Loading...
CEB Minutes 04/28/2017April 28, 2017 Page 1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, April 28, 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 Kathleen Elrod Herminio Ortega (Alternate) Lionel L'Esperance (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Jeff Letourneau, Manager of Investigations Tamara Lynne Nicola, Attorney to the Board CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA DATE: Friday April 28,2017 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-Excused Kathleen Elrod,Alternate Herminio Ortega,Alternate 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. March 23,2017 Hearing 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. Motions Motion for Re-Hearing 1. CASE NO: CESD20160010293 OWNER: DAVID P.HANKINS SR.AND KATHRYN HANKINS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).MULTIPLE UNPERMITTED STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 36914340008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1925 GOLDEN GATE BLVD W,NAPLES 1 Motion for Continuance Motion for Extension of Time B. Stipulations C. Hearings 1. CASE NO: CESD20140013027 OWNER: SUNNY LANE LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(I)(A)AND 10.02.06(B)(I)(E)(I).NUMEROUS UNPERMITTED STRUCTURES WITH ELECTRIC,PLUMBING,AND NATURAL GAS. FOLIO NO: 00720360004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 10181 KEEWAYDIN ISLAND,NAPLES 2. CASE NO: CESD20160019904 OWNER: NILKANTH HOSPITALITY INC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(I)(A).THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW STAIR CASE AND IMPACT WINDOWS TO THE MAIN STRUCTURE WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 75210040005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 721 N. 15TH ST,IMMOKALEE 3. CASE NO: CEROW20150021347 OWNER: CWABS INC CERTIFICATE HOLDERS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 110 ROADS AND BRIDGES,ARTICLE II CONSTRUCTION IN RIGHT OF WAY,DIVISION 1 GENERALLY, SECTION 110-31(A). EXPIRED PERMIT NUMBER PRROW2014082232201. FOLIO NO: 37987760009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3610 WHITE BLVD,NAPLES D. Motion for Reduction of Fines/Lien. 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens 2 1. CASE NO: CESD20150024661 OWNER: THEODORE CANALES OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A).RENOVATING THE INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE PRIOR TO AN ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 30681960005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1402 ORANGE ST,IMMOKALEE 2. CASE NO: CELU20160016735 OWNER: NANCY PATTERSON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHAEL ODOM VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 1.04.01(A) AND 2.02.03.THREE UNPERMITTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES PRESENT WITHOUT FIRST HAVING A PERMITTED PRINCIPLE OR PRIMARY STRUCTURE.OUTSIDE STORAGE OF ITEMS ON AN UNIMPROVED PARCEL,INCLUDING,BUT NOT LIMITED TO,SIX UTILITIES TRAILERS,PVC PIPING, SCAFFOLDING,LUMBER,CONCRETE BLOCKS,TARP,FLOWER POTS,BARRELS,CHAIRS, TABLE. FOLIO NO: 39837680004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: NO SITE ADDRESS 3. CASE NO: CESD20160002752 OWNER: JAMES GADSDEN AND SCOTTIE L GADSDEN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(a).INTERIOR REMODELING INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO NEW DRYWALL, NEW FRAMING,ELECTRICAL,PLUMBING,FLOORING,AND INSTALLATION OF A CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM WERE OBSERVED ON IMPROVED UNOCCUPIED COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 24370240000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 317 S 1ST STREET,IMMOKALEE 4. CASE NO: CESD20140017065 OWNER: DAVIS CROSSINGS VIII LLC ET AL OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A). PERMIT 2009120450 EXPIRED WITHOUT INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION/OCCUPANCY. FOLIO NO: 34690080008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 8770 DAVIS BLVD,NAPLES 5. CASE NO: CELU20160014975 OWNER: JASON LEE WILLARD OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHAEL ODOM VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED, SECTION 1.04.01(A), 2.02.03 AND COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 54, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54-181. UNPERMITTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE PRESENT WITHOUT FIRST HAVING A PERMITTED PRIMARY OR PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE.THREE 3 RECREATIONAL VEHICLES AND A WHITE CHEVROLET VAN BEING STORED ON THE UNIMPROVED PROPERTY.ADDITIONALLY,OUTSIDE STORAGE OF ITEMS INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,APPLIANCES, METAL CANS, PLASTIC, WOOD,METAL,BIKES, METAL BARRELS. LASTLY,LITTER INCLUDING,BUT NOT LIMITED TO,PAPER,PLASTIC, TRASH BAGS,BROKEN CHAIRS,LOCATED THROUGHOUT THE UNIMPROVED PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 00193240007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1680 ACREMAKER RD,NAPLES B. Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order C. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order 7. NEW BUSINESS 8. CONSENT AGENDA A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. NONE 9. REPORTS 10. COMMENTS 11. NEXT MEETING DATE- Thursday May 25,2017 at 9:00 A.M. 12. ADJOURN 4 April 28, 2017 Page 2 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board to order. Notice: The respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation unless additional time is granted by the Board. Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes unless the time is adjusted by the Chairman. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Robert's Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and, therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. That is a long sentence. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. Can I get everybody to stand for our pledge. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Let me -- because I always forget, let me just move the minutes up. Everybody has had a chance to look at the minutes. Any motions to accept them? MR. ASHTON: Motion to accept. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. April 28, 2017 Page 3 MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. Why don't we start with the roll call. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Robert Kaufman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKI: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Ron Doino? MR. DIONO: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Robert Ashton? MR. ASHTON: Here. MS. ADAMS: Ms. Sue Curley? MS. CURLEY: Here. MS. ADAMS: Ms. Kathleen Elrod? MS. ELROD: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Herminio Ortega? MR. ORTEGA: Here. MS. ADAMS: And Mr. Lionel L'Esperance has an excused absence. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The Board would like to welcome our newest member, Herminio, who is a past member of the Board. Welcome. MR. ORTEGA: Thank you, Chairman, members of the Board. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have any changes to the agenda? MS. ADAMS: Yes. No. 5, public hearings, motions. Letter B, stipulations. We have one addition. It's No. 2 from hearings, Tab 3, April 28, 2017 Page 4 Case CESD20160019904, Nilkanth Hospitality, Incorporated. Letter C, hearings, No. 1, Tab 2, Case CESD20140013027, Sunny Lane, LLC, has been withdrawn. Number 3, Tab 4, Case CEROW20150021347, CWABS, Incorporated, Certificate Holders, has been withdrawn. Number 6, old business, Letter A, motion for imposition of fines/liens, No. 1, Tab 5, Case CESD20150024661, Theodore Canales, has been withdrawn. Number 4, Tab 8, Case CESD20140017065, Davis Crossings VII, LLC, et al, has been withdrawn. And that's all the changes to the agenda. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Could we get a motion to accept the modified agenda? MR. DOINO: Motion to accept. MR. ASHTON: Second. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: A motion and a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. Today, since Mr. L'Esperance is not here, we're going to have Kathy Elrod as the voting member of the Board. Herminio, you'll get your chance soon. April 28, 2017 Page 5 Okay. MS. ADAMS: Okay. The first case is from No. 5, public hearings, motions, motion for rehearing, No. 1, Tab 1, Case CESD20160010293, David P. Hankins, Sr., and Kathryn Hankins. MR. RANKIN: Good morning. Douglas Rankin here for the petitioner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hang on. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You don't have to be sworn. MR. RANKIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They tell us we have to believe lawyers. MR. RANKIN: After 33 years of no discipline and no suits and all that, maybe you should this one. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, our attorney just gave me a dirty look, so what can I say. MS. NICOLA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We're here to decide whether a rehearing should be in order based on the request from Counselor Rankin, and the respondents, the Hawkins (sic). You're going to represent the county, Jay -- Jeff? MR. LETOURNEAU: I am. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. LAVINSKI: I just wondered if we should consider denying the request for a rehearing. This case, according to our minutes from February 23rd, has been around since June the 26th of 2016. And a lot of the statements that are in our backup don't seem to hold true when you read this. You read through and you find out that there -- one or two or three of these items are portable garages which, April 28, 2017 Page 6 according to a Code Enforcement Board, Jonathan Walsh said that a permit is required. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Jonathan Walsh, by the way, is -- he's the head building person. He's not on Code Enforcement. MR. LAVINSKI: And both of these structures were erected without permits. Then there's electricity added without a permit. And then as far as to whether the case was brought to the knowledge of the respondents, there's a couple of statements in here on Page 39 that says, does he know that it's being heard today? And the answer from the investigator was, yes, he's aware of it. I actually gave him the notice. And then one of our board members mentioned that on February 10th they were made aware of the meeting that was held on the 23rd. So I just wonder if we are going down a rathole with this and it may not justify a rehearing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, we're not here to hear the case. We're here to hear the request for the rehearing, so... MS. CURLEY: I have a question for clarification purposes, please. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Shoot. MS. CURLEY: This is Douglas Rankin. Is this -- are you representing -- MR. RANKIN: Mrs. Hankins, yes, who is right here behind me. MS. CURLEY: Thank you. MR. RANKIN: And I, unfortunately, wasn't involved in this case at the last hearing. And for the commissioners' situation, it's not a question; they were given the notice. Part of the problem we have here, and that you have -- because this board does not have a secretary, a clerk, or anything else, the only way to communicate with the Board prior to a hearing is through Code Enforcement. And this young lady is here to testify that she was told April 28, 2017 Page 7 emphatically by a code enforcement officer that she didn't have to be here. It would be continued. Otherwise, she will swear under oath, and she'll be happy to swear in, that she would have been here, and there are more issues than just that. And, quite frankly, prior to 2000, there's some question about whether these things needed a hearing and needed a permit, and they were all erected prior to 2000. There's no question about that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Counselor, let me -- MR. RANKIN: And the electrical is something they paid for. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let's start in the beginning. We're not here to -- MR. RANKIN: And the contractor fell -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're not here to hear the trial, hear the case. I just wanted to start out by reading the rules for what a rehearing is. For the Board's benefit, if they haven't read through it, it says that a party may motion a rehearing of the Board based on the ground that the -- should be "grounds" -- that the decision was contrary to the evidence or that the hearing involved an error on a ruling of law which was fundamental to the decision of the Board. So I ask, since you are the person who is requesting the rehearing, that you follow those guidelines, and we can go step by step on your writeup to see whether or not a rehearing is in order. Does that make sense? MR. RANKIN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. And I think actually -- the county and I met about this yesterday, and the question here is a question of fundamental due process. My clients had a right to appear and be heard. They would have appeared and be (sic) heard except for the fact that they were told they didn't have to because there would be no hearing. And that is a violation of fundamental due process and, basically, that just cannot happen and be sustained. We filed this motion for rehearing and an appeal at the same time April 28, 2017 Page 8 to make sure we covered our matters. And the county and the County Attorney and the gentleman over there and I had a discussion yesterday that they are not going to oppose my motion for a rehearing, and we also had discussions about how to solve the entire situation, but I won't bring it up. The only reason I brought up the issues was the gentleman there that brought up the issues. And we're working towards solving this matter, and we expect that before there is another hearing, the matters will probably be solved because, quite frankly, none of this is my client's fault. And the electrical -- they paid a contractor to do it. The contractor saw fit not to pull a permit and go out of business. So I don't know. That's not my client's fault. Anyway, that's been remedied. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let's go through your points that you made one by one, and we can go from that point. MR. RANKIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Whether or not your client has requested and somebody from Code Enforcement has granted a continuance was, I think, the major portion of your writeup and -- MR. RANKIN: The problem -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me continue -- and the only people who can grant a continuance is this board. MR. RANKIN: Well, the problem we have, Your Honor, or Mr. Chairman, is that if you look at the Code Enforcement notice for the last hearing, the only contact individual on that notice is the gentleman who told her she didn't have to be here. And the County Attorney and I have discussed this. Part of the problem we have here is if this were a judge or any other panel I'm aware of you would have a secretary or a clerk or someone where somebody like her could verify that that was correct but, instead, you have this gentleman from Code Enforcement, it appears, as the only contact person on the notice for that last hearing. April 28, 2017 Page 9 And so she picks up the phone and says, okay, do I need to be there? No. It's going to be continued. Don't bother to come. And then -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, we'll find out -- MR. RANKIN: And that's where we are. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. RANKIN: And it's a fundamental due process problem that we would not have did this board have some method -- and this is not your fault. You didn't create this. This is a flaw in the system here where any other situation, if I'm before a Court or any other board, I call the clerk to the board or the judge's JA or the clerk to the courts, and I can verify what the situation is. This doesn't have a docket, per se. This doesn't have a clerk. This doesn't have a judicial assistant for you; nothing. The only person that -- aside that -- where an individual like this or even me can communicate with you is through the individual that appears on the notice. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You brought up the notice. I just want to read the bold bigger-type portion of the notice that says, respondents are required to appear at 8:30 a.m. for a prehearing. Hearings begin at 9:00 a.m. Is that the same notice that you have? MR. RANKIN: Yes, and it also says this is the gentleman and an address and phone number you are to contact. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We will ask the gentleman who is referenced his thoughts or remembrances of what happened when it's the county's turn to talk. MR. RANKIN: Well, we were hoping to avoid that, Mr. Chairman, because the county and I have agreed that whether or not getting into that -- we don't want to get into that because it's not productive. MS. CURLEY: Excuse me. MR. RANKIN: With your indulgence. April 28, 2017 Page 10 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hold on one second. Yes. MS. CURLEY: Would we be able to hear from Jeff? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, we will, but after the respondent, his attorney -- his or her attorney, has their chance to speak. MS. CURLEY: I feel like he's -- I feel like he's speaking on behalf of him, and it's confusing me a little bit. When he's speaking about a meeting that they had -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, he's speaking about what his client has said to him and what the affidavit that's in our package shows. MS. CURLEY: I know, but what's confusing to me is he just said that he's had conversations with Jeff and that Jeff doesn't -- and so he's speaking on behalf of Jeff, and I'd prefer if you didn't do that. MR. RANKIN: Okay. Well, I'm just saying that we had discussed this yesterday because in normal -- in any litigation or any hearing of any nature, the parties can discuss the matter prior to the hearing and see if they can solve or lessen the burden on the authority in question. MS. CURLEY: Let's not speak on behalf of him. Let's just speak on behalf of you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Rankin, you are requesting a rehearing for your clients. MR. RANKIN: Yes, Your Honor. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you have a motion for the rehearing, and in the motion you have 21 points that we should consider in granting or not granting a rehearing; am I correct? MR. RANKIN: Yes, Your Honor, and -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But you don't want us to hear those now; is that correct? MR. RANKIN: Well, Your Honor, we can -- I can -- we can April 28, 2017 Page 11 hear them, and also I have an affirmative defense at this time to present to -- you don't have a clerk, so I'll present it to -- if I may approach you and the county, about some of these matters. MS. CURLEY: Does he know not we're volunteers? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One conversation. MR. RANKIN: One problem of the matters that were built way back when... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you want to put that up on the -- MR. LEFEBVRE: It this an exhibit? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So the Board can see this, and they can vote whether to accept this as an exhibit or not. MR. RANKIN: Well, this is not an exhibit. This is a pleading. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, we haven't gotten -- we haven't gotten to this yet. MR. RANKIN: That's to the substance of the case. I just wanted to make sure I filed it today so I didn't waive it prior to -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Let me go -- would the county like to say something at this time? MR. NOELL: We would. Thank you, Chairman. Kevin Noell, Assistant County Attorney. What I don't want to do is get into kind of the weeds of the case, because this is just on a rehearing of whether there's been a fundamental error in law. The case law in Florida -- and I'll certainly defer to your attorney to advise the Board. But the case law in Florida has a high regard for protecting property rights of people, especially residential property. When you start talking about -- and the appeal would be one of procedural due process. The courts -- and I can't certainly speak for judges, but courts in general like for decisions to be made on the merits of the cases with both sides being able to present argument. So for those reasons we certainly have a different position than April 28, 2017 Page 12 the attorney representing the appellant in this situation. Staff doesn't make a determination for a continuance for the Board. That would be the first time that's happened. And we've talked with staff, and our position, clearly, is that's not what happened in this case, so I just wanted to bring that for the Board's attention. One thing I did also want to make sure is, for us it's not really an issue of whether their position's correct or our position's correct. It's one of just procedural due process. The strong -- in my opinion, the strong likelihood is this going up on appeal and a Circuit Court Judge just sending it back down to say, hey, just decide it on the merits. So we want to be respectful of the Board's time, and we want to dissolve things on the merits, and that's why we would join in on the motion, and we don't have any objection to it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, when I go through the list of the items, probably half of them hinge on what was said on a phone call, and the two parties that were a part of that phone call are present. And I would like to ask the two parties their opinion of what was said on the phone call because this could have an effect going forward. I realize that continuances are granted by the Code Enforcement Board, not by the county, not anybody at the county, number one, and, number two, I find it difficult to believe that if I wanted to contact somebody at the county in Code Enforcement, there are probably, what, a hundred people at Code Enforcement; that there isn't just one person. MR. NOELL: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So if we could just go to that section and see what the difference of opinion is. If the county said that that is true, that would certainly change our opinion or make our opinion more positive as to whether it's going to be granted a rehearing or not. MR. NOELL: And I respect your position, and we can certainly April 28, 2017 Page 13 do that. I can represent to you that, of course, staff is going to say I never said that. I never had the conversation. And we can put him under oath and before the Board, and I'm happy to do that. My concern is that that issue of whether he did or didn't say that and the conclusions you draw as a board onto whether someone is lacking in veracity would affect the decision on an entirely different ground, the procedural due process ground of giving a continuance because it was the first time that a continuance was requested. Does that make sense? So for me, if it comes down to the staff member testifying -- and I believe his testimony, and I'm going to give him all of the credibility, deferences to our staff that he never had the conversation, and then the ruling, though, based on that affecting the procedural due process that we're here for. So it comes down to a question of a one-time continuance was asked. If this goes up on appeal -- and it would if it's denied -- is a judge, a Circuit Court Judge who understands that I like things to be decided on the merits for both parties to hear the matters -- Florida has a huge interest in protecting individual property right/owners' rights. I think we're coming right back here after a lot of chasing the tail, so to speak, and doing it again. But, yeah, if you would like to take the testimony -- whatever your pleasure is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Rankin? MR. RANKIN: Yes, Your Honor. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you agree with having the two folks that were a part of that telephone call -- MR. RANKIN: We'll be happy to do so, Your Honor. And I believe I attached to your affidavit, did I not, the printout of the cell phone records? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. MR. RANKIN: Well, we have it. April 28, 2017 Page 14 MR. LEFEBVRE: It doesn't really matter. MS. NICOLA: I think it's probably a good idea for me to make some suggestions, too, particularly that I agree with the county. THE COURT REPORTER: Your mic's not on. MS. NICOLA: Okay. So I just recently had this issue come up in one of my cases where I was in court with Judge Gentile, and I will tell you that the judge cited a recent case -- and I would have to probably add it to the record because I don't have it with me. I do have some other case law, but there is a brand new opinion which basically says that the Court should err on the side of granting the rehearing regardless of whether there is contrary testimony, which I believe we'll have from Mr. Blanco, which indicates that, no, I didn't say that. They knew they needed to be here. The situation that I had was a case where we were in trial and the lawyer didn't show up. And, truthfully, the lawyer really had no excuse for the reason why, just missed it, and in that particular case the rehearing was granted. So I think we could hear testimony from both sides, and I think it's going to be contrary. I think Ms. Hankins is going to say that Mr. Blanco said it, and I think Mr. Blanco's going to say that he didn't. And I think -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Instead of putting words in everybody's mouth, why don't we hear directly from the people. MS. NICOLA: Well, what I'm going to say to you is this: Even with the testimony, if that's what it is, regardless of what it is, I think that if a rehearing isn't granted based on the affidavit of Ms. Hankins that the Circuit Court will reverse this board. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That remains to be seen. Okay. Why don't we swear in the county; Mr. Blanco. THE COURT REPORTER: And her at the same time? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: She's already been sworn. April 28, 2017 Page 15 MS. HANKINS: No, I haven't. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, you haven't. I'm sorry. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't you, Ms. Hawkins (sic), why don't you testify first. MS. HANKINS: Sure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And then I'll go to Mr. Blanco, and we'll find out what the deal is. MS. HANKINS: Okay. I'm Kathy Hankins, and I've owned my property for 22 years. This was my first experience with Code Enforcement, and to say it hasn't been pleasant would be an understatement. I received a notice of hearing after a year of trying to get contractors out to take care of the electrical situation. It says on here, request for continuances will not be considered if not received by the Secretary to the Code Enforcement Board at least five days prior to the date set for the hearing. Then it gave the name "Danny Blanco." So I called Mr. Blanco and said, we're going to need a continuance in that the contractor hasn't come; the work hasn't been done. The engineer says it's probably going to be another 60 days. And he said, well, I'm going to have to get back to you on that. I'll have to talk to people. He called me back, and I provided a copy of the cell phone record to the attorney. He also called my husband at our home, and he said, the continuance is on the docket. You don't have to be present. And we said, wow, okay. Now, I could come here. My husband's 78. I'm 68. We would have no problem being here. That's what we both understood in two separate phone calls. And I don't have a record of the one to the house because it's sent -- it's a landline. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, I just wanted to go back to April 28, 2017 Page 16 what you just said, and I may ask you to read it back. You said that he said the continuance would be on the docket? MS. HANKINS: Yeah. He said it was taken care of. Then I received the notice from you that said you'd ruled against me; I hadn't come. And apparently Mr. Blanco hadn't come either. So I don't blame you for ruling against me. You thought, you know, "how disrespectful." You're on the docket, and you don't even show up. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. HANKINS: And that's when I finally said, you know, Dave, I think we're out of our league. We better hire an attorney. And we can't afford this. MR. RANKIN: And where were you on the day of the hearing? MS. HANKINS: I was at work the day of the hearing. I work a job at the senior center in Naples. MR. RANKIN: And what -- absent the representations from Mr. Blanco, where would you have been on that day at that time? MS. HANKINS: I'd have been sitting right here. I would have -- I had my folder. I had all my notes. I would have been in here. I had my note from the engineer saying we can't get it done. I would have been here. MR. RANKIN: And what was your former employment? MS. HANKINS: I worked for Dwight Brock. I was the Finance Director for Dwight Brock, Clerk of Court. So when all of this occurred, when we built our home, when we put up our building, we bought our tents, I went by the rules, and I still do. I've never had a violation of any kind. MR. RANKIN: Okay. Not to get too far into substance, at the time did you inquire of Building and Zoning as to whether or not you needed permits for those tents? MS. HANKINS: I did. The gentleman -- April 28, 2017 Page 17 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're not here to hear the case. The whole point of this was the conversation that occurred between you and Mr. Blanco. So if -- Mr. Blanco, why don't you give us your -- MR. RANKIN: If I could just finish one more matter, Mr. Chairman. Is there any other contact information on this notice? MS. HANKINS: Absolutely not. MR. RANKIN: Did you -- MS. HANKINS: I thought that's who I had to talk to just because of the way the notice was written. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Blanco, do you recall the conversation that occurred? MR. BLANCO: No, I do not, because I don't call people back. If someone leaves a -- calls me and submits a motion for continuance or extension of time, the proceeding (sic), since I've been in this position for the last eight month, is that they have to submit the motion either in person or in writing through an email, which is what I received -- I received from Kathy Hankins on February the 10th at 2:11 p.m. I got the emails right here. And about 11 minutes later, I forwarded that motion to the Investigator, the District Supervisor, and Kerry notifying them that, please see motion below. Please note that this case hasn't been heard before. And I can submit a copy of my email to you and the attorney for the respondent. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen that? MR. BLANCO: I'm not sure if they've seen it. I don't believe so. MS. HANKINS: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You haven't seen it. Why don't you show it to them and see if they have any objection of adding it in as an exhibit. April 28, 2017 Page 18 MR. RANKIN: Excuse me for just a moment, Mr. Chairman. Since he just testified he never called my client back, it's now critical that I have one piece of paper I left at the office, which is the cell phone record, and I need to call the office real quick and have them get it over here somehow real quick. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If you need some extra time, we can move this back in the agenda a little bit until you get whatever you need to get. MR. RANKIN: I have no problem with this going -- being admitted. And the only thing I would request is I need to get that cell phone record here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Can you put that on the -- MR. BLANCO: And the proceedings, it's -- we do the same thing over and over again as far as motions that get submitted by the respondents. We give the same, you know, explanation. You know, we -- you know, we -- the motion has to be submitted prior to five days to the hearing, and we don't approve it or deny it. I always tell the respondents that I highly recommend they appear at the hearing just in case any of the board members have any questions regarding the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And at no time -- you said you don't recall speaking with the respondent? MR. BLANCO: I don't recall speaking with the respondent over the phone, but I definitely can tell you that at no time I told them that the motion they submitted was approved and that they did not need to show up to the hearing. Those words are just -- you know, I would never say anything like that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Rankin, do you have any questions of -- MR. RANKIN: Yes, I do. You just testified -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you speak on the April 28, 2017 Page 19 microphone. MR. RANKIN: You just testified that you did not call my client back? MR. BLANCO: I don't recall calling your client back. That's not the way I handle the proceedings, especially since I received the email. I forwarded that email to the Supervisor, the District Supervisor, and Kerry here. And that's as far as, you know, my proceedings (sic) go. MR. RANKIN: You've just testified now several times that you don't recall conversation; you don't recall making a return call. How do you know, if you can't recall the conversation, what you said or didn't say in the conversation? MR. BLANCO: Because those are things that I would never mention to anyone that submits a motion, because it's -- we do the same process every month. We do the same -- you know, we get several motions like this on a monthly basis, not just one; we get several. And then we say the same thing to every respondent. You know, it's not approved; I don't approve or deny it. I tell them that, you know, they -- in order for us to accept the motion, they have to submit it five days prior to the hearing. So the way I go for it, if -- I tell them, I still highly recommend that you appear at the hearing just in case the board members have any questions regarding the motion. And if the respondents call me over the phone, I tell them the exact assume thing in the email. You can either come in person and submit your motion in person, or you can send an email, which is what I received from Ms. Hankins, and you need to submit your case number, you need to submit how much time you're requesting, you need to explain the situation, why you're requesting more time. And I always tell them the same thing at the end. It's up to the Board to approve or deny it, and I still highly recommend that you April 28, 2017 Page 20 appear at the hearing just, you know, to cover, make sure that if any of the board members have any questions regarding the motion you submitted, you can answer them. MR. RANKIN: But you have no specific recollection of any conversation with my client, do you? MR. BLANCO: No, I do not. MR. RANKIN: And my client has just testified she was here in Naples and would have been at this hearing but for the assurances she received. Can you explain to me how this board's supposed to believe that my client would simply not show up for a hearing where her home's at risk if she hadn't been told by somebody that she didn't have to be here? MR. BLANCO: Well, the question is -- I can assure you that that conversation -- I wasn't on the other end of that conversation. If she had that conversation with any county employee, I can assure you it wasn't me because I -- I've been -- I do this -- this is not new things that, you know, we say every month. We do the same process every single month, and we tell the same thing to every person that submits a motion either for a continuance or extension of time. And I've been in this position for about eight months, and I can tell you that, you know, we do the same thing over and over again. There's no -- we don't change our proceedings for -- depending on the case. It's the same procedures for every single case. MR. RANKIN: And you have no notes of any of these phone conversations, do you? MR. BLANCO: No, I do not keep notes of my phone conversations, I do not. MR. RANKIN: You don't keep notes? Because in my past experience with Code Enforcement, they keep notes of all phone calls and conversation. MR. BLANCO: That will be up to the investigators. They're April 28, 2017 Page 21 the ones that usually speak with the respondents regarding specific questions regarding the cases. Every single time I get a call from a respondent asking questions about a specific code, I transfer them over to either the investigator or their direct supervisor because I don't have knowledge on county codes. MR. RANKIN: All right. If I may approach the witness for a moment, Your Honor. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. RANKIN: I'd like you to -- I'll get back to the microphone for your recording situation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you show that to the Board. MR. RANKIN: It's a notice of hearing, Your Honor. If I may approach. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The first page, okay. Okay. MR. RANKIN: All right. Would you review that. Is that a complete copy of the notice? MR. BLANCO: Yes, it is. MR. RANKIN: All right. Is there any name or phone number on there other than yours? MR. BLANCO: No, there isn't. MR. RANKIN: And is that your name and phone number? MR. BLANCO: Yes, it is. MR. RANKIN: And does this board have any method, any judicial assistant or clerk to this board to talk with or anyone to talk with about these hearings before the hearings, other than you? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can I interrupt one second? There is another name on what you just presented; Tony Asaro, who is the issuing officer, and maybe -- I have no idea -- maybe that's the person who -- MS. CURLEY: Top right-hand corner. MR. RANKIN: Yeah. April 28, 2017 Page 22 MS. CURLEY: I've been sitting here wondering why -- there's a lot of people at the county that this woman could have spoken to, and there is a general callback number that comes up when you get a call from the county, from the department that it is, and not even a specific desk. And so I'm not so sure that cell phone records are going to assist us in understanding the logistics behind the phones in this county office. But as I have been patiently sitting here for a long time listening to this gentleman speak, I mean, two seconds after I looked at this I saw Tony Asaro's name and number, and then I saw, you know, other phone numbers and fax numbers. So I'm a little concerned why we're taking up so much time on this. MR. RANKIN: Yeah. Madam Board Member, I agree with you. Tony Asaro's name is on here. I don't see his phone number. MS. CURLEY: Well, I see a number right below it; (239) 252-2488. Then I go to the very bottom where it says, direct -- inquiries and comments should be directed to Code Enforcement (239) 252-2440. MR. RANKIN: If I may approach. MS. CURLEY: So I see a lot things here that you're saying aren't here. MR. RANKIN: If I may approach. It's not on what I have. MS. CURLEY: Well, this -- MR. NOELL: And I think that's the notice of violation, ma'am, that you're looking at, not the notice of hearing. MR. RANKIN: Speaking of the notice of hearing, if you all would like to review this. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, we all have a copy of that, Mr. Rankin. MS. CURLEY: You're looking at something different. April 28, 2017 Page 23 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. The county -- go ahead, Kevin. MR. RANKIN: The notice of hearing -- MS. CURLEY: You might not have all of your client's documentation in front of you, but that's, again, not our issue. MR. RANKIN: But this is the notice of hearing, and your notice of hearing tells you who to contact. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Kevin? MR. NOELL: Yeah. If I can just interject, respectfully. What the Board is faced with is the issue of a person who appears before the Board asking for a first continuance. And I understand that there are certainly some feelings that are involved when things appear maybe misrepresented. I would say at best maybe there was some confusion on the part of a citizen who's going through the process for the first time and then maybe some defenses that were crafted out of that confusion, but the issue that the Board is faced with is -- and this is what the Judge would look at on appeal, in my opinion, is you have a couple who had asked for a first-time continuance through a written request, and that was not granted, and then it was denied to come back before the Board. The Judge will look at the procedural due process requirements of the law. And the case law that says there's no bright-line test for whether somebody was given/afforded procedural due process, but it's a common-sense factor, a common-sense decision that will be made. Some of the factors that they look at -- that a judge will look at, according to case law, is what is the right of the person that was affected. Here it's going to be a property right that was affected by not having a full hearing on the merits. The other thing that the Court will look at in determining whether to send this back is was there another means or way that the Board could have afforded procedural due process. And that answer, I April 28, 2017 Page 24 believe the Judge will say, yes, they could have given the one-time continuance. I am fully on board and agree with when we start talking about a third, a fourth, a fifth continuance or for a person who just doesn't show, those factors, certainly, the Board takes into consideration. The Judge -- in my opinion, the Judge will look at everything that I just discussed with the overriding case law understanding that, in Florida, personal -- or property rights, especially residential property, for individuals is a highly protected right. And before they would allow a board or a court to intervene and impact those rights, they would want the issues to be decided on the merits. So that's my argument, I guess, to the Board, and that's why, as the appellant or as the appellee -- so if this does -- if the Board would deny this and it goes forward on appeal, I would be arguing on behalf of the Board of why we were correct in what we did. Being the person that would draft that, that's going to be a difficult, tenuous argument to make before the Court given the case law as I kind of outlined it. So for those reasons, that's why I would join in the motion and ask for you guys to grant the rehearing and rescind the order, and then we will bring it back before the Board at the appropriate time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Comments from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Just to correct the record, this may be the first request that was made for a continuance, but this is not the first code enforcement case between the county, according to the record that I have in front of me. There were several cases prior to this. MR. RANKIN: If I may, Mr. Chairman, my client will be happy to testify. All those were found unfounded. And the original charge in this case was found unfounded. That's why it took a long time. April 28, 2017 Page 25 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That was not my point. My point was that there were cases, so it's not the first time that the respondent had interaction with the Code Enforcement. MR. RANKIN: Yes, Your Honor. All the previous cases, and the original case here, was accusing my client of running an auto shop. My client -- actually, mostly her husband, not her -- is a retired gentleman whose hobby is cars. He has everything there from -- I ought to not mention one or two of them; they might get stolen. But that's what he does. He plays with cars. And the previous code cases, and this case originally, were operating a business out of home when he was just doing, quite frankly, what I have do. I have an antique truck, a boat, an RV, and a regular truck, and that's what we were doing. MS. CURLEY: Excuse me; excuse me; excuse me. I do have -- as a board member, I do have a comment. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. Go ahead. MS. CURLEY: And just to your comment, it is a citizen's right to request the assistance of our code enforcement officers if they feel something is in violation, to the point; however, I feel like if this approach had been a little bit softer and had all -- a lot of these items listed, you know, had -- didn't need to be on here and you had come to us and requested a rehearing because you, perhaps, had some confusion in your communication with the county, this would have been a lot smoother. And I think you might not understand that this board, we are volunteers for this position. We don't get paid to do this. We're citizens just like you. So I think that if this had been handled a little bit different, this would have already resolved itself. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Ms. Curley, the one thing I have to say, you have to follow these processes if you want a rehearing. MS. CURLEY: I understand. April 28, 2017 Page 26 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's pointed out in our rules, and that's why the respondent has written the motion for the new hearing with 22 items, whatever it is. So I don't know -- when -- as far as being softer is concerned, I don't think that much comes to play. What comes to play is, is it valid -- the things that are listed here valid or not? Does the county have any additional thing that they would like to say? MR. NOELL: The last thing I would say is, since we're dealing with a procedural due process issue, for all intents and purposes, the things that were outlined in the motion for rehearing where it was challenging evidence and different things of that nature, all of that was uncontested at the hearing. So I'm looking outside of his motion. He filed a motion timely for rehearing, and I'm just looking at it from the standpoint of, is a judge going to find that we -- the Board afforded procedural due process or not when it denied a first-time continuance, and that is, cut and dry, kind of how the Court, in my opinion, will look at it, and that's why I'd encourage and, again, argue in support of granting the rehearing, rescinding the order. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Just in summary. What you're saying is, if we don't grant a rehearing, this will come back to us anyhow, in all likelihood? MR. NOELL: I don't have that crystal ball, but -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, I understand. MR. NOELL: -- it's a strong probability. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to rehear. MR. DOINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we have a motion and a second to rehear it. Do we have any comments from the Board? (No response.) April 28, 2017 Page 27 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So you are granted a rehearing. MS. CURLEY: Can we do it now? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. I don't think that now is the time to do it. It's up to the county when they schedule it. Do you have any thoughts on -- or maybe I should ask Jeff this: Have any thoughts on when this would be reheard? MR. LETOURNEAU: I can't say right now. We'd bring it back when it was appropriate. They are making efforts to come into compliance, and that's what Codes all about is compliance. So hopefully we don't have to bring it back, and this will be a moot point. But if we have to, I can't really say when. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. RANKIN: Thank you. MR. NOELL: Thank you, Board, for your time. MR. RANKIN: Thank you very much. MS. ADAMS: Okay. The next case is from B, stipulations, it's No. 2 from hearings, Tab 3, Case CESD20160019904, Nilkanth Hospitality, Incorporated. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. ASARO: Good morning, sir. April 28, 2017 Page 28 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't you read the stipulation into the record. MR. ASHTON: Good morning. Thank you. For the record Tony Asaro with the Collier County Code Enforcement Department. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Pay all operational costs in the amount of $63.75 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permits, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Respondent must notify the Code Enforcement Department within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator to perform an on-site inspection to confirm compliance. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You have agreed to the stipulation? MR. PATEL: Yes, we do agree with the stipulation. Only thing, if we can get -- Mr. Asaro has asked us to compliance within 120 days. But maybe, in case, for some engineer drawing or permits, may need extra time, maybe another month or so extra, that's all we're asking. But we will go ahead and take care of that. We're just under a financial issue. That's why the problem has not been solved yet. The migrant workers were supposed to come to pick tomatoes and watermelons and stuff. Their visa got denied, and we're currently really, really in a situation that there's no rooms been renting. And just April 28, 2017 Page 29 the financial issues are there. So if we can buy some extra time, and we will make sure that all the stuff that Collier County needs to be asked, we will take care of it, no problem. We just need 120 to -- maybe another extra month would be great. That's all we're asking. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, the stipulation is written right now. That's what we're considering. In order to have any extension on there, you would need to meet with the respondents out in the hall, do your negotiating one on one, and come back with a different stipulation. Does that sound logical? MR. ASARO: Yes. Can we amend the current stipulation? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Jeff, do you have a comment? MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, I mean, I can always suggest that this gentleman, you know, get his 120 days, and he can always come back, if he makes a decent progress, and ask you guys for an extension. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. PATEL: That would be great, sir. No problem. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And after 120 days, if you're well on the road to having everything done, I'm sure the Board would certainly entertain any request that you might have. MR. PATEL: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we have a stipulation in front of us. Do we have a motion to -- MR. ASHTON: I make a motion to accept the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion -- MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? April 28, 2017 Page 30 MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case in which we have a respondent present is from No. 6, old business, Letter A, motion for imposition of fines/liens, No. 3, Tab 7, Case CESD20160002752, James Gadsden and Scottie L. Gadsden. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. GADSDEN: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We reversed things, and you will go first because you're requesting something of the Board, I assume. MR. GADSDEN: Yes. Scottie Gadsden. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. GADSDEN: I want to request an extension on that building I'm trying to get brought into -- get bring up to code, and also I got to get the permits pulled. Been talking with some general contractors, so I got one actually kind of reasonable. He said he'll work with me, but I just wondered if I could get an extension on it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The reason that it's interesting that I'm reading, it looks like this came before the Board in September of 2016; a long time ago. MR. GADSDEN: Right. It's just financial, the reason why, April 28, 2017 Page 31 because, you know, it's kind of hard living paycheck to paycheck. So I -- that's the whole reason. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If an extension was granted, how much time do you think you would need? I mean, you haven't pulled the building permits yet. MR. GADSDEN: Right. I would look -- love if I can get another six months, but I talked to this general contractor. He said he's willing to work with me, so -- that's including getting the permits pulled and including getting the work completed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The other thing, before we would consider anything, is that the $64.17 for the operational costs have not been paid. MR. GADSDEN: It's been paid. I wrote a check. MR. ASHTON: We got the revision. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That's good. Okay. Discussions from the Board? MS. CURLEY: I mean, the property's unoccupied, correct? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: That's correct, ma'am. MS. CURLEY: I don't have a problem granting an extension. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And the county, do you have a problem granting an extension or not? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: The county has no objection. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody like to take a -- make a motion? MS. CURLEY: I'll make a motion to grant the extension for 90 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do we want to consider an extension or a continuation? MS. CURLEY: Continuation. MR. ASHTON: Continuation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. A continuance. The April 28, 2017 Page 32 difference between that, a continuance and an extension, is the fines that have been assessed on the property will continue to add up. And if you get everything done, I'm sure that the Board would be in a position they could reduce them, eliminate them, whatever the case may be at that time. Okay. MR. GADSDEN: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Just so you understand that. Okay. We have a motion and a second. MS. CURLEY: I don't think 90 days is long enough. I'm sorry. MR. ASHTON: Not with what the gentleman's saying, I don't think 90 days would be enough. MS. CURLEY: I've tried to have a painting contractor come to my house for the last 45 days, and he's not called me back. So I have empathy to the -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Maybe he doesn't like you. What can I tell you? Who's the motion maker here? MS. CURLEY: Myself. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, so you want to change the motion that you made? MS. CURLEY: I would like to just -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And what would you like to change that to? MS. CURLEY: I'd like to mirror it to the original and just give him another 180 days to try and wrap everything up and get back here and eliminate any additional fees for appearing here and extensions and all that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. Let me make one suggestion so that six months from now we're not back here exactly the same way we are, no building permits pulled, nothing. So maybe we could make your motion two parts. MS. CURLEY: Fix it. April 28, 2017 Page 33 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you could have three months till you get building permits and six months till everything is done, okay, since you're already in contact with a contractor. MR. GADSDEN: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: Are we looking -- are we here just looking for a continuance, or are we looking here to amend the -- MR. ASHTON: Continuance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The motion is for a continuance. MR. LEFEBVRE: Continuance. Right, a motion for continuance. It sounds like we're going to amend the original motion by now making it a two-part. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That would be a concern. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think we should keep the motion that was made the same; just look at a continuance. MR. ASHTON: Continuance. I agree. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. If we're back here six months and everything is exactly the same as it is now -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I think six months is too long. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we have a motion. Do we have a second on the motion? Let's start with that. (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't hear a second, so the motion dies for the lack of a second. Does anybody else -- or, Sue, would you like to make another motion? MS. CURLEY: Let someone else try. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion for 120 days, continuance. MR. ASHTON: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we have a motion for 120 days. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) April 28, 2017 Page 34 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. So you have 120 days to get it done. If you're not done before 120 days, it's in your best interest to come back to Code Enforcement and let us know why it's not done or that you're working on it, or whatever the case may be. MR. GADSDEN: That's including pulling the permits and getting the work completed? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. If you can't get it done by then and you come back here in 112 days and say, listen, the permit's pulled, we've got 50 percent of the construction done or 25 percent of the construction done, I need X amount of time to finish the job, I'm sure the Board would be receptive to hearing what you have to say. MR. GADSDEN: All right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay? Okay. We should be done. Okay. Thank you very much. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case under old business is No. 2, Tab 6, Case CELU20160016735, Nancy Patterson. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, Mr. Mucha. April 28, 2017 Page 35 MR. MUCHA: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a case here that you'd probably like to read into the record. MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. For the record, Joe Mucha, Supervisor, Collier County Code Enforcement. It's dealing with violation of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 2.02.03 and 1.04.01.A; Folio 39837680004. Description of the violation is three unpermitted accessory structures present without first having a permitted principal residence or primary structure; outside storage of items on an unimproved parcel including, but not limited to, six utility trailers, PVC piping, scaffolding, lumber, concrete blocks, tarp, flower pots, barrels, chairs, and a table. Past orders: On February 23rd, 2017, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order, the respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, Book 5368, Page 3581, for more information. Violation has not been abated as of April 28th, 2017. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Part B of the order, fines have accrued at a rate of $100 per day for the period from March 26th, 2017, to April 28th, 2017, 34 days, for a total fine amount of 3,400. Part C of the order, fines have accrued at a rate of $100 per day for the period from March 3rd, 2017, to April 28th 2017, 57 days, for a total fine amount of 5,700. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of $64.59 have not been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing, $62.49. Total amount: $9,227.08. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Joe, have you been in contact with April 28, 2017 Page 36 the respondent? MR. MUCHA: We've had no contact with the respondent. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is this property in foreclosure per chance? MR. MUCHA: Not that I'm aware of. MS. CURLEY: Can you refresh my memory; is this that skeleton building out at the end of Davis? No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. MS. CURLEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well -- MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to impose. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to impose. Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 5, Tab 9, Case CELU20160014975, Jason Lee Willard. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) April 28, 2017 Page 37 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, Joe. MR. MUCHA: Good morning again. For the record, Joe Mucha, Supervisor, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is dealing with a violation of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 2.02.03, 1.04.01.A, and Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 54, Article VI, Section 54-181. Violation location is 1680 Acremaker Road; folio is 00193240007. Description of the violation: Unpermitted accessory structure present without first having a permitted primary or principal structure; three reactional vehicles and a white Chevrolet van being stored on unimproved property; additionally, outside storage of items including, but not limited to, appliances, metal cans, plastic, wood, metal, bikes, metal barrels; lastly, litter including, but not limited to, paper, plastic, trash bags, broken chairs located throughout the unimproved property. Past orders: On February 23rd, 2017, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. Respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, Book 5368, Page 3577, for more information. The violation has not been abated as of April 28th, 2017. Fines and cost to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of $150 per day for the period from March 26th, 2017, to April 28th, 2017, 34 days, for a total fine amount of $5,100. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of $65.85 have not been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing: $62.91. Total fine amount is $5,228.76. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Go ahead. I was going to ask if you had any contact with the -- April 28, 2017 Page 38 MR. MUCHA: No, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- property owner. MR. LEFEBVRE: This was -- I think a neighbor came and testified that he was in a convalescent home and there was a sister or relative, I want to say, in Georgia or something. I vaguely remember that. MR. MUCHA: The guy might be in a VA hospital somewhere, but we have, unfortunately -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Haven't been able to get in touch with any relative or anything? MR. MUCHA: No, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: Because I think I asked the investigator to get in touch with this neighbor. MR. MUCHA: I think there was a little less cooperation after that from the neighbor. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Very good. Make a motion to impose the fine. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. MR. DIONO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to impose the fine. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. April 28, 2017 Page 39 MR. MUCHA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you, Joe. Which brings us to... MS. ADAMS: I just have one item to discuss with the Board. The last week in July there's going to be renovations going on in this room, so we've been told we can't have the hearing here. Also, at our office in Growth Management, the room is not available during that time either. So we basically have two options. We could have it on the fifth floor here. It's sort of like a conference room like we have over at the Growth Management building, or we can cancel the July hearing, and whatever cases we have for July can be moved to August. So it's up to the Board. MR. LEFEBVRE: Could we hear it the week before, or is this room not available on Thursday because of Planning? MS. ADAMS: This room is not available the week before or the week after. It's already been -- it's already spoken for, so... We already looked into, like, moving it to -- but some other things have been moved because of the renovations already, so... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If we go to the fifth floor, will they provide coffee? MR. LEFEBVRE: How big is the fifth floor room? MS. ADAMS: What I understand, it's sort of like a conference room like we have over at Growth Management. I've never been to the fifth floor, to be honest. Have you? MR. LETOURNEAU: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You've never been to the fifth floor? MS. ADAMS: But they can set us up up there. I'm sure it would probably be sort of like a table like we do when we had to have the hearings over at our office, so... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think it's fairer to the respondents that we have it sooner rather than later. April 28, 2017 Page 40 MR. ASHTON: I agree. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So -- I mean, it's up to the Board. I'm available or not available, whichever the case may be. MR. LEFEBVRE: On the fifth floor, do they have the capability of taping it and everything? MS. ADAMS: I'm sure they would set that up the same as they used to do at the Growth Management building. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So with just nods, is that okay with everybody? We'll just meet on the fifth floor. Just another button on the elevator. MR. ASHTON: As long as they bring coffee. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: As long as they bring coffee. Okay. I have a question or two. MS. ADAMS: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Number one. Have you put your request in for next year's -- MS. ADAMS: I have, actually. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. ADAMS: It hasn't been confirmed yet, though. We usually don't start doing the schedule until October, but at this point there are three dates next year that we'll have to have it on a Friday. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I saw the Big Cypress. Are they one of the people? MS. ADAMS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They beat you to it? Wow. MS. ADAMS: Yes, I was able to negotiate with them for one month that they were able to move it, but the other three, that's the only days that they're available, so... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. A comment from the -- a comment to the Board from the county regarding abatement. We had April 28, 2017 Page 41 a discussion about this in the past. And one of the things that the county is recommending to the Board, which doesn't change anything except the words that are used. If a case comes before us, and let's say there's a fine of $3,000, instead of saying, I make a motion to abate, make a motion to say I deny the county's motion, which is the same thing as abating it because the county's motion is to impose it. So that would be one change going forward. And at that time, if you want to, I deny the county's motion except for $1,000 of it or whatever. You can still do the same thing. So does anybody have any -- MS. NICOLA: We'll need to change the order. It would have to be an order denying imposition of fines because the way that it's written right now is that it's an order of abatement. So we would have to change the order completely, I think. MS. ADAMS: Well, if they reduced it, could it just say that the fines -- X amount of fines are reduced to $1,000? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is -- MS. NICOLA: But if the county's making a motion to impose the fines and we're saying that the motion is denied, it wouldn't be a reduction or an abatement. It would be just a flat-out denial. The order would just say, county's motion to impose fines is hereby denied, period. MS. ADAMS: Well, I believe that would be in the event that the Board is not imposing any fines. The motion would be denied at that point. If they are going to reduce it, then it would be -- if we're still imposing a fine, it would just be a reduced fine. MS. NICOLA: I think what you would do is you would say it's granted in part and denied in part, and you would say, the county's request to impose $3,000 is hereby denied; however, the Board has voted to impose a fine of $500, something like that. That's what they do normally in court. So we can figure out the form if that's what April 28, 2017 Page 42 we're going to do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This is -- was brought to us because that's the way our magistrate, Brenda, handles the cases. She does the same thing. MS. NICOLA: I'll get it from her. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So they wanted us to be consistent with Brenda. MS. NICOLA: I will ask Brenda to share the form. I think she will. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I think Brenda operates under the same rules that we operate under. As a matter of fact, the first meeting we had for rules change, she was part of our group that got together, so... MS. NICOLA: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I have nothing else. MR. LAVINSKI: One question for Jeff. Didn't I hear somewhere in our past that Kerry was the secretary to this board? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah. I believe Marlene Serrano would officially be the secretary to the Board. I'm not really sure, though. MS. ADAMS: Marlene is a supervisor, so the secretary to the Board technically has to be a supervisor. So she's the name we put on the public notice and that sort of thing for contact when we're -- we put the public notice out for a hearing. MR. LAVINSKI: So we do, in fact, have a secretary to this board -- MS. ADAMS: Yes. MR. LAVINSKI: -- regardless of what happened this morning? MS. ADAMS: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We don't make the rules. But I'll tell you, from what was said at the podium -- I don't know if I'm allowed to say this or not, but I'll say it anyhow -- the case that was granted a April 28, 2017 Page 43 rehearing, in all likelihood, will never return here. MR. LETOURNEAU: It depends on whether they come into compliance or not. I can't say one way or the other. If they make diligent effort at this point, you're right, it won't be back here. MS. CURLEY: I look forward to a resolution. MR. LETOURNEAU: Me, too. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You look forward to it not coming back? MS. CURLEY: I didn't say that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well... MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to adjourn. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We are adjourned. ***** April 28, 2017 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10: 10 a.m. COD NFORCE ENT BOARD If 4; •' '‘‘ I (.__ _ O: RT KA MIN, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on 6 s -( 1 , as presented ✓ or as corrected . TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC/COURT REPORTER. Page 44