that we were going to do in one of our trailer parks that we're having problems with pedestrians and -- we're having a lot of problems there with robberies and vandalism. And we decided -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: My question is not what you're going to use them for but what are you going to do with them once -- if your permit is granted, you put the building up, do you intend to put the block in the building? MR. de la ROSA: No. They don't fit there. There are just too many. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So would that continue the violation? MR. GARCIA: Yes, that would continue to be a violation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So that's a problem. MR. de la ROSA: Would it be a problem if I carried them over to one of the trailer parks where they're going to be built? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It wouldn't be a problem at this location, if you get my -- MR. LETOURNEAU: It would still be a violation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It would be a problem -- it would still be a violation -- MR. LETOURNEAU: At that particular -- you know, if it's residential, once again, it would be another violation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So it's not that -- unless you move them inside or out of sight or to a place that is designated for the block, that's another concern. Unless you apply for a building permit to build a concrete wall, then you can have the -- if I'm not March 23, 2017 Page 23 mistaken -- the block ready to build the wall. So that might be a solution for you. I don't know. MR. de la ROSA: Well -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me just -- let me shorten things up a little bit. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion that a violation exists. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion that a violation exists. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. So a violation exists. And, Juan, do you have a suggestion for us? MR. GARCIA: That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $64.59 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Removing all violations of litter and outside storage to a site intended for such use or storing items within a completely March 23, 2017 Page 24 enclosed structure within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order 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 Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I'd like to comment on Juan's -- or the county's suggestion. I would like to say that if everything were to go perfectly, the respondent would be given enough time to resubmit the building permit, have it approved, and at least begin the construction and find a suitable place for the block. The appliances go into the building, the block goes someplace, and I guess the question now is the timing on all of that. Anybody from the Board like to take that up? MS. CURLEY: I have a question. So when that all -- let's assume that all takes place, then we have a business being operated out of a single-family community. We've run across this situation before where you have -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't know that it's a business. It's a storage -- I asked the question of the county if it was a permitted use. MR. LETOURNEAU: I can try to answer her question. If he gets the building CO'ed and he and he alone, or anybody that lives in that property, were to take the appliances back and forth into that structure and work on them inside that structure, as long as he had a business tax receipt, he would be allowed to do that. MR. LAVINSKI: But if that's considered a home occupation, wouldn't the extensive amount of traffic in and out violate that home March 23, 2017 Page 25 occupation license? MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, it's only traffic from him. I mean, that's a point that could be argued. What's more than the allowable use? You know, we've never really brought a case like that just for that purpose if it's only being run by the individual that's living at the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We've had a case in the past way out in the Estates that had to do with, for the lack of a better term, a zoo, and there were people that were parking on the road. Those were, as you said, other people, not the respondent themselves. MR. LETOURNEAU: Right; exactly. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So I don't know that that's -- that's not this case to begin with. MR. LETOURNEAU: I don't really -- I mean, how often are you bringing these appliances back and forth? MR. de la ROSA: Only by request of my renters. MR. LETOURNEAU: I don't think it rises to the level of a violation, to be honest with you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And we were only talking about this case. This case has to do with the stuff that's there that shouldn't be there; has nothing to do with the permitted use at this time. So any other comments on the suggestion by the county. (No response.) MR. GARCIA: Can I say one thing? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. GARCIA: We didn't find any evidence that stated that he was running an actual business as in customers coming to the location and buying appliances and then removing them. After talking with Mr. De la Rosa, it was just him solely repairing and then just giving them to his tenants to fix their broken refrigerator. March 23, 2017 Page 26 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. But in this particular case, that's an item that we don't have to concern ourselves with; we are concerned with the units that are there. And any other comments from the Board? MS. CURLEY: I have a comment. It just seems like an it's awful an long time to start from scratch to accommodate the violation that currently exists. Have they considered renting a commercial facility, removing all these things from the residential neighborhood where then it's -- it's accommodated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, we don't have the time. This was just done last month. This is February 15th of last month when the -- when it came to us. As far as timing is concerned, if you would like to take a shot at filling out the blanks on the violation, how much time would you allow them to -- MS. CURLEY: No, I'm not interested in filling out the blanks. My concern is is that it is a very long time for this to be finished. And if I was the neighbor there, I wouldn't want to have to wait six months for this to be cleaned up. MR. LEFEBVRE: Maybe I can help; maybe. MS. CURLEY: I guess the time -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Mrs. Curley, let me just go and -- that the -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're making a motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm making a motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Are you all right? MS. CURLEY: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. All operational costs in the amount of 64.59 incurred in the prosecution of this case be paid within 30 days, and a $250 fine per day after 45 days. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Discussion on the motion? I have a March 23, 2017 Page 27 comment or two. MR. LEFEBVRE: Sure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I believe if the respondent can show us that they have an approved building permit and come back at such time, maybe we can separate this into two things. Number one, given X amount of time to get an approved permit so we know something is going to go on, and then a date when that construction would be completed and the problem resolved after that. MR. LEFEBVRE: We have two separate issues here: Him getting a permit to build the structure and the litter and stuff that's been there, based on the testimony, for -- the block for 10 years. I think that's extremely excessive to be there. And if I lived next to him, I'd want this to be corrected, no matter which way, as soon as possible. So, I think, give him 45 days to move it offsite for a few months, to get the building completed, I think, is more than sufficient. I think -- I originally started with 90 days and went down to 45 and was thinking about less. But I think 45 days is quite sufficient to find a suitable location for this material temporarily. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any discussions or second on the motion? MR. L'ESPERANCE: I've got the second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You second? Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. I would agree with that, because if we don't address this current issue that's before us, we're going to be here a year from now talking about this same issue. MS. CURLEY: I agree. Thank you for the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? March 23, 2017 Page 28 MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. So do you understand? I would start working on getting that permit immediately, and you have 45 days to remove the debris, if you will, or the appliances from the property within that 45 days. I suggest you talk to the agent before you leave, and maybe you can give them some good direction. Okay? MR. GARCIA: Sure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. ANZUALDA: Thank you. MR. BLANCO: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. BLANCO: We have a change to the agenda. Number 3, Tab 3, Case No. CESD20160010142, 51C (sic) Palmetto Avenue Trust, has been withdrawn. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept the change. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. March 23, 2017 Page 29 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. BLANCO: Next case is No. 4, Tab 4, Case No. CEVR20160020159, Maricia Noel, Incorporated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that you, sir? No? Is it possible that we can handle the cases, even if we juggle them out of order, for the people that are still here first. MR. BLANCO: We can do that in the future if you want, if you want to do that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We'll hear this one and go from there. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. HERRERA: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Juan Serna Herrera, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CEVR20160020159 dealing with a violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 3.05.08(C): Presence of prohibited exotic vegetation including, but not limited to, Brazilian pepper upon property developed after November 13, 1991, located at 18445 Royal Hammock Boulevard, Naples, Florida, 34114; Folio No. 71373120002. Proof of service was received on December 23rd, 2016. I would now like to present evidence in the following exhibits: Two photos taken by myself on December 14, 2016. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Get a motion to accept the exhibits. MR. DOINO: Motion to accept. March 23, 2017 Page 30 MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Looks just like a tree. MR. HERRERA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a house. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is this a building? MR. HERRERA: Yes. It's a vacant home. MR. LEFEBVRE: Vacant home. Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Next? MR. HERRERA: That's the front left of the house. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Was this reported by a neighbor? MR. HERRERA: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. HERRERA: And that's on the right side of the home. And then I also have three photos taken by myself on March 21st, 2017. That's the one on the side. That's taken from a vacant lot. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Is this -- these houses back up to a canal? MR. HERRERA: I'm not sure. There's a lot of brush in the back, so it's really tall. March 23, 2017 Page 31 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hammock, that road -- MR. HERRERA: Royal Hammock, correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- Royal Hammock, one side is the golf course; the other side is a canal. That's why I asked. MR. HERRERA: Oh. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So this must be, oh, I don't know, canal side. We have to swear you in. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. AMBACH: For the record, Supervisor Chris Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. The rear of this house is a canal. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. AMBACH: The street's in front of the house, across the street another row of houses; golf courses behind that side. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Okay. MR. HERRERA: And, number two, the determination made by our Environmental Specialist, Michaele Crowley. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: An eye test. Okay. MR. HERRERA: And, number three, aerial of the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: There's the canal. MR. HERRERA: There's the canal. Code Enforcement received a complaint regarding prohibited exotic vegetation at 18445 Royal Hammock Boulevard. On December 14th, 2016, I made a site visit and observed what appeared to be Brazilian pepper trees in the front and side yard. Samples were obtained and presented to Michaele Crowley, Environmental Specialist for Collier County. She confirmed vegetation was, in fact, Brazilian pepper, and she informed me that presence of prohibited exotic vegetation including, but not limited to, Brazilian pepper upon property developed after November 13, 1991, is a violation. The home March 23, 2017 Page 32 on this property was built in 2005. On December 16, 2016, I observed ownership information via Property Appraiser that the owner address was 2800 Davis Boulevard. I drove to the address and found a business by the name of CJ Noel Insurance, Inc. I spoke with representative at the front desk who advised Maricia Noel was out of the office and wouldn't return for the day. I provided my contact information and requested they call me regarding a code violation on their property. On December 20th, 2016, after not hearing back from the property owner, I made a site visit and observed the violation remained. I made a phone call to the office and again requested to speak with property owner. The representative advised that the owner was not available and put me through to owner's voice mail. I left a detailed message regarding the specifications of the violation, options to abate, and asked they call me back. After several attempts to contact the owner, no contact back, the case was prepared for today's hearing. As of today, the violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you know whether or not this property is homesteaded? MR. HERRERA: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: From the information we have here, the property was just purchased in April of last year, so it wouldn't even -- the homestead application wouldn't even be there yet. And also, the certificate of title, is this -- does the county know if this house is under foreclosure by a mortgage company? MR. HERRERA: No. We didn't see -- well, I didn't see March 23, 2017 Page 33 anything like that. MS. CURLEY: So do you know who filed the complaint? Was it the homeowners' association? MR. HERRERA: No. It was the neighbor. MS. CURLEY: The certificate of title just says that the -- that it was bought from the homeowners' association because of a lien, likely. That's what that -- MR. LEFEBVRE: If you go further back, it looks like Federal National Mortgage Association. MS. CURLEY: There's likely a foreclosure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Before we get into this discussion -- hold on. Does a violation exist or not? Because if a violation does not exist, it doesn't much matter anyway. MR. DOINO: Violation exists. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second that a violation exists. Any discussion on that motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. Now, you have pulled the records on this to show Maricia Noel as the owner? March 23, 2017 Page 34 MR. HERRERA: Correct. I have the -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Just -- yes or no is fine. Okay, great. Okay. And you have a suggestion for us for this? MR. HERRERA: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. HERRERA: That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $65.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: One, remove all Collier County prohibited exotic vegetation that exists upon entire property. The use of heavy machinery to do mechanical clearing of exotic vegetation requires a vegetation removal permit to be obtained in advance. When prohibit exotic vegetation foliage is removed but the base of the vegetation remains, the base and every stem on the stump must be immediately treated with a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved herbicide containing a visible tracer die. The continued removal of all exotic vegetation shall be required in perpetuity within blank days of the hearing, or a fine of blank 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 Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Danny, could you put up that last picture that you had. I have one question on there. I meant to ask it before, but...That was the aerial view. When I look at that, I see the vegetation on the property. The vegetation I see spilling over into one, two, three lots, is that also March 23, 2017 Page 35 Brazilian pepper? Do you see what I'm talking about? MR. AMBACH: I can answer that. That's actually water. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Not behind it; adjacent to it. Yeah. MR. AMBACH: The dark, that's correct, yes, are all low-lying areas. All those lots in there are like fish bowls. In rainy season it fills up. It's dark vegetation. It could be weeds, but it's all low lying. That's water to the left and to the right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. AMBACH: Do you see the dark spots across the street also, the house? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, I do. MR. AMBACH: Two to the left, that's a fish bowl. That's water in there also. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: I just think I need some clarification on the ownership of this property. And, Sue, you probably looked at the documents also. But it looks like there was some kind of transfer on February 5th, 2014, a Lisa Marie Silverman and a Federal National Mortgage Association. Then you skip forward to April 2016 -- or April 26, 2016, and we have a certificate of title. It doesn't list any of these parties from 2014 on the certificate of title. They're totally different people. MS. CURLEY: I don't see the document that you're talking about, the earlier, the 2014. MS. NICOLA: Gerald, are you talking about the certificate of title, April 26, that was issued by the Clerk of Courts? Because it says it was issued to Marcia -- Maricia Noel, Inc. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MS. CURLEY: He's speaking of something earlier than that. MR. LEFEBVRE: But in 2014 there was a document. MS. CURLEY: What is that? Can you show that to me? March 23, 2017 Page 36 MR. LEFEBVRE: This is part of the file. It says, Tab 4, Lisa Marie Silverman is the respondent. It was in our package. MS. CURLEY: Can you check the case? MR. LEFEBVRE: Was I the only one that got that? MS. NICOLA: I don't see that. MR. LAVINSKI: I think so. I don't have it. MS. CURLEY: Can you check the case number on the top of the piece of paper you're looking at? Does it end in 195? MR. LEFEBVRE: No, it doesn't. Ends in 9335. MS. CURLEY: So you've got a different form. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, location of violation, 1320 Dove Tree Street, Naples. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Different street. This is Royal Hammock Boulevard. MR. LEFEBVRE: All right. Well, I don't know why I have this in my package. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's extra. We don't charge for that. MS. CURLEY: Well, I can make this really clear. We can just motor past this, because any more discussion on it is really a waste of time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, the only thing that we can do, from the county's perspective, is to pull the information from the county records. That's what they show. That's all we can go by. MS. CURLEY: No. And that's true, and any fine that we assess at this point or -- will -- stays with the land whether this person owns it or not so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Correct. MS. CURLEY: -- we should protect the neighborhood by, you know, following through with the order, but we should make it very fast. MS. NICOLA: I'm looking at the recorded deed, and the March 23, 2017 Page 37 recorded deed, as of right now, shows that the title is in the name of Maricia Noel, Inc., so I think that's what we have to go by, and I don't think anything else is really relevant. MS. CURLEY: This is the deed. MS. NICOLA: Well, it's a certificate of title, which is -- you know, I mean, if it's issued by the Clerk of Courts, probably at a foreclosure sale, it has the same effect. I mean, it transfers ownership. MS. CURLEY: Well, except for the sale -- the ownership was given from the homeowners' association. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think we're talking through the close. We all agree that the owner of the property is Maricia Noel, and would someone like to fill in the blanks on the order? MS. CURLEY: Yeah, I'll make a stab at it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: So the recommendation that the Code Enforcement Board order the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of 65.43 incurred in the prosecution of the case within 30 days and abate all violations by -- and do I need to read all of No. 1, or can I just fill in the blanks? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, just the amount of money and the days. MS. CURLEY: So the continuation: Removal of all exotics shall be required in perpetuity within 30 days, or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. MR. DOINO: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. MR. LAVINSKI: Bob? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. LAVINSKI: I'd just like to question the amount. Our guidelines recommend $100-a-day fine for exotic removal, and we all March 23, 2017 Page 38 know this isn't the only property in Collier County that has exotics on it. So I just feel that the 250 may be a little exorbitant even though it appears that someone has bought this property to do a flip, and they should be responsible for it. But I just feel 250 may be a little heavy. MS. CURLEY: Well, the brush was there when they purchased it, according to the maps. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. And let me just refer back to this. We had provided to everybody -- the county had given us a guideline for fines, and I think that's what Mr. Lavinski is referring to. MR. LAVINSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And mitigation for vegetation removal I show at $200 a day. Exotic removal, a fine of $100 a day. That's kind of -- MS. CURLEY: Isn't that a guideline? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You can -- you can impose anything. These are just guidelines, that's correct. MS. CURLEY: So I'll leave my motion as it stands, and part of the reason behind it is this gentleman's taken the county's time to contact who we think is the owner and who has not replied back to him since mid December, and so that's my reasoning for the position. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any other discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. March 23, 2017 Page 39 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. It passes. Thank you. MR. HERRERA: Thank you. MR. BLANCO: The next case is from No. 6, old business, Letter A, motion for imposition of fines/liens, No. 1, Tab 6, Case No. CESD20140010232, Mansolillo IRA, LLC. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Even though we've seen you many, many times before, can you state your name on the microphone? MR. MANSOLILLO: Anthony Mansolillo. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MANSOLILLO: And it's good to be back. I'm done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We're here on the imposition of fines, so you would testify first. It looks like, according to what I have, unless this tab changes it, which it does, it has now been abated, the violation; is that correct? MR. MANSOLILLO: Correct, everything -- all the CO's, even the fence, everything's done. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to abate the fine. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You don't even want to hear from the county? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. March 23, 2017 Page 40 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. LETOURNEAU: Thank you. MR. MANSOLILLO: Good decision. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you for your vote of confidence. MR. MANSOLILLO: I appreciate the Council's patience with me. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Have a great day. MR. MANSOLILLO: Thank you. MR. BLANCO: The next case is No. 2, Tab 7, Case No. CESD20150003296, Mable Ison, et al, and Thomas Archie John, Sr., Estate. MR. LETOURNEAU: Would it be possible to actually hear these two cases in a row since they're -- they have -- they both concern the same structure? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We'll hear them together, and we'll vote on them separately. MR. LETOURNEAU: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you want to read the case number, Danny, and then we'll swear everybody in. MR. BLANCO: Okay. The second case number is CESD20150009085, Phyllis J. Kepler. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't you identify yourselves on the mike. March 23, 2017 Page 41 MS. NIXON: My name's Phyllis Nixon. MS. KEPLER: And I'm Phyllis Kepler. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. What a coincidence. Okay. This is -- we're here for an imposition of fines. It looks like the violation has been abated, so why don't you let us know what you're looking to do. MS. NIXON: We're just asking for a full abatement of fines. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You're looking for an abatement of fines? MS. KEPLER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And what say the county? MR. PLOURD: We do not object. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any questions or comments from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This was an unpermitted structure that didn't meet the setbacks, for a little refresher course on what it was originally. MR. L'ESPERANCE: So moved that the fines be abated. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to abate the fines. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) March 23, 2017 Page 42 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. And for the second case, why don't you read this into the record. MR. BLANCO: Okay. Number 3, Tab 8, Case No. CESD20150009085, Phyllis J. Kepler. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Could we have a motion from Mr. L'Esperance again, to be consistent? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Yes, you do. Yes, you do. MR. ASHTON: And a second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion to abate by Mr. L'Esperance. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. NIXON: Thank so much. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well worth the wait, right? MS. KEPLER: Yes. MR. BLANCO: The next item on the agenda is No. 7, new business, Letter A, elections. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We'll open up the nomination for chairman. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I so nominate Mr. Robert Kaufman as chairman. MR. ASHTON: I second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any other nominations? March 23, 2017 Page 43 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Election of vice chair: I nominate Jim Lavinski. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a nomination and a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. LEFEBVRE: We didn't ask if they agreed to the nomination. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you agree to the nomination? Everybody did except Mr. Lavinski. No. MS. CURLEY: Discussion? Hold on. March 23, 2017 Page 44 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Discussion on it? MS. CURLEY: No, I'm just kidding. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Our next meeting is April -- MR. BLANCO: Oh, I'm sorry. Next item, it's Letter B, rules and regulations review. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have one comment, I thought, that was very good that was brought up by Mr. Lavinski having to do with -- let me phrase this properly. Quite often when a respondent comes here and we impose a fine or whatever, we say that you can then go to the county commissioners to appeal that decision. The rules don't show that. The rules say you have to take it to an appellate court. MR. LAVINSKI: Circuit Court. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: A circuit Court, excuse me. MR. LAVINSKI: Within 30 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Within 30 days. Any comments from the county on that? MR. BLANCO: If you want to appeal the decision, then you go to the Circuit Court. The county commissioners is if you want to request them to waive the fines -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. BLANCO: -- when you impose. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So they can waive the fines even though a case has not been reversed? MR. LETOURNEAU: And that's usually on a full abatement that they consider waiving the fines, so it's a different situation. I think they can -- there's a resolution where they can claim a hardship and come in and request that Code do an executive summary to present to the Board, but that's only after the violation's been abated. If it's still pending, then I believe that their only recourse is to go to the Circuit Court. March 23, 2017 Page 45 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So as far as our bylaws are concerned, they stand? MR. LETOURNEAU: Your bylaws do say the Circuit Court. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Does that answer your concern? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. That will answer that one. I'd like -- one more issue I'd like the board members to consider. In abating these fines -- I don't know how many of you have attended or have watched the City of Naples Code Enforcement Board. They are very seldom moved by the fact that a code violation is abated in regards to the amount of the fine. Now, I may think that may be a little on the heavy side, but I -- as I look around, not today. Today's a bad example. But any of our meetings, I've counted typically 20 county people here, employees, the stenographer and attorney, who I'm sure is not working pro bono, so -- MS. NICOLA: That's for sure. MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. It still bothers me every time when we abate these total fines. I know the City of Naples may be on the other extreme end of that teeter-totter, but I'd like the board members here to consider some sort of fine. Even though the person has abated, if it took six shots -- and here again, remember there's 20 county employees plus two other paid employees sitting here. It just doesn't seem right for the taxpayers' money to have spent on one hearing versus six or seven hearings, like one of these cases we just had today. So I'd just like to bring that up for the 14th time and have the members consider, let's come up with a plan that gives a partial abatement for repeated offenses or repeated hearings, not offenses -- same offense but repeated hearings. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me say I don't disagree with March 23, 2017 Page 46 you. I also will include Marco Island in their code enforcement. They're cut and dry. There's -- if you're in violation, that's it. One of the things I think we should consider is what has caused the -- what has caused the fines to accrue? Was it caused by the respondent? Was it caused by someone trying to get a building permit? What was the cause? If it was caused strictly by the respondent, I agree with you 100 percent. Now, the other thing that needs to be considered, if you have a house that's worth $100,000 -- not that we know what a house is worth, but -- and you have $125,000 fine, it gets to be a little bit crazy. Now, should a possible compromise to that -- compromise to that be some number between zero and, I don't know, $1,000, $2,000? Would that be apropos? I don't know, but I think all of those things need to be brought into consideration. And I agree with you, for us to strictly abate every single one that comes into compliance is probably not proper. MS. CURLEY: I also think that it depends on the violation. If somebody demoed and remodeled the interior of their home willingly with lots of money to do that, and then after that occurred was violated, that's something that was willful. If you have somebody who is not here and they have vegetation growing and they're not aware of it, exotic vegetation, then that is a completely different scenario. We had two abatements here today that we could reference the differences in them. And if it's a willful act or not, then I think that that should have been considered. And I think often we rush into abating these fines without really thinking or looking back to see how old a case is or how many times we've had to pay. And, yes, the operational costs are paid, I agree, but also I think the willfulness of the violation should really be considered, and I don't think we do that. And if we have done that in the past, it's been very inconsistent. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So maybe we should spend March 23, 2017 Page 47 some more time considering what the violation was, how long it took to resolve, and what the fines could be. Tami, you have some comment? MS. NICOLA: Well, I do have some comment. I mean, I thought the purpose of this discussion was to talk about whether the rules and regulations as they currently stand -- and I think everybody got a packet of these in preparation for today's meeting -- should be amended. And Article 10 specifically addresses the reduction or abatement of fines, and I think it gives specific itemization of the things that the Board should consider, if you look at Section 3. And I think we've gone over this ad nauseam, this discussion of whether the Board should or should not, you know, reduce or abate the fines, and I believe that Article 10 covers that. And you guys can certainly, on a case-by-case basis, discuss whether to reduce or abate it. And I don't believe that it would be appropriate to look at another county or community to say, well, this is what they do. I think it has to be case by case, and I think that's what you guys are doing. And I understand, you know, that there's issues that come up from time to time, but that doesn't mean that these rules and regulations need to be amended. I did look at the rules and regulations, and I do think there are some areas that the Board should consider perhaps amending the rules and regulations and I, just for discussion purposes would like to state on the record what my suggestions would be and, obviously, you guys would vote on that and determine whether or not those suggestions are well founded. If we look at Article 5, Section -- I guess it's Section B -- or C, excuse me, under notices, No. 4, Page 2, it says -- and this is referring to the board members, that attendance shall be in person and may not occur through any form of electronic medium. March 23, 2017 Page 48 With the way that we're progressing with electronic media, it would be my suggestion that this be modified to say that a person may appear through electronic medium so long as the request is made in advance and it is granted by a quorum of the Board. There might be instances where we can't get a full quorum of all of you people -- hasn't happened yet -- and you may say -- somebody might be on vacation or they might be sick -- it might be helpful to still have the meeting and have that person appear by phone or appear -- you know, sometimes in court hearings people appear by Skype. This particular article is so restrictive that it currently prohibits even a consideration of allowing a board member to appear by electronic medium. And I'm seeing that change in the court system. Right now it's allowable if you file a motion. I think it should be something that you should consider to maybe changing to make it allowable versus prohibited. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'd like to talk against that, and the reason I say that is because I've been on the Board almost 10 years. I think, Gerald, you were on the Board prior to that -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Fifteen years. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- and I don't think we've ever had a case where we have not had a quorum and only to my memory did we ever have where we only had four voting members. So I don't think at this time that that's a problem, and I would oppose that myself. MR. LEFEBVRE: The other question is, does the county have the ability to Skype in? I know we've even had problems just having some call in, so... MS. NICOLA: The issue that I'm saying is, should it be prohibited? And at the present time, obviously, it's not a problem, but you've got a very restrictive rule currently. And so my only suggestion was to not have it be a prohibited use. And you could, of March 23, 2017 Page 49 course, say, well, we don't have a problem, we shouldn't address this, and maybe you address it in the future. I just read that rule, thought it was very restrictive in light of the way that we're moving with electronic medium and thought maybe it might be something the Board would consider opening the door to in the future. MR. LEFEBVRE: I feel that we should address the concerns of the Board and what we feel would be a concern. And, again, I've been on the Board for 15 years going in May, and we've never had a problem with attendance here, so... MS. NICOLA: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think if you were to remove that it's prohibited to -- you may use it, you may have some problems going forth with a member of the Board who can't make a meeting saying it's not prohibitive; I want to do it. And that's why we have two alternates on the Board as well. We need four voting members. We have a board of nine people, two being alternates, and I think it may cause more problems than fixes by removing that prohibitive. MS. CURLEY: Do we review this once a year? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We can review it anytime we want. MS. CURLEY: And that stipulation -- and that item we're talking about is just for the Board. It's not for -- MS. NICOLA: No, it's just for the Board. But, you know, I just thought I would bring that up. Obviously it's not something you want to consider, but I just -- I saw it. My second -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, before we move -- before we move on, excuse me, we have had one respondent via the phone; Mr. Marshal. March 23, 2017 Page 50 And we've had a lot of problems when we had him on the phone. So based on experience, we have had respondents call in, and it's very difficult to understand and everything. And, again, I don't think we should make a change unless -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Not respondents; board members. MR. LEFEBVRE: I know; I understand. But I'm saying, we -- it was mentioned that that wasn't allowed by respondents, but it is. And, again, before we make any changes, we should find out what the ability of the county is. If we can -- if we were going to make some kind of change, we should see if the county has the ability. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The County Commission meeting on the 14th, they did have Commissioner Solis dial in. MS. CURLEY: I think you'll see statute change before this board makes any decision. MR. LAVINSKI: And that was a disaster. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It was. MR. LEFEBVRE: He's sitting there not paying attention, probably playing Candy Crush on another computer. And every time they went to talk to him, it was like he was in the bathroom or something. So I don't think it makes sense. MS. CURLEY: Well, just so you know, when you are on teleconference calls, you always mute the phone when you're not on campus. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. CURLEY: And it's customary to do that. So when you do respond to a question, you have to actually find your device and un-mute yourself to speak. So it does get a little awkward, but it's very much the way of the future. Even, for example, the Condominium Association Act; it allows board members to phone in. And so that's just the way of the futures. But if we -- if this tide right now here is not willing to rise and fall, then we'll stick it as stay as we March 23, 2017 Page 51 are, and then within the next couple of years, I think Florida Statute will probably step in and change that rule. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. NICOLA: The second recommended change to the rules and regulations is found on Page 6, Article 10, hearings. It would be Paragraph D. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hang on. MR. LAVINSKI: B as in boy? MS. NICOLA: D as in dog. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Respondent/alleged violator shall state his -- MS. NICOLA: Which says -- full legal name, mailing address, and physical residence. Since I have been on this board, I have never seen a respondent state their mailing address or their physical address. I just believe that that should be removed. It's not being done. I've never seen it done. Mr. Mansolillo, he says his name. He doesn't state his full mailing address and his physical residence. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, that must be my fault then. So I will ask for that since they don't do that. They don't read our rules. So... MS. CURLEY: Isn't that on the documentation that's in -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It may be, but it doesn't say that in the rules. MS. NICOLA: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It says "shall state." So I don't know that the case itself is sufficient, so I will ask in the future for them to state not only their name on the microphone but their -- we'll take care of that. MR. LEFEBVRE: Let me ask this: What is our intent of D? Is our intent to find out who the person is under oath, or is our intent to March 23, 2017 Page 52 go further and find out his first born and everything? I think if it's just our intent to identify the respondent, then all we need is full name, and then mailing address and physical residence is really irrelevant. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think -- from time to time we have had a case where somebody was here who, once they identified themselves, was not the respondent who was talking for the respondent. The attorneys generally say what the story is; they're representing so and so. But we've had somebody who is a general contractor representing the respondent. They give their name, and then generally somebody from the Board says, wait, that's not the name that's on our case here, et cetera. MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct. MS. CURLEY: So since we -- the way we've been behaving is not asking for this information, couldn't the Board take a vote as to whether we want to eliminate that additional information, or do we want to now try to follow the rules like -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I would leave it there, and I'll ask for it every time. MS. CURLEY: But shouldn't the Board make that decision? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. It's in the rules. I should follow the rules. MS. CURLEY: No, but -- I mean, if it's -- Tamara's saying that we're not doing it, but this board is functioning and not violating any rules by not asking for it, couldn't we ask to -- she's suggesting, as our attorney, that we modify that because it's not something that we do. So -- and it's -- you might run into some privacy issues if somebody doesn't want to disclose their actual location -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MS. CURLEY: -- and you have some private information that we might be requesting, and this might be a little bit outdated, and so March 23, 2017 Page 53 wouldn't we want to modify that for -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, I think if you look at the magistrate -- MS. CURLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- the magistrate asks for all this information. I have been remiss in not asking for it. That's all. MS. NICOLA: Well, my suggestion is that the Board should decide as a Board whether to keep this Subsection D as written and enforce it or modify it to eliminate the mailing address and physical address. And a point of clarification is that Subsection E addresses when an individual is represented by someone else. So, you know, what we're talking about in Subsection D is simply when the respondent appears. Do we want him to stand up here or her to stand up here and say, my name is Mr. Mansolillo, and I live at such and such address and my physical residence is Collier County, Florida? It doesn't seem necessary to me. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we strike mailing address and physical residence from our rules. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me just give you another suggestion, possibly. MS. CURLEY: I second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How about if you said that you may -- that they shall state their name but you may ask for the further information. MS. CURLEY: I second the motion, Gerald. MR. LEFEBVRE: Mr. Kaufman wanted me to make a change. MS. CURLEY: I didn't follow the change. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You weren't recognized. MR. LEFEBVRE: "May" would be after full legal name. So may ask for mailing address and physical residence. March 23, 2017 Page 54 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is that your motion? I'll second your motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: It's already been seconded. MR. DOINO: Is it, like, third now? MS. NICOLA: You guys can ask people questions that you want throughout the proceeding -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MS. NICOLA: -- including their name, address, telephone number -- MR. LEFEBVRE: We've asked that before. MS. NICOLA: -- you know, date of birth. I mean, you can ask them anything in a public hearing. MR. LEFEBVRE: We've asked them that before. MS. NICOLA: The question is the "shall." That's the problem that I have. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yep. I mean, I don't think it's unreasonable to add "may" ask mailing address and physical. We ask -- like the attorney said, we do ask questions. MS. CURLEY: Change to "shall" to "may." So what about -- excuse me, the gentleman that made the motion, what about you just -- if you just change the word "shall" to "may." MR. ASHTON: That was in your -- MR. DOINO: That's what you're doing, right? MR. LEFEBVRE: No, no, no. MR. ASHTON: They won't -- don't have to state their name. MR. LEFEBVRE: He has to state his name, but after full legal name, Mr. Kaufman's asking, the Board may ask for the respondent's mailing address and physical residence. I'd like to amend my motion to what I just stated. MR. DOINO: To "may." MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah. May ask for the respondent's mailing March 23, 2017 Page 55 address and physical residence. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Sue, now you were next. Do you want to second that? MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sue? MS. CURLEY: Someone else did. MR. LEFEBVRE: No, no. You seconded the motion originally, so you would have to agree to the -- MS. CURLEY: I couldn't follow it. I'm sorry. I was trying to follow, but -- MR. LEFEBVRE: The respondent/alleged violator shall state his full legal name, and the Board -- a board member may ask the respondent's mailing address and physical residence. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You could probably even add in there any other information they wanted, but it's not necessary. MS. CURLEY: Before I second it, can we just ask if that's -- is that -- MS. NICOLA: I don't see any problem with that. I mean, I think you can ask that information anyhow, and a person has the right to refuse to provide that information if they're asked under oath in a public hearing. MR. LEFEBVRE: We always fight over "shall" and "may" every single year. MS. NICOLA: That's going to be my next point. My next point is going to be -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hold on. Hold on. So we have a motion; we have a second. MS. CURLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. March 23, 2017 Page 56 MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries. Okay. So that will be the change. MS. NICOLA: Okay. You ready for the next one? The next one would be found in F, two paragraphs down, and it's the second sentence. If the respondent believes that additional time is required, he/she shall notify the board's secretary prior to the scheduled hearing. I think that what we've been having during many of these hearings is that a respondent will ask during the hearing, can I have extra time if extra time is needed. Under this language, as written, it says it shall occur prior to the hearing. I think what happens with you, Bob, is when we're running out of time and somebody wants extra time, they'll ask during the hearing. So I'm just suggesting that the "shall" become "may." If the respondent believes that additional time is required, he/she may notify the Board. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you start with an example. Somebody comes before the Board -- MS. NICOLA: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- and we're hearing the case, and they say I only need another couple of weeks to get the permit issued. MS. NICOLA: No. I only need another couple of minutes for the hearing, because this is the paragraph that addresses limiting them to 20 minutes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh. March 23, 2017 Page 57 MS. NICOLA: And we had a situation where -- and I can't remember the guy's name. He was in here many, many times talking about the shed that was built on the back of his property, and he kept going over the 20 minutes. And he'd say, can I have a few additional minutes to finish my thought. Under this rule, F, that would be prohibited because it says, you shall ask for the additional time prior to the hearing. So I'm suggesting a "may." CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But when we read the opening statement -- when I read the opening statement it said, the respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation unless additional time is granted by the Board. MS. NICOLA: Right. But if you understand -- I understand that you say that, but that's contrary to Paragraph F. Paragraph F, as written, says that if the respondent believes additional time is required, he shall notify the board's secretary prior to the scheduled hearing. So my suggestion, with all due respect, is changing the "shall" to "may." MR. LEFEBVRE: Should we reword the opening comments a little bit, too? MS. NICOLA: If you change this word to "may," I think the opening comments are fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't have a problem with changing it to "may." I thank that you may wind up with the County Attorney having a problem with it. That was -- we have changed many of these shalls to may over the years, and it's always been the County Attorney that comes up and says no. I have no problem with that. MS. NICOLA: Well, they could veto my suggestions, I suppose, but I'm -- the only reason why I made these suggestions is that I've been sitting through these hearings for, what, about two years now, and I realized when I was reading the rules that the rules are contrary to the way that things are proceeding, and it made more sense to me, with March 23, 2017 Page 58 just a few of the rules, to tweak them just a little bit. MR. LEFEBVRE: This one is in conflict with our opening statement. So I make a motion to change -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: "Shall" to -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes, "may." Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: "Shall" to "may" in Paragraph F -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- second sentence. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yep. Or would we like to -- would we like to even modify it a little bit more to include that they can ask for additional time during the hearing? MS. NICOLA: Well, I don't know that you need to do that because it says in the next sentence the Board shall determine if additional time shall be allowed. So I think that allows the discretion for the Board to decide to give additional time if additional time is warranted. I just was worried about that "shall." The way it was written I thought it was, again, too restrictive, and it's not something that we're doing in practice here in the board meetings. MR. LEFEBVRE: But in the opening statement it says that the respondent may, but our rule doesn't say that they can ask -- MS. NICOLA: Right, so it's -- MR. LEFEBVRE: -- during a hearing. MS. NICOLA: It's a conflict, and I think that it's cured by changing "shall" to "may." CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Call the question, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: (Absent.) MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. March 23, 2017 Page 59 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MS. NICOLA: That's it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did you rewrite the Ten Commandments? Thou shalt not -- MS. NICOLA: You guys asked an attorney to look at the rules, so I did. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thou shalt not commit adultery, or they may not? MS. NICOLA: Believe me, I could go through this and suggest lots and lots of changes, and I only focused on the things that I thought that we weren't currently doing that had a little bit of a conflict that would make things better. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we can continue to operate as we have in the past. We just changed the rules to conform with what we're doing. MS. NICOLA: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Yes, Mr. Lavinski. MR. LAVINSKI: Before we move on, I want to whip this dead dog one more time. After Tami said -- if you read Article 10, Section 3, that solves our problem, if every board member here would be kind enough to read this and understand it and apply that every time we go to abate a fine because -- Item H, the time and cost incurred by Code Enforcement to have the violation corrected. I still don't feel it's right for a person to come up here with eight hearings versus a person with one hearing and get their total fine abated. March 23, 2017 Page 60 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I agree with you, and in addition to that, if you recall that on a lot of cases now you see on the bottom left-hand side where it says the severity of the case. So that was additional information that we had requested way back when as far as a particular case was concerned. Do you know what I'm talking about or -- MR. LAVINSKI: Yep. I've seen that. And that should -- yeah, that should affect -- because the gravity of the violation, that would come under it. But I don't think we're giving any consideration to H, and I think it's wrong, from a taxpayer's to treat an eight-hearing violator the same standpoint as a one-hearing violator. MR. LETOURNEAU: I would also say that they're well within their realm to ask the investigator what -- you know, the factors that you're looking at right here and how the county feels about -- well, let's say every case is different. I mean, there's guys that are trying their best to get this thing done and it just takes them a long time, and there's people that just don't want to do anything and maybe want to sell the house and they rush to get it done. And I think we'd be more than willing to put our two cents in at any point. MS. NICOLA: Well, I think you do, too. I mean, I think that on an abatement request normally the county is asked, what's your position on this? Do you have a position on the abatement? And there have been times when the investigator has said I don't think an abatement would be warranted in this case because of the extreme violation and the fact that the person wasn't really giving it their all to try and correct it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Most of the time, though, it's the other way around. MS. NICOLA: It is. MS. CURLEY: I completely agree that that topic should be fluid, and there's not a motion to be made to alter that. But I think it March 23, 2017 Page 61 should be fluid for a lot of reasons. And we keep revisiting this because of the board member's concern for it. But I think if we slow down during the abatement proceeding process and really look back, I think we will be more effective, and it might appease the board member. MR. LETOURNEAU: And Code Enforcement's 99 percent about compliance, but there's always that one case where you've got a junkyard next to people that have been trying to sell their property for five years and can't sell it, and then the junk yard wants to sell his property, cleans it up, and then comes in for a full abatement. You guys are more within your realm to maybe not give the full amount, but you can give a partial amount, I think. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We can give the full amount -- we can give the full amount, too. MR. LETOURNEAU: Or you could give the full amount. You know, it's up to you guys. But I'm going to really try to stress to my investigators -- and I'll be up here to say, you know, be truthful with the Board on, you know, the factors in this situation. MS. CURLEY: Their input is very important. MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: One other question. Do you still -- does Code Enforcement still go out and do sweeps or help neighborhoods that have violations? I know you used to report on, like, foreclosures and what you're doing. I mean, has that subsided substantially? MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, since, like, 2011, I believe, when the anonymous complaints came, you know, to an end, the sweeps kind of weren't as frequent as we had, but recently we've been asked by, like, homeowners' associations and stuff like that to pinpoint certain violations in their territory, so our sweeps are increasing right now. March 23, 2017 Page 62 But we still do the neighborhood cleanups. We were in four districts. They're allowed to have four cleanups a year, so we're doing at least 16 cleanups a year in addition to special request cleanups for, you know -- MR. LEFEBVRE: We used to get numbers also on cases opened and closed and synopsis. Was it -- MR. LETOURNEAU: I mean, I think that was the new director's direction to go in another way. I don't know, did that -- I mean, was that something you guys look forward to or were into? I mean, I'm sure we could bring it back. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I couldn't wait till we got to them. MS. CURLEY: Could the Board be notified of the cleanups since that's part of -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, you know, the reason -- I think it's a good idea, and I'll tell you why: We had six cases today. We've got nine people, eight today, coming in for six cases. What's going on? I mean, is everybody in compliance, or are we not -- if you'll pardon the expressing -- policing? What's going on? MS. CURLEY: Traffic. MR. LETOURNEAU: No. I'm not really sure. It's -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I mean, I could walk out of this door -- and you could pick the street. If I drive down the street, I could have -- I could find multiple infractions. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. All right. At this point, Code policy is no anonymous complaints, but our investigators are allowed to open up cases that have a health-and-safety issue. So what cases -- what are you looking at? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, if I drive down the street and I see weeds that are taller than I am. MR. LETOURNEAU: We're allowed to -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. March 23, 2017 Page 63 MR. LETOURNEAU: I would like to know where this is at so I could tell my investigator to step it up in that area. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You say that with a smile on your face. I mean, they know where they are. MS. CURLEY: Well, I have a question. When you discontinued the anonymous complaints, I mean, some people don't -- are fearful of retaliation or don't want their neighbor to know that they're annoyed by them, so it really does limit -- I mean, how anonymous is it? I mean, did it go from 5,000 complaints a month to 400 when you require people to put their identification down, or are people really putting their identification down or -- you know. MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, in the beginning it really went down. Our policy is, though, if the person leaves their name, the investigator has to verify through a phone call that it's somebody that's a real person. We do get a lot of false complaints, and if it's not a real person, if it's not a health-and-safety issue, that case will be closed out at that point. MR. LEFEBVRE: But also, a complainant -- or someone that makes a complaint can go through their county commissioner. MR. LETOURNEAU: They can. MR. LEFEBVRE: And it would be anonymous at that point. MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. But like I said, they can also contact their homeowners' association. If the homeowners' association feels that there's an issue in their neighborhood, they can contact us to, you know, specific -- like parking in the grass or something like that. Please come out and do a sweep on those, and we have been doing a lot of those lately. MS. CURLEY: Also, to the defense of the -- you know, the innocent neighbor that doesn't have the wherewithal to understand or know these rules, and they just might not know that parking four boats and trailers and cars, you know, on their neighbor's property -- even March 23, 2017 Page 64 though it's unsightly to them, they just figure, well, that's just the way their neighbors are. And so they don't know the rules, so they don't even know enough to complain. But I think it's very restrictive to make somebody identify themselves unless it's a prolific problem. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's a county commissioner issue. MR. LETOURNEAU: That's a Board -- that's a -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They did that, I think, when Commissioner Hiller first came on board, with Commissioner Henning. Those were the two that had requested that no -- if you'll pardon the expression -- driveby notices would happen. But if you take -- go out and drive down any community you want to name, how many boats do you see parked in front of someone's house that you can't miss. MR. LETOURNEAU: That's not a health-and-safety issue, so we're not -- we don't really address those. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand that, but it is a violation. MR. LETOURNEAU: It is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So, I mean, there are many, many violations. Green pools are hard to see -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- unless they're reported by a neighbor, because you can't see those on a driveby. MR. LETOURNEAU: I will go back to your boat example also. Say we get a complaint about a boat on a specific property, it's tough on an investigator to drive by three boats that weren't complained on to go to a gentleman's house that has a boat in his driveway, because every time you're going to say, well, what about his? What about his? What about his? And we -- and we could go to the homeowners' association and say, we have an issue here. Are you guys -- what are you guys feeling March 23, 2017 Page 65 about your boats? Do you want us to address them all? So that's another thing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Signs is another one. MR. LETOURNEAU: Signs we're really going to be concentrating on here. I know there's a lot of problems with signs. And we have -- you're going to notice a lot of flutter flags and banners are going to be removed very shortly here. They already have, actually. If you go down the East Trail, you probably won't see one flutter flag. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We're not enforcement. We're the Board. Just mentioning, because it appears that the cases have been ebbing, for a lack of a better term. MR. LETOURNEAU: I think that the anonymous complaints have had effect on it, and I think that we've got maybe a really good staff now that's getting compliance, and I just think that we are more about education and compliance, and maybe we've been letting people have a little bit more time than we used to in the past before we bring them to a hearing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: I still think somehow we should visit that anonymous complaint removal, because can you imagine what Kevin Rambosk would say or Dwight Brock or Larry Ray if his boss said, don't take anonymous complaints about human trafficking or somebody built a house twice the size that they had? It's ludicrous not to take anonymous complaints. MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, I mean, there is -- I can understand what the Commissioners did, because there was a flurry of neighborhood squabbles and people just calling in all sorts of stuff that was nonsense, you know, anonymously -- MR. LAVINSKI: That may be true -- MR. LETOURNEAU: -- harassing neighbor. March 23, 2017 Page 66 MR. LAVINSKI: -- but there's got to be some good falling out of that. MS. CURLEY: So just a little bit of pro-activity. Like you say, you get a call, and it's not a health or well-being issue, I mean, it isn't that whoever has that district can't just drive by anyways; not to respond to that specific, you know, unverified complaint, but... MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, if it's not a health-and-safety issue, my investigators aren't allowed to open it up unless we have a verified complainant. MS. CURLEY: I see. Okay. I'm sorry. There we go. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All righty. I guess -- anything else? MS. CURLEY: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion to adjourn. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're adjourned. Danny, you did great today. Today was Danny's first day of running the show. ***** March 23, 2017 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:38 a.m. ODE PNFORCEM NT BOARD _leterwat ,/4710 R fir':ERT dAr N, CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on Li- as -as presented or as corrected . TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC/COURT REPORTER. Page 67