Loading...
CEB Minutes 05/25/2017May 25, 2017 Page 1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida May 25, 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 James Lavinski (Excused) Gerald Lefebvre Lionel L'Esperance Kathleen Elrod, Alternate Herminio Ortega, Alternate (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Tamara Lynn Nicola, Attorney for the Board Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Specialist Jeff Letourneau, Manager of Investigations CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA AGENDA DATE: Thursday May 25,2017 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 Herminio Ortega,Alternate 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. April 28,2017 Hearing 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. Motions Motion for Continuance Motion for Extension of Time B. Stipulations C. Hearings 1. CASE NO: C.ESD20140013027 OWNER: SUNNY LANE LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION(S) 10.02.06(B)(1.)(A)AND I0.02.06(.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: CESD20170002326 OWNER: JORDAN A THOMPSON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ARTHUR FORD VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(i)(A).GARAGE CONVERTED TO LIVING SPACE AND A SCREEN ROOM ENCLOSED WITHOUT REQUIRED PERMITS,INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. FOLIO NO: 62704560004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 672 92ND AVE N,NAPLES 3. CASE NO: CESD20160020990 OWNER: A&B WEB VENTURES LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR VIRGINIE GIGUERE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A)AND SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(E). SCREEN ENCLOSURE REMOVED PRIOR TO OBTAINING COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 33400000169 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 408 LA PENINSULA BLVD,NAPLES 2 D. Motion for Reduction of Fines/Lien. 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. CASE NO: CELU20150022253 OWNER: LA SORIANA INC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 2.02.03. USING VACANT LOT AS OVERFLOW PARKING WITHOUT AN APPROVED SDPA. PL20140001643,WHICH IS IN REJECTION STATUS,AND NOT YET APPROVED BY COLLIER COUNTY AS AN ADDITIONAL PARKING LOT. FOLIO NO: 25631080005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 312 BOSTON AVE,I.MMOKALEE 2. CASE NO: CEPM20160004343 OWNER: UNION ROAD LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEPHEN ATHEY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 22,ARTICLE VI, SECTION(S)23-231.(12)(B),22-231(12)(I),AND 22-231(12)(C).ROOF IN DISRE.PAIR.,WINDOWS AND DOORS MISSING AND/OR BROKEN,EXTERIOR WALLS IN DISREPAIR. FOLIO NO: 1058920513 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 12400 UNION ROAD,NAPLES 3. CASE NO: CESD20150017888 OWNER: JULIEN FRANCOIS LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A).UNPERMITTED INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS TO A STRUCTURE CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO NEW WINDOWS,DOORS,ELECTRICAL WIRING, PLUMBING LINES AND BATHROOM FIXTURES,AND PETITIONED WALLS CREATING APPROXIMATELY 20 INDIVIDUAL SLEEPING ROOMS. FOLIO NO: 00124960000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 305 S 3RD ST,IMMOKALEE 4. CASE NO: CESD20150020164 OWNER: YUDISLEIDY ROSA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHAEL ODOM VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION(S) 1.04.01(A),2.02.03 AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).MOBILE OFFICE TRAILER,RECREATIONAL VEHICLE AND SHED STORED ON THE PROPERTY WITH NO PERMITTED PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE. FOLIO NO: 222160003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1155 SHADY LANE,NAPLES 3 5. CASE NO: CELU20160010501 OWNER: ANTHONY V PICCIRILLI EST OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRISTOPHER HARMON VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION(S) 1.04.01(A),2.02.03, 10.02.06(B)(l)(A)AND SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(E)(.I).UNPERMITTED ALTERATIONS TO THE CARPORT STRUCTURE RESULTING IN RESIDENTIAL USE OF INDUSTRIALLY ZONED PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 249120000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1891 ELSA STREET, NAPLES 6. CASE NO: CESD20140017894 OWNER: JOSE F.GARCIA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR.TONY ASARO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(A).INCOMPLETE HOME. FOLIO NO: 40420400004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2087 DESOTO BLVD N,NAPLES 7. CASE NO: CESD20150002237 OWNER: EDWARD M MILLER AND BRITTANY L MILLER OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06 (B)(1)(E)(I).COMPLETE REMODEL OF KITCHEN,MASTER BATHROOM,BATHROOM,AND FAMILY ROOM,REPLACED WINDOWS AND REPLACED SOFFITS.ALL WORK DONE WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 38051960006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3875 31ST AVE SW,NAPLES 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 June 22,2017 at 9:00 A.M. 12. ADJOURN 4 May 25, 2017 Page 2 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, everybody. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board to order. Notice: The respondents 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 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. Okay. We're going to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, why don't we start with the roll call. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Robert Kaufman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Ronald Doino? MR. DOINO: 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. May 25, 2017 Page 3 MS. ADAMS: Mr. James Lavinski has an excused absence and Mr. Herminio Ortega has an excused absence. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And Lionel just walked in. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't we start with the -- a little bit out of order, the approval of the minutes first. Anybody have any changes to the minutes? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve. MR. DOINO: Second. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes. All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay, changes to the agenda. MS. ADAMS: Number five, public hearings, motions, letter B, stipulations. We have two additions. The first is number one from hearings, tab 1, Case CESD20140013027, Sunny Lane LLC. The second is number two from hearings, tab 2, Case CESD20170002326, Jordan A. Thompson. Number six, old business, letter A, motion for imposition of May 25, 2017 Page 4 fines/liens, number two, tab 5, Case CEPM20160004343, Union Road LLC has been withdrawn. And that's all the changes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we get a motion to accept the amended agenda? MR. DOINO: Motion to accept the agenda. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Who is that masked man? MS. ADAMS: The first case will be from letter B, stipulations. Number one, tab 1, Case CESD20140013027, Sunny Lane LLC. (Investigator Jeff Letourneau and Derek Rooney were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, Jeff. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Good morning. For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. I'll start by reading the stipulation. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Pay operational costs in the amount of $65.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of the hearing. Abate all violations by: Ceasing all occupation of May 25, 2017 Page 5 the property until all required permits have been obtained, inspected and issued certificates of occupancy, or a temporary certificate of occupancy is issued by the building official. Also obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy for all unpermitted structures and utilities within 365 days of this hearing or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Three: Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a 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 the agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. Good morning. MR. ROONEY: Good morning. My name is Derek Rooney, I'm an attorney with the Gray-Robinson Law Firm. I'm here today on behalf of Sunny Lane LLC. We are in agreement with Mr. Letourneau's report and agreeing to the stipulated settlement. The one condition that you may highlight is that this is going to take one year to come into compliance. We have already pulled the permit. It was issued on May 22nd for the after-the-fact additions, as well as the relocation. But because of turtle season and moving heavy equipment on the sand, which is to move this particular house beyond the coastal construction line, we will not be able to do that within a shorter time frame. So I'm here if you have any questions, as is the owner of the LLC, Espen Schiefloe. May 25, 2017 Page 6 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a stipulation. Any questions from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah, this case was opened in July, 2014, three years ago. And now we're looking at another year. That's four years to come into compliance. Why such length of time? MR. ROONEY: Well, part of the portion is the after-the-fact permitting has been -- and my client can speak to this a little further. To do all the architectural work necessary, this house was one of the oldest structures on the island, built in the 1940's. The majority of the additions were done by my client, but there were other additions done previously. So in order to figure out what needed to be done, as well as arrange for the relocation of the structure was substantial on my client's part. And that's part of why the applications for the permits were filed in 2016. It's just been a slow process getting here. MR. LEFEBVRE: This seems like a real long time. Four years. MS. CURLEY: I have a question. Is the client the person that did the renovations or additions as the contractor? MR. ROONEY: I'll have him come up and speak, but he has not been sworn, so I'd ask that he be sworn and give a little bit more testimony. Thank you. (Espen Schiefloe was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. SCHIEFLOE: Hi, good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You have a question? MS. CURLEY: My question was, so you did these modifications to the property yourself? MR. SCHIEFLOE: Yes. Yes. MS. CURLEY: So are you a contractor or -- MR. SCHIEFLOE: No, we're not. So we bought a property and we made some improvements to the property. We thought we could do that. We found out that we couldn't do it on our own and we had May 25, 2017 Page 7 to -- in order to comply obviously we've had to go through this long arduous process of dealing with the series of permits including something called a special treatment permit. It's just a highly complicated difficult project because it's on an island. It's probably -- with no road access -- MS. CURLEY: I just had that one question, so -- MR. SCHIEFLOE: Thank you. MS. CURLEY: Because the original request was for numerous structures, electrical, plumbing and natural gas. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You have natural gas there? MR. SCHIEFLOE: No, it's actually -- there's propane, there's no natural gas. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, maybe propane is a natural gas, but -- MR. SCHIEFLOE: Yeah, it could be. We're working -- I just want to let you know, we're working extremely hard and we're very determined to complete this as very expediently as possible. And we're actually trying to do things faster. But we do have some limitations by the -- specifically environmental things where we have to get a couple permits, driving over the beach during turtle season and construction during -- within 100 feet of a sea turtle nest and so forth. And so it's just complicated to deal with those. But we are working with the turtle people and we're working together with the county. We have 10 different professional engineers who are working extremely hard to finalize this and dispense with it. We're very motivated and -- MS. CURLEY: So did you know about the turtle season in 2014 when you were doing all these improvements on your own? MR. SCHIEFLOE: The turtle season comes every year. It's just about the timing. Really, some of these things are out of our control. We have -- as I said, we have everything from structural engineers, May 25, 2017 Page 8 environmental engineers, permit engineers. And we ask them to move this process forward as absolutely quickly as they can. And we are where we are. And we try to encourage people to do things quickly as possible. But we -- like I said -- MR. ROONEY: I think I can answer your question a little more clearly. The work that was done was done on-site. The turtle season issue has to do with the actual physical relocation of the entire structure, so it's moving heavy equipment. There was no heavy equipment that I'm aware of during the original construction. MR. SCHIEFLOE: Yeah, so the improvements -- right, the improvements to the property didn't involve any heavy machinery or anything like that. We weren't driving over the beach and so forth. We have to -- in order to come into full compliance we actually have to move the structures a little bit, drive 61 new piles and then move the structures back over the thing, and that requires some heavy equipment. We have mangroves on the bay side; we actually can't access the property from the bay, we have to come in from the Gulf. And that's what makes it kind of extremely complicated and difficult, just to mobilize that equipment and to complete that task. Everything else has been done. For example, all the after-the-fact affidavits for the permits, all the inspections, everything's in compliance. That stuffs all been done. It's just that we have this one thing still remaining to do in order to be completely in compliance, which is the -- what I just mentioned, moving the structures. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How confident are you that you'll be done in one year? MR. SCHIEFLOE: Extremely confident. I hope to not see you guys ever again. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, and we hope the same thing. MS. CURLEY: But Jeff, is that true, that everything's in May 25, 2017 Page 9 compliance, all the after-the-fact permits are -- SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Well, the after-the-fact permits have been applied for and I believe issued at this point. However, you know, there's still the movement of the structure and whatever inspections the Building Department needs to have done, along with the certificate of occupancy. So we're -- like they say, we're a long way away from being in compliance. MR. ROONEY: And if I may, just to dovetail, the permit is a combined permit so the after-the-fact work that has already been done and the relocation all in one permit. So that won't be inspected until the entire property has been moved. But I would add that this property is my client's sole source of income. So they have agreed to not have any occupancy unless they can receive a CO. His incentive is to move it. It's not to let it sit. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to approve the stipulation as written. Any comments on the motion from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) May 25, 2017 Page 10 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next stipulation is number two from hearings, tab 2, Case CESD20170002326, Jordan A. Thompson. (Mr. Thompson and Investigator Ford were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. INVESTIGATOR FORD: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You want to read -- INVESTIGATOR FORD: For the record, Arthur Ford, Collier County Code Enforcement. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: One, pay operational costs in the amount of $65.01 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate all violations by obtaining required Collier County building permits, demolition permit -- or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within 90 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until violation is abated. Three: Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Four: 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 Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement. All costs of the abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. Good morning. MR. THOMPSON: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you come a little closer to the right and state your name for the record. MR. THOMPSON: Jordan Thompson. May 25, 2017 Page 11 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, Mr. Thompson, you've heard the stipulation, you've agreed to that? MR. THOMPSON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any problems meeting the dates and the requirements? MR. THOMPSON: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, any questions from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Are you looking to get permits for this to get it -- MR. THOMPSON: Yeah. I've went in there a couple times and I didn't have the right paperwork, so I had to get an architect and an engineer to draw everything up, so I finally got that. MR. LEFEBVRE: Did you raise the floor at all? Because that might be an -- MR. THOMPSON: No, we did the elevation. They gave us a test, everything was good. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, any other questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motions from the board? MR. ASHTON: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to accept the stipulation. Any comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. May 25, 2017 Page 12 MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is from letter C, hearings, number three, tab 3, Case CESD20160020990, A&B Web Ventures, LLC. (Investigator Giguere and Mr. Frank Apuzzo were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name on the microphone, please. MR. APUZZO: Frank Apuzzo. A-P-U-Z-Z-O. And this is my wife, Kim. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is she going to testify at all? MR. APUZZO: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: Good morning. For the record, Vickie Giguere, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to case number CESD20160020990 dealing with violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(e). Screen enclosure removed prior to obtaining Collier County building permits located at 408 La Peninsula Boulevard, Naples Florida, 34113. Folio 33400000169. Service was given on March 13th, 2017. I would like to now present case evidence in the following exhibits: Two photos taken on December 20th, 2016 by Contractor Licensing Investigator Reggie Smith. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have the respondents seen the photos? May 25, 2017 Page 13 INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any objection to those photos? MR. APUZZO: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, get a motion from the board to accept -- MR. ASHTON: Motion to accept. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: So if you look here right in the middle of the picture at the bottom level, the first level is where the screen enclosure used to be and has been removed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: And the second picture is just the stop work order that was posted by Investigator Reggie Smith. We received this case from contractor licensing who received a complaint for ongoing work with no permits and possibly unlicensed contractors. So Investigator Reggie Smith made the initial site visit and didn't witness any unlicensed contractors, so then they transferred the case over to code enforcement. May 25, 2017 Page 14 Building Official Jonathan Walsh said that a demolition permit would have been required for the removal of the screen enclosure. I made a site visit to the property. There wasn't anybody there at that time. I issued the Notice of Violation. And as of yesterday, May 24th, no permits have been obtained. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That's your case? INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: That's my case. I will let Mr. Apuzzo explain more of the reasons as to why there are no permits as of yet. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Sir? MR. APUZZO: So we've been making an effort to get the permits. Did not know that they were required just to take the screen enclosure off in the first place. We bought the unit back in October of 2016. And around November we asked the board president what was involved if we wanted to remove the screen enclosure just so we could open up the view. And he said just take it down. And I said okay. It wasn't structural so it didn't appear that it was going to be any kind of an issue. So me and a couple of my friends literally took it down in about 30 minutes time, properly disposed of the aluminum. It's only 26 and a half feet wide, nine feet tall and seven and a half feet deep, so it wasn't like a big structure by any stretch, just something that was just maybe to keep the bugs out if you were sitting on the patio. As we were removing the screen, the nextdoor neighbor who's also on the board thought that we shouldn't be taking the screen off so he called the other board member who gave us approval and that's how this whole thing started. He called the county and then somebody came out and said you need to stop work. And I said, well, there's no work being done, we just took a screen out, that was it. And then I guess it was determined that a permit would have been required for May 25, 2017 Page 15 demolition. So I said we would comply with that, even though we didn't know we needed it. So I started making some phone calls to try to get a contractor to get a demo permit just for a screen enclosure that they weren't going to have to remove, just to pull the permit. And the best price I could get was like 900 to $1,000 just for the administration of pulling the permit. So we also wanted to put pavers out eventually, which I would have had to go through a unit modification proposal to the board, which I was prepared to do, and I have done, and then roll the demo permit in when they pull the permit to get our pavers as well. The problem is the same board that gave me permission to take the screen off and then called to turn me in has denied my request to modify the unit and put the pavers down, which is keeping us from getting the permit for the demolition. Nine other people in our complex have done the same thing already, but we kind of have a rogue board of directors and they were a little upset about the screen issue and whatnot and just basically giving us a difficult time. So I'm hoping to get approval. They've given us several hurdles to jump over, getting engineering and other things that nobody else was required to get. But we're going to do it. But during the season, you know, it was very hard to, you know, even get all the proposals that I needed to get for the paver project and whatnot. So I'm hoping after we get the engineering that we have to do at our cost, even though nobody else in our complex has had to do that, that it will meet whatever their requirements are for the paver job, and then I can have the permit get pulled for the demo work that again has already been done. I would have thought this would have been finished. We were fully expecting to be on our patio right now and enjoying everything, but the fact that we got three board members that are kind of May 25, 2017 Page 16 controlling the decision process and right now they're holding it up. I mean, I submitted my request on March 24th and then on the 21st I got this letter, which is amazing detail as far as the things that we have to do for our pavers, just making it harder for us to try to get that permit. I hope you can see that I don't want to have to spend $1,000 to get a demo permit if I can basically wrap it up into the project that I'm going to pay a contractor to do the paver work and pull whatever necessary permits are at that time so I'm not going to have to pay another thousand bucks. That's basically my goal here. So I'm hoping this can be done in six months or less. It's really I'm at the mercy of the board because they decide, you know, our fate on this matter. You submit something, you would think it would be approved. That's kind of where we stand. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ASHTON: Question for the county. INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: Sure. MR. ASHTON: Since he's the homeowner and it wasn't a structural demolition, can he get the demolition permit himself? INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: I believe not, because it is a condo unit so it's looked at as commercial and therefore you have to have a contractor. MR. LEFEBVRE: That's what I was told as well. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: It's also a corporation, I believe. LLC. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any other questions from the board? MS. CURLEY: I have a feeling you're paying. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing no questions, anybody want to make a motion as to whether a violation exists or not? MR. ASHTON: Make a motion a violation exists. May 25, 2017 Page 17 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion the violation exists. Do we have a second? MS. CURLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MS. CURLEY: I oppose. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, it passes. Now we have to put the baby back together, if you will. It sounds like -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Recommendation? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, we can get a recommendation from the county. INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: Absolutely. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $65.85 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits and/or demolition permits, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. And 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 May 25, 2017 Page 18 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, thank you. This reminds me, I used to work for a big corporation years ago and somebody had a contractor come in to paint the wall and then the wall was removed but it hadn't been painted first. So that's a similar situation, to put the screen back in so you can take it out again doesn't make a whole bunch of sense. So we're kind of stuck in your solution of getting a building permit when you do the pavers. Probably have to make nice with the homeowners association, to say the least. That seems to be a concern. But it doesn't look like it's a safety and health to me personally. Comments from the board? MS. CURLEY: Yeah, I wanted to know if there's a safety issue. I mean, what's the difference between a screen and a screen door? INVESTIGATOR GIGUERE: There is no safety issue as far as the county is concerned and we have no objections to the time-frame the property owner has requested. MS. CURLEY: So I don't think six months is long enough. If he's got a grumpy board and it's not season. So if they're part-time boards, they're gone. Do you have a professional property management company that assists your HOA? MR. APUZZO: They're kind of siding with the board. MS. CURLEY: No, but is your association managed by a property management company? MR. APUZZO: Yes. MS. CURLEY: Okay, so you have the luxury of that as an intermediary. MR. APUZZO: Not so much. When we -- MS. CURLEY: So then my recommendation is he's going to May 25, 2017 Page 19 need nine months. Because six months he's not going to get it. MR. LEFEBVRE: I was thinking the same lines. MR. APUZZO: I appreciate that. MR. LEFEBVRE: I don't want to get into the semantics of what you're -- a lot of times the documents of your association say when approvals have to be approved by or denied. But let me do this: I'd like to make a motion that operational costs be paid in the amount of $65.85 within 30 days, and you have 270 days to come in compliance. So that means getting it fully CO'd and everything, completed, or a fine of $50 a day. MR. APUZZO: Thank you very much. MR. DOINO: I'll second that. MR. LEFEBVRE: We have to approve it first. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think that's fair. Any other comments? MS. CURLEY: No, it's really fair. And let your board know that we hope that they can treat you like they've treated everyone else. MR. APUZZO: I appreciate that very much. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, maybe showing them what our determination is, that might kind of move them along. MR. APUZZO: I think so. And I really do appreciate that, thank you. MS. CURLEY: And you can get a copy of the transcript of this meeting. MR. LEFEBVRE: He'll get an copy. He'll get a copy of the order anyways, which will spell out what we'll be voting on. MR. APUZZO: Well thank you all very much. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hold on, okay? May 25, 2017 Page 20 Any other discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Approved -- MR. LEFEBVRE: That's the loudest I have heard. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. It's so loud you blew my mind. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you very much. MR. APUZZO: Now I can say thank you. Appreciate it. MS. ADAMS: The next case is number from number six, old business. Letter A, motion for imposition of fines/liens. Number one, tab 4, Case CELU20150022253, La Soriana, Incorporated. (Supervisor Perez, Hugo Gijon and David Escobar were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Pull the mic down. There you go. Good morning. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Would you like to have the respondents testify first? They're here to request something, I'm guessing. MR. ESCOBAR: Ladies first. May 25, 2017 Page 21 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, no, she's just going to read the thing. But you're here because of this and you want us to do something, I assume? That's why you're here. MR. GIJON: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay so why don't we go from there. Why don't you give us a brief description of what the problem is and what you're asking for. MR. GIJON: Yeah, so basically we've received some fines for this project and we wanted to ask for assistance in abating the fines. MR. LEFEBVRE: Was this where a parking lot wasn't properly grated or something and you didn't get your final certificate of completion? MR. GIJON: It was a long list of problems. But we have the C.O. since then, since the last time we were here. So we completed our requirements. And the biggest issue was actually other things, other loops that we had to go through back and forth, back and forth. But, you know, we have completed the project and completed all the requirements that were asked. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any questions of the respondents by the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to abate. MS. CURLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me just change your wording, if I can. This is where you're going to say you're going to deny the county's motion to impose. This is what the -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I deny the county's motion to oppose. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And is that seconded? MS. CURLEY: And I second that. Do we need to list a dollar amount as well? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you want to read the case in? And then -- May 25, 2017 Page 22 SUPERVISOR PEREZ: I will. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We did this a little backwards. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: This is -- for the record, Cristina Perez, Code Enforcement. This is in regards to Case No. CELU20150022253, violations of Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance 04-41, as amended, Section 2.02.03. Location: 312 Boston Avenue in Immokalee. The folio is 25631080005. Description: Using vacant lot as overflow parking without an improved SDPA. PL20140001643, which is in rejection status and not yet approved by Collier County as an additional parking lot. Past orders: On May 26th, 2016 the Code Enforcement Board issued a Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law and Order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board OR 5278, Page 2555, for more information. On October 28th, 2016 a continuance was granted. See the attached order of the board OR 5330, Page 3021, for more information. On February 23rd, 2017 a continuance was granted. See the attached order of the board OR 5368, Page 3574, for more information. The violation has been abated as of March 14th, 2017. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Part B of the order, fines have accrued at the rate of $100 per day for the period of May 28th, 2016 to May 31st, 2016, four days, for a total fine amount of $400. Part C of the order, fines have accrued at the rate of $200 per day for the period from September 24th, 2016 to March 14th, 2017, 172 days, for a total fine amount of $34,400. Previously assessed operational costs of $64.59 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing, $66.27. Total amount, $34,866.27. May 25, 2017 Page 23 The gravity of the violation is no threat to health or safety. Any actions that have been taken by the violator to correct the violation have been that the property owner has obtained country approval, all required permits, inspections and certificate of completion. The violation has been abated. There are no previous violations committed by the respondent on this property and there are no other relevant factors. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And just in quick summary, and Mr. Lefebvre made a motion to deny the county's request to impose the fine, which was seconded and unanimously approved. Okay? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We should be done. I have one side question. This came into -- it was abated as of March 14th. Is there any particular reason why it took several months to get to us? Just a question. Okay. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: I don't know, I'm not really sure about that. MS. CURLEY: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes? MS. CURLEY: You said anonymously (sic) approved, but I don't think we voted on this yet. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor of the motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? May 25, 2017 Page 24 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. GIJON: Thank you. MR. ESCOBAR: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case in which we have someone present is number four, tab seven, case CESD20150020164, Yudisleidy Rosa. (Investigator Ambach and Ms. Rosa were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name for the mic for us. MS. ROSA: Yudisleidy Rosa. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Chris, you want to read the case and then we'll go to the respondent. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Yes, sir. For the record, Chris Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violations of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). 2.02.03, and 1.02.01(a). Location: 1155 Shady Lane, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 222160003. Description of violation: Mobile office trailer recreational vehicle and shed stored on the property with no permitted principal structure. Past orders: On August 26th, 2016 the Code Enforcement Board issued a Finding of Fact, Conclusion of Law and Order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR 5311, Page 1592, for more information. The violation has been abated as of April 25th, 2017. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of $200 per day for the period from February 23rd, 2017 to April 25th, 2017, 62 days, for a total fine amount of $12,400. Previously assessed operational costs of $66.27 have been paid. May 25, 2017 Page 25 Operational costs for today's hearing, $63.75. Total amount, $12,463.75. The gravity of the violation: The gravity of the violation was low. Actions taken by the violator to correct the violation: The respondent obtained the required demolition permit. Any previous violations committed by the respondent: No previous violations were committed. Any other relevant factors: None. I just want to add that as part C of the original order, was supposed to have the shed and the camper and trailer removed. She did do that by the February 22nd date. It was the demolition permit for the mobile home trailer that went over by about two months. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning. MS. ROSA: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you are here to? MS. ROSA: Ask that the fines be waived. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have any questions of the respondent from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motions from the board? MS. CURLEY: I'll make a motion to deny the county's -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Request. MS. CURLEY: -- request that the board fines. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) May 25, 2017 Page 26 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you very much. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is number five, tab 8, Case CELU20160010501, Anthony V. Piccirilli Estate. (Supervisor Short and Mr. Muller were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, Eric, you want to read the order? SUPERVISOR SHORT: Sure. Good morning. For the record, Supervisor Eric Short, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in regards to the violations of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02l06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06.(B)(1)(ei), 2.02.03 and 1.04.01(A). Location: Is 1891 Elsa Street, Naples, Florida. The folio is 249120000. Description: Unpermitted alterations to the carport structure resulting in a residential use of the industrially zoned property. Past orders: On January 25th, 2017 the Code Enforcement Board issued a Finding 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 May 25, 2017 Page 27 OR book 5359, Page 3955, for more information. The violation has not been abated as of May 25th, 2017. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of $200 per day from the period April 26th, 2017 to May 25th, 2017, 30 days, for a total fine amount of $6,000. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational cost of $64.59 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing: $66.27. For a total amount of $6,066.27. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning. MR. MULLER: Good morning. I'm Mark Muller. I'm actually the attorney for the Estate of Mr. Piccirilli. And although I am the attorney, I'm the one who's been charged with trying to get this problem solved, so I'm actively participating in it. I actually know more about it than my client does. This is a two-story stilt building that was constructed I think back in 1991. There were second floor renovations that were done around the same time that this was permitted as a structure. So this all happened about 25 years ago. These improvements basically turned the second floor of this commercial building into apartments with kitchens and bathrooms. After we received the code violation notice, we were able to stop the people that were living in there, we got them moved out. So that portion we believe of the violation has been abated. We don't have a residential use anymore. What we have now is the existing partition walls and electric and other improvements that are there which we have to demolish. The problem that we have with this estate is that it's been an estate that's been pending for many years. It doesn't have a whole lot of liquidity. We have one minor who's 17 who's the beneficiary of the estate. We thought we had located a contractor who was going to be able May 25, 2017 Page 28 to do this work for us. After about two months their interest waned. I was able to contact another contractor and engineer so that we could get the permits to do the demolition, but at the time we didn't have enough money to be able to pay people to move forward. We now have about $7,000 in the estate account that we think is going to be sufficient to get the engineer paid to do the drawings and to get the contractor in to do the demolition. What we would ask for is for the board to continue the motion to impose the fines, give us an additional 90 days or come back in 90 days and hopefully by that time we will have gotten the permits and we will have been able to do the demolition and abate the violations in full. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: I have a clarification. Mr. Piccirilli is deceased? MR. MULLER: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's why it's the estate of. MS. CURLEY: I knew that. I thought that -- he didn't say that in the beginning, so it was hard to follow his story. MR. LEFEBVRE: He did, but he said that he knows more than -- MR. MULLER: My client is actually Daniel Kirkhoff (phonetic), who's the personal representative of the estate. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You feel confident that in 90 days you'd be able to get everything lined up? MR. MULLER: I feel reasonably confident, yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we continue this for 180 days. MS. CURLEY: I agree. I second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second to continue this for 180 days. Any discussion on the motion? May 25, 2017 Page 29 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. MULLER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We know how the wheels turn sometimes slowly, so I think that's what Mr. Lefebvre was going after. MR. MULLER: I appreciate the board's consideration. Thank you. Have a good day. MS. ADAMS: The next case is number three, tab 6, Case CESD20150017888, Julien Francois LLC. (Supervisor Perez and Julien Francois were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'll wait for Cristine. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: We just received payment for the operational costs so I'm getting the new amount. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Good morning. For the record, Cristina Perez, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in regards to case number CESD20150017888. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location: 305 South Third Street in Immokalee. Folio number May 25, 2017 Page 30 00124960000. Description: Unpermitted interior and exterior improvements to a structure consisting of but not limited to new windows, doors, electrical wiring, plumbing lines and bathroom fixtures; partition walls creating approximately 20 individual sleeping rooms. Past orders: On July 28th, 2016, the Code Enforcement Board issued Findings of Facts, Conclusion of Law and Order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR 5301, Page 946, for more information. The violation has not been abated as of May 25th, 2017. Costs and fines to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at the rate of $200 per day for the period of January 25th, 2017 to May 25th, 2017, 121 days, for a total fine amount of $24,200. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of $65.43 have been paid as of this morning. The operational cost for today's hearing, $62.91. Total amount, $24,262.91. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning. MS. INOIS: Good morning. I've been on top of it. But for the past four months I was Baker Acted and the cops found me on 82, they said I was confused and I was naked and on the middle of 82. So they had Baker Acted me for 30 days. And they had to get my medication in order. And then I had to get Baker Acted again at David Lawrence because my medication that they gave me was not working for me. I've been working with the code enforcement to get those these. And at this time there's nobody living there. It's just like plain. I put things in it to send to Haiti. So if I get like 90 days and I know my medication is working for me now, I could definitely get the permit and stuff in order. May 25, 2017 Page 31 I have all the doctors, you know, that gave me the papers that I was Baker Acted to that fact and that order. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I have a question. As to safety and zoning on the units that are there, they're still there, obviously? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Yes. The building looks like a boarding house, so it's a long stretched-out building. I did have an investigator go by this morning. There are AC units on all the windows. There was vehicles there, clothes hanging on a fence line. There's a lot of bicycles. There was a door that was wide open. It was pouring rain this morning so she couldn't get out to try to verify, but it does appear that there are people living there. And I spoke to Investigator Lopez who has been working on the case and he advised me that he has seen people living there when he's gone to the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And as far as there's been no inspection as to the electrical wiring, the plumbing, et cetera. So from a safety perspective is this a safe location, or not? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: In my professional opinion I would say that anything with electrical that has not been inspected and permitted could be considered a health and safety issue. And there has been no permits applied for, therefore no inspections have been done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: On the aspect of zoning, is this properly zoned? If all the inspections were done and it was CO'd, are you permitted to have 20 individual sleeping rooms in a building of this -- SUPERVISOR PEREZ: The building has been in existence on that property for quite some time, so I don't believe that zoning is an issue at this moment on the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. But safety is an issue? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: In my opinion it would be. May 25, 2017 Page 32 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: When we originally heard this case, was that brought up about the people who were living there, were to leave, or was that not mentioned in the order? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: No, unfortunately the stipulation agreement only called for permits or demolition permits to be obtained by the respondents. MS. INOIS: To my opinion there was nobody living there. If somebody had got there, maybe my ex-husband put them there. Because I didn't have nobody living there when I was under -- doing it. It was when I left, he knew I was Baker Acted for the 45 days. I was 30 days at Citrus (phonetic) in Ft. Myers and 15 days at David Lawrence. The people probably got in there, but there were no -- and I hadn't used it for storage. I didn't use it. And the county -- the people had knew that, the code enforcement, he knew I was using it for storage. I was not putting people in there. MS. CURLEY: You helped me with the question that I had. MS. INOIS: Yes, ma'am. MS. CURLEY: So there's two owners? You're one and the other one is a gentleman? MS. INOIS: It's my son. He benefits it from the divorce. And I had -- I just broke down, was going through a lot. I had three kids, I just filed for divorce, I always had my husband to help me, and everything just falled (sic) apart. I was just confused. And I'm always the type of person that keep everything under control. And I just, I lost it. MS. CURLEY: I was just curious who the second person was that owns it, so it's nice that it's your son. MS. INOIS: It's my son, Julian Francois Inois. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any other questions from the board? (No response.) May 25, 2017 Page 33 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any comments? MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, the comment I have is if in fact it is occupied, that takes it to a different level. Even though it's not in our order, it gives me pause to give a continuance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me stop. Are you asking for a specific date? MS. INOIS: Yes. I had already give the guy $5,000 to give me the permit, but I was not here to continue it because I had left I think in -- when I was Baker Acted like three months ago, I had give him $5,000 so everything could get done and so we could do what we needed to do. I had -- his name is Angel. I had worked with him in previous case. So he's willing to help me on this. He's a very honest guy, he's willing to help me, and he's been helping me. So if I get 90 days and I know I could come here, I would have, you know, things in order, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are you collecting rent on those units that are -- MS. INOIS: No, no, no. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the people that are living there are living there illegally? MS. INOIS: Um -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's the concern that Mr. Lefebvre has and I personally have is you have people living in an unsafe place because it hasn't been inspected. If a fire were to break out there could be a tragedy. You're not getting any of the rent on -- MS. INOIS: No, I'm not getting no rent money out of there. Everything that -- I paid the $5,000 out of my pocket. I'm not getting no rent money out of there. So I have to ask them what is the -- the thing is we're not allowed to talk to each other because of previous abuse. You know, he used to hit me so we're not allowed to talk to each other. I haven't been able to ask him is there people living there. May 25, 2017 Page 34 MR. LEFEBVRE: Have you been by the property? MS. INOIS: Yeah, I've been by the property. I was by the property last Thursday. MR. LEFEBVRE: Was there anyone living there? MS. INOIS: When I went there, there was nobody there. The door was open, there was bike, and the people told me that there was stuff from the flea market, because they sell stuff on the flea market, they put the stuff there to sell it at the flea market. Because on Saturdays -- because we live -- it's right next to the flea market. And they go there and sell their stuff at the flea market. It's basically things to send to Haiti. MR. LEFEBVRE: Doesn't sound like that bike was sold, because if you went there last Thursday and the investigator went out there this morning -- MS. INOIS: They have bikes and stuff outside. And they have the air condition for the stuff don't get ruined. But I don't think there are people slee-- I personally don't think there's people sleeping in there. MR. LEFEBVRE: I don't know. Back -- there was a stipulated agreement giving you six months back in May, 200-- looks like somewhere around -- MS. CURLEY: Excuse me, just a question to the county. Is there -- since we realize that there's a no contact order with -- and there might be some things happening at the property and she's not able to manage that, can the county assist and be sure that there's nobody residing there? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Well, in the photographs that the investigator sent me this morning, like she mentioned, the door's open and there's people sitting inside the building at the door. If I zoom into the picture, I see a gentleman sitting in there, and there's multiple bicycles. May 25, 2017 Page 35 MS. CURLEY: So does the county have any influence on -- SUPERVISOR PEREZ: I would say the property itself is owned by the son. So therefore our communication is to the property owner here being the son and his mother, Ms. Jesula, as, you know, an authorized party that he has allowed to speak and represent him on his behalf. So we don't have anything that says the father is also involved. So I believe that's a civil matter between, you know, the entities. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: My -- I think what Ms. Curley is saying, is there a way of securing those units to make sure nobody is staying in them? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: If the property owner takes that action then yes, he can board the building. Also talk to the Sheriff's Office about a trespass agreement. And I believe the Sheriff's Office could also work with Ms. Jesula, because I think her son's out of state in college or something. MS. INOIS: Yeah, he's out of state in college. All three of my kids are out of state in college. And I've been, you know, helping them, you know, trying to get their loans and trying to get the property fixed. Because that's the property my son going to stay in when he finish. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: So she can work with the Sheriff's Office for a trespass agreement. And initially what they do is, you know, if she sees people there she can call the Sheriff's Office, they come and identify everyone who is there, advises them that they're trespassing and the next time they're found there they could be arrested. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think that that's something that would absolutely need to be done immediately. MS. CURLEY: Would you do that? MS. INOIS: I did that last time when he had put people in there, May 25, 2017 Page 36 I had called the Sheriff. And the Sheriff said that my son had to give me authorization. Because I didn't want nobody in there. And they talked to my ex-husband and my ex-husband told them don't listen to me, she's out of control. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Your ex-husband doesn't own the property? MS. INOIS: No, he don't. It was given to my son. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So it's your son and you. MS. INOIS: Uh-hum. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And if need be your son can call the Sheriff along with you and request that none of the units be occupied. MS. INOIS: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If they're not paying any rent, that's a good thing, because they have no reason to be there, they're trespassing. And I would think that maybe you could work with -- is it Investigator Lopez that has that? I wonder if he would be in a position to help her intermediate between the sheriff and code enforcement on that. MS. INOIS: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is there any way that we can amend our order where we could add in that -- I know it's a stipulated agreement, but add in that she has a certain amount of time to have the units vacated? MS. NICOLA: It would have to be a separate violation. The order's already done. We're here on imposition of fines. So I think the county would have to bring it back on a separate violation for that to happen. But, I mean, if she's going to get ahold of the Sheriff's Department, I -- MS. INOIS: Yeah, I did that. And he told them don't listen to me. That was when I was left, he told them, don't listen to me she's out of control. May 25, 2017 Page 37 MS. NICOLA: But ma'am, you're going to need to get your son to do it. That's the difficulty. MS. INOIS: I will. MS. NICOLA: And if he's at college he just needs to pick up the phone. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's right. MS. NICOLA: And they'll help you. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Yeah, we can try to help facilitate that with code enforcement and the Sheriff's Office. MS. INOIS: Deputy Green was the one that knew about it. Because Deputy Green was the one where he -- because Deputy Green was the one that was there when the abuses had started and I didn't want to press charges. Deputy Green was the one that when I had called the Sheriff, Deputy Green came in and I told him I didn't want the people in there. And I remember Deputy Green told me that able (sic) for me to get 'em, I have to call my son and my son have to give me a paper to get them out of there. I remember Deputy Green told me that. But I could take care of it. But can I leave like -- can I have one person in there so one person could know nobody's coming in and out? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, I don't think that that would be the case. One person or 20 people, it's still a safety violation. MS. INOIS: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay? MS. NICOLA: I have a question for you. MS. INOIS: Yes. MS. NICOLA: Do you have an injection for protection against domestic violence -- MS. INOIS: Yes, I do. MS. NICOLA: -- against your ex-husband? MS. INOIS: Yes. May 25, 2017 Page 38 MS. NICOLA: So you might want to talk to the domestic violence people at the clerk's office to amend your injunction to request the injunction include this address, and then you won't have these difficulties. You understand? MS. INOIS: Yes. Because he still go to that property, but he goes when I'm not there, because we're not allowed to be in the same spot. MS. NICOLA: Exactly. But that's what an injunction is intended for. So it's just maybe a little bit of suggestion, might help you. MS. INOIS: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let's get back to the case at hand. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: So the county could make a suggestion. Either provide her with, say, a 30-day continuance, we can try to do the assistance with the Sheriff's Office to try to get those things in order. And I would say within those 30 days if there's squatters then the Sheriff's Office can assist with removing them. You know, we'd be able to do that, and then she could have the property vacated, boarded, and then come back to you and ask for a continuance of possible more length of time if that's what she's seeking to work on, permit process. Or the county could withdraw today's hearing for the imposition of fines and bring it back to you next month. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What's the pleasure of the board? MR. L'ESPERANCE: I make a motion that we request a withdraw. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I agree with you. MS. CURLEY: Agree. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: So the county would request a withdraw of today's -- May 25, 2017 Page 39 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, the county requests a withdraw. That takes this off our place. The other thing you're going to need to resolve one way or the other is the units being vacated. That's for your safety as well as the people who are there. And number two, some plan to get this done. MS. INOIS: Yeah, I'm going to get it done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And if you have to contact your son up in college or whatever, that would be a good thing. Is he off for the summer break? MS. INOIS: He's coming. Julien is coming June 30th. He's coming June 30th. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. INOIS: He's coming June 30th. He got one more class for two credits and he should be home June 30th. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So he can help you resolve this whole situation. MS. INOIS: I could resolve it, it's just that my problem was the -- I just lost it. I couldn't handle things for the past three, four months. I couldn't. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, the county's going to withdraw it so you're going to have more time to resolve the situation and hopefully everything will work out. Okay? MS. INOIS: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you, Christine. Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is number six, tab nine, Case CESD20140017894. Jose F. Garcia. (Investigator Ambach and Mr. Garcia were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Chris, you want to read through. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Yes, sir. For the record, Chris Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violations of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as May 25, 2017 Page 40 amended, Section 12.10.06(B)(1)(A). Location: 2087 Desoto Boulevard North, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 40420400004. Description: Is incomplete home. Past orders: On May 28th, 2015 the Code Enforcement Board issued a Finding of Fact/Conclusion of Law and Order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct violation. See the attached order of the board OR 5163, Page 1490, for more information. On April 29th, 2016 a continuance was granted. See the attached order of the board OR 5270, Page 2598, for more information. On October 28th, 2016, a continuance was granted. See the attached order of the board, OR 5330, Page 3009, for more information. The violation has not been abated as of May 25th, 2017. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of $200 per day for the period from May 23rd, 2016 to May 25th, 2017, 368 days, for a total fine amount of $73,600. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of $65.43 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing, $64.17. Total amount, $73,664.17. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning. MR. GARCIA: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name on the mic for us. MR. GARCIA: Jose Garcia. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And what have you to tell the board? MR. GARCIA: I haven't been able to finish the house because the house that I live in got on fire last year. And I have to fix the May 25, 2017 Page 41 house and go through all the insurance process and all. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This goes back several years ago, though. MR. GARCIA: Seven years ago I didn't -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Several. Excuse me. MR. GARCIA: Oh, okay. Yes, it goes back three years, if I'm not mistaken. Since 2014 I've been trying to get permits to complete the house. I got the permits. Once I have the permits I was having problems with the roof, which I was able to correct that. And by that time my house got on fire. That was last year in August. And I have to start working on my house, that's the place where I live in, where my family live in. That's the reason that I haven't finished. I brought fire department records with the case number and everything, if you guys are interested in looking at it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're not here to rehear that case. That case was decided. And the fines, granted, are very, very large at this point because it hasn't been done. MR. GARCIA: I know. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We could be back here next year at the same time with it not being done again. MR. GARCIA: I should be able to finish the house within six months. MR. LEFEBVRE: Should. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Chris, do you have something to say? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Well, looking at the permit, he's slow on his inspections. And I had a conversation with him this morning that he needs to speed that up. The inspections are passing, but he has at least 18 more inspections to go on this home. It's not being lived in, so we wouldn't consider it a health and May 25, 2017 Page 42 safety issue. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, the permits will expire if you don't do your inspections on a -- INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: And he is doing that. He's passing inspections within that six-month time frame. So it's extending his -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has it been framed? Is there a 101 on it, a 102? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Can I list off what needs to be done, what remains on it? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, all the finals, I'm sure. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: All the finals, AC, electrical, rough, site drainage, landscaping, exotic vegetation removal, erosion, temporary power, TV, telephone, septic, final septic, sheathing, plumbing, AC. Actually AC roughed just passed in February. MS. CURLEY: So was it an existing house or is it a new build? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: It's a -- well, it's a new build. He doesn't live there, he lives in a separate location. That was where the fire occurred, I believe, Mr. Garcia? MR. GARCIA: Yes. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: So he's been tied up with that. MS. CURLEY: And so the original complaint came from whom? I just want to know if we have a neighbor that's watching this and is offended by it. MR. LEFEBVRE: While he's looking for that, did you start the house from scratch? MR. GARCIA: I bought the house, it was built all the way to the tie beam when I bought the house. It was one of the house left over from the crisis -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I see, okay. MR. GARCIA: -- back in -- I bought the property in 2013, if I'm May 25, 2017 Page 43 not mistaken. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What's the size lot that it's on? MR. GARCIA: 2.81. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So it's 660 by 180 feet or so. MR. GARCIA: 680 by 180 or something like that, yes. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: It was a two-part complaint on this. It goes back actually as far as back when I used to work in the district. It was from the neighbors, and it was also from the Sheriff's Department. However, he purchased it from the woman that was aware of the violation, a Donna Shands, at the time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the house was started, they -- INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: The shell. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The shell. They got to the tie beam. The tie beam was poured? MR. GARCIA: Yes, it was. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has it been dried in yet? MR. GARCIA: Yes, it is dried in. And I'm working on painting outside the house right now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Was there a problem with people occupying the house from time to time, kids or whatnot? MR. GARCIA: Not that I know of. I'm not aware of that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Because you mentioned the Sheriff. I don't know why they'd be involved unless -- INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: I think there was -- if I recall, there was a burned out vehicle on that property? MR. GARCIA: I was not the owner at that time. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Yeah, yeah, Mr. Garcia was not the owner of the property, so that's what spurred on the Sheriff's Department. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, from my perspective I have no problem granting some additional time if you can show us some May 25, 2017 Page 44 results during the time that's granted. More inspections being completed, et cetera. But what's the board think? MR. LEFEBVRE: I guess my question is you could speed up this process if you potentially go out and get financing to finish this project up. Because -- MR. GARCIA: That's true. MR. LEFEBVRE: Because this fine here, if we put this fine on the property, you won't be able to get financing. But you need to speed this up. It's been two plus years now, and I just see us being here another six months, another year. Just need to have this being sped up. Two years to complete something is still just an excessively long time. I think you could go out and get some financing and get this moved along if you're that far along in the process. MR. GARCIA: Okay, I'm about to pass inspection, electrical rough inspection, 95 percent done on that. I could have that done within two weeks. MS. CURLEY: Gerald brings up a really good point, that right now you don't have any fines on the history of your property right now. Do you understand that it would completely change the way you move forward if we attach these fines to your property? MR. GARCIA: I do understand, ma'am. MS. CURLEY: I mean, I'm not opposed to six months, but I have a feeling we'll see him here again in January. MR. LEFEBVRE: I feel that's the case also. MS. CURLEY: I don't see it as a safety issue. And you certainly want somebody to continue to work on the home that they're living in. What is the status of your home that you're repairing due to the fire? MR. GARCIA: I'm 100 percent done with the house that I live in. May 25, 2017 Page 45 MS. CURLEY: So you'd be able to dedicate all your -- MR. GARCIA: I'll be able to dedicate more time to this house. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me just throw out three months, knowing you probably won't be finished in three months, but at least in three months you could come back and say I passed "X" amount of inspections and I'm on my way to getting this done. MR. GARCIA: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What does the board think about that? MR. ASHTON: I think that's a good idea. MR. DOINO: It's fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Would someone like to make a motion to that effect? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to continue for 90 days. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to continue for 90 days. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. So you have three months to get as much done. The more you May 25, 2017 Page 46 can show that's done, the more the board will be in a mood, if you will, to extend it 'til you get it completely finished. MR. GARCIA: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: You might want to look into financing. MR. GARCIA: I will. Thanks. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is number seven, tab 10, Case CESD20150002237, Edward M. Miller and Brittany L. Miller. (Investigator Baldwin, Mr. and Ms. Miller were duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Code Enforcement Investigator. This is in reference to CEB Case No. CESD20150002237. Violation: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(ei). Location: 3875 31st Avenue Southwest, Naples, Florida. Folio 38051960006. Description of the violation: Complete remodel of kitchen, master bathroom, bathroom, family room, replaced windows and replaced soffits, all work done without Collier County building permits. Past orders: On March 24th, 2016 the Code Enforcement Board issued a Finding of Fact/Conclusion of Law and Order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board OR 5257, Page 894, for more information. On August 26th, 2016 a continuance was granted. See the attached order of the board OR 5311, Page 1580, for more information. The violation has not been abated as of May 25th, 2017. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at the rate of $200 per day for the period from July 23rd, 2016 to May 25th, 2017, 307 days, for a total fine amount of $61,400. Fines continue to May 25, 2017 Page 47 accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of $65.43 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing, $64.17. Total amount to date: $61,464.17. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning. MS. MILLER: Hi. MR. MILLER: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You want to state your name on the microphone for us. MS. MILLER: Sure, I'm Brittany Miller and this is my husband. MR. MILLER: Edward Miller. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. MILLER: Last -- you guys have so many cases. We bought this house completed, not knowing that it was unpermitted. Just kind of reiterate our last visit here. And then last we were here, we were paying the fines for the permit to be released. And it was released. And when we went to get inspections they put a stop on the permit. I have the hold -- is your guys' -- your TVs aren't working if I give you paperwork, huh? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. MS. MILLER: Oh, it is? Okay, so right here is the conditions that are on the permit stating that the head, Jonathan Walsh, wants to meet with our head engineer. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me stop you for one second. Get a motion to accept that? MR. DOINO: Motion to accept. MR. ASHTON: Motion to accept. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do you have any more copies of that? Any more exhibits or anything that you're going to be -- MS. MILLER: I've got a bunch of stuff, depending on what you want to see, so -- May 25, 2017 Page 48 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let's start with all those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. MILLER: So those right there are the conditions that were stated after the permit was released. That is now stating that the permit is on hold. When we went to do the inspections they realized that they did not agree with what the architect stated in the plans. They thought our architect signed the plans without the engineer's approval and now have demanded a lot of terms. Just two days ago we got tie beams x-rayed, which cost $600 because they did not believe that they were done properly. This is all by affidavit. I did not do the work so that's why they're being so picky. I have pictures of the tie beam saying it is indeed per code and regulations. If you want to see those pictures, you can. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me stop you for one second, please. You bought this house, I'm trying to refresh my memory. I do -- you bought the house, the house was built. MS. MILLER: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The tie beams were there, the kitchen was there, everything was there. Then you wanted to renovate May 25, 2017 Page 49 the kitchen. MS. MILLER: No. MR. LEFEBVRE: It was before you owned it. MS. MILLER: Yes, this case was existing before we bought the unit. We didn't know about the case, we didn't know about any of this until after closing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did this house -- I should ask Patrick, was this house CO'd at one time? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Yes. The previous owner had -- it was a corporation, he was a contractor in town. Contractor licensing had a complaint on that contractor for a stop work order. They were inside the house, they took pictures. It was basically completely gutted and remodeled, going back to our previous case where we showed the pictures. So in that time the contractor sold that house. He finished the remodel, sold the house to the Millers. MS. MILLER: It took seven months for the case to get turned over from a contractors to code enforcement. That's why we didn't know about the case, because it was in limbo for seven months. MS. CURLEY: So when you closed on the property you didn't know that -- MR. MILLER: There was no way to be found. MR. LEFEBVRE: There was no fines on it. MS. MILLER: Otherwise we wouldn't have been able to be accepted by a bank. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If the house is built, the tie beams -- that's an early, early inspection. I don't understand why -- MS. MILLER: There was no inspections. MR. LEFEBVRE: No, when the house was originally built. MR. KAUFMAN: When the house was originally built. If the house was originally built -- May 25, 2017 Page 50 MS. MILLER: Like 1980 or '70. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- and it was CO'd way back when, I guess there's some question on that? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: That would be a permit question for Building Official Jonathan Walsh. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. But the tie beam inspection is when they -- before they pour a tie beam they go and they check that the proper amount of metal, the rods are put in, et cetera, the rebar is in there. That's all done way in the beginning. So why -- I'm confused as to why they would require these things. And you have a meeting set up with Jonathan Walsh, is that it? MS. MILLER: I'll go back to your first question. Basically there was a lanai and they extended that lanai into a family room. And so in taking out those sliding glass doors they thought that there was damage done to that tie beam and that the whole house was resting on nothing. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: I have a black-and-white photo of what they might be looking at if, you would -- MS. MILLER: Yes. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: -- want to share it. Would you like me to show that? MS. MILLER: It's irrelevant. It really is. It was a waste of money on our behalf. Because like you said, it was the existing tie beam. It's just all these little nitpicky things that are kind of taking the process a little longer than expected. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you see a light at the end of the tunnel? MS. MILLER: Yes. Yes, because we have been paying all this money and getting all these inspections. And supposedly Jonathan Walsh has met with the engineer and they have came to a conclusion on what they think is the proper permit May 25, 2017 Page 51 by affidavit plans. I just can't get in touch with him to find out the next step to get this inspected. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You can't get in touch with Jonathan Walsh? MS. MILLER: No, I guess his secretary is moving up in the system and he's busy and -- INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: We can set up a meeting with her if she'd like. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, that would be helpful. MS. CURLEY: Maybe you can give her his cell phone number? MS. MILLER: They don't release that to me. MS. CURLEY: Maybe you can give her his cell phone number so she -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think -- MS. MILLER: I even called -- he had called me yesterday. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It will be sufficient enough that you will help them get together. And hopefully you'll get together soon, not you, you with Jonathan Walsh, he's the head building official, to resolve when this all will be completed. I'm a little bit -- I don't know how much time you're looking for to have this done. MS. MILLER: I would say three months would be sufficient, but crazier things have happened in this case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have additional work that has to be done or is this mostly paperwork? MS. MILLER: No, it's all paperwork, unless they come up with more inspections and more reasons to look into other weird things. MS. CURLEY: How about if we continue this until our November meeting? MR. LEFEBVRE: How many days? May 25, 2017 Page 52 MS. CURLEY: I don't know. MR. LEFEBVRE: How about 120 days? Make a motion to continue this for 120 days. MS. NICOLA: 120 days would be September 22nd, 2017. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think that would be fair. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and we have a second to continue this 120 days. Hopefully everything will be in order at that time. And we'll probably see you again, I'll tell you why in a second. All those in favor of the motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Right now there's a huge amount that's listed as a fine, so I'm assuming that at some point between now and when everything is resolved you'll be back here probably requesting for some adjustment to that fine. MS. MILLER: That would be greatly appreciated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have resolved the situation. We're done. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. May 25, 2017 Page 53 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are we done, Kerry? MS. ADAMS: I have nothing else. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody else have anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Our next meeting is? MS. ADAMS: June 22nd. It's a Thursday. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: In this room. MS. ADAMS: That's correct, yeah, it will be July that we have it on the fifth floor. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Everybody happy? We are adjourned. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:25 a.m. May 25, 2017 CO _ NFORCEMENT BOARD :4 RT- O. AN, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on 4 - 13 -1? as presented v7 or as corrected Page 54