Loading...
CEB Minutes 06/22/2017June 22, 2017 Page 1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, June 22, 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 Sue Curley Ron Doino Kathleen Elrod Gerald J. Lefebvre James Lavinski Lionel L'Esperance Herminio Ortega (alternate) Robert Ashton (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 June 22,2017 at 9:00 A.M. LOCATION: Collier County Government Center,3299 East Tamiami Trail,Building F,3rd Floor,Naples,Florida 34112 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-Excused Gerald Lefebvre Sue Curley Lionel L'Esperance Kathleen Elrod,Alternate Herminio Ortega,Alternate 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. May 25,2017 Hearing 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. Motions Motion for Continuance 5. CASE NO: CEROW20150006433 OWNER: FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF IMMOKALEE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOSEPH MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 110,ARTICLE II, DIVISION 1,SECTION 110-31(A).THREE GRAVESITES ENCROACHING THE COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY JUST WEST OF THE CEMETERY. FOLIO NO: 00086440008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 820 11TH ST N,IMMOKALEE 1 Motion for Extension of Time 5. CASE NO: CESD20160002295 OWNER: DESTINY CHURCH NAPLES INC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CRISTINA PEREZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION(S) 10.02.06(B)(1)(A)AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(E)(I).AN UNPERMITTED SHED,FENCE AND POLE BARN TYPE STRUCTURE.ALSO,UNPERMITTED SHIPPING CRATES CONTAINERS USED FOR STORAGE. FOLIO NO: 41930720008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6455 HIDDEN OAKS LN,NAPLES B. Stipulations C. Hearings 1. CASE NO: CESD20160017293 OWNER: MANUEL LOPEZ PARCHMENT OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR STEVEN LOPEZ-SILVERO VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).OBSERVED AN UNPERMITTED FRAME STORAGE BUILDING/SHED IN THE REAR YARD OF IMPROVED OCCUPIED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 35740520006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2069 41ST TER SW,NAPLES 2. CASE NO: CESD20160002817 OWNER: NORTH NAPLES PROPERTIES LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JON HOAGBOON VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION(S) 10.02.06(B)(1)(A)AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(E)(I).UNPERMITTED ALTERATIONS OF AN AWNING IN THE FRONT OF THE BUSINESS. FOLIO NO: 61942520001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1048 PINE RIDGE RD,NAPLES 3. CASE NO: CESD20160016422 OWNER: NAJEEB ULLAH OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION(S) 10.02.06(B)(1)(A)AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(E)(I).INTERIOR REMODELING CONSISTING OF BUT LIMITED TO,REMOVING DRYWALL AND INSULATION WITH PLANS TO REPLACE THEM WITH NEW DRYWALL WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A VALID COLLIER COUNTY PERMIT. FOLIO NO: 62205720000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5349 HOLLAND ST,NAPLES 2 4. CASE NO: CESD20160015129 OWNER: LUIS FLORES SALCEIRO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOSEPH MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION(S) 3.05.01(B), 10.02.06(B)(1)(E), 10.02.06(B)(1)(C)AND COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22,ARTICLE IV,SECTION 22-108.SITE WORK,IMPROVEMENT OF PROPERTY, GRADING,AND OR REMOVAL OF PROTECTED VEGETATION USING HEAVY MACHINERY WITHOUT A PERMIT THAT WOULD ALLOW SAME.ALTERATION OF LAND THROUGH PLACEMENT OF FILL THAT REMOVED OR OTHERWISE DESTROYED VEGETATION WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING APPROVAL FROM THE COUNTY.DAMAGING NATIVE VEGETATION BY THE USE OF HEAVY MACHINERY TO REMOVE EXOTIC AND NON- NATIVE VEGETATION.WORK DONE IN RIGHT OF WAY,INCLUDING A TEMPORARY DRIVEWAY ACCESS FROM EVERGLADES BLVD,WITHOUT OBTAINING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 41287600004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2298 EVERGLADES BLVD S,NAPLES 5. CASE NO: CEROW20150006433 OWNER: FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF IMMOKALEE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOSEPH MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,CHAPTER 110,ARTICLE II, DIVISION 1,SECTION 110-31(A).THREE GRAVESITES ENCROACHING THE COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY JUST WEST OF THE CEMETERY. FOLIO NO: 00086440008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 820 11TH ST N,IMMOKALEE 6. CASE NO: CEVR20170001173 OWNER: K G B PROPERTIES LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION(S) 3.05.08(C), 1.04.01(A),2.02.03 AND COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 54,ARTICLE VI,SECTION(S)54-185(D)AND 54-179.PRESENCE OF PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION,INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO BRAZILIAN PEPPER,JAVA PLUM,AIR POTATOE,CARROT WOOD,EARLEAF ACACIA,AND AUSTRALIAN PINE ON AN UNIMPROVED PROPERTY NOT ZONED ESTATES OR AGRICULTURAL AND LOCATED WITHIN A 200 RADIUS OF AN ABUTTING,IMPROVED PROPERTY.ALSO OBSERVED THE ILLEGAL OUTSIDE STORAGE CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO:MAN MADE VEGETATIVE DEBRIS,TV'S,CARDBOARD BOXES,CHAIRS,JET SKI,TIRES,BOTTLES. FOLIO NO: 62093440000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5327 GEORGIA AVE,NAPLES 3 7. CASE NO: CEVR20170004251 OWNER: K G B PROPERTIES LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION(S) 3.05.08(C), 1.04.01(A),2.02.03 AND COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 54,ARTICLE VI,SECTION 54-185(D)AND SECTION 54-179.PRESENCE OF PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION,INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO BRAZILIAN PEPPER,JAVA PLUM,AIR POTATOE,CARROT WOOD,EARLEAF ACACIA,AND AUSTRALIAN PINE ON AN UNIMPROVED PROPERTY NOT ZONED ESTATES OR AGRICULTURAL AND LOCATED WITHIN A 200 RADIUS OF AN UNIMPROVED PROPERTY NOT ZONED ESTATES OR AGRICULTURAL AND LOCATED WITHIN A 200 RADIUS OF AN ABUTTING,IMPROVED PROPERTY.ALSO OBSERVED THE ILLEGAL OUTSIDE STORAGE CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO:MAN MADE VEGETATIVE DEBRIS,TV'S, CARDBOARD BOXES,CHAIRS,JET SKI,TIRES,BOTTLES. FOLIO NO: 62093400008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5325 GEORGIA AVE,NAPLES 8. CASE NO: CELU20170004265 OWNER: 11222 TAMIAMI LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION(S) 1.04.01(A)AND 2.02.03.COMMERCIAL CONTAINER BEING STORED ON AN UNIMPROVED LOT. FOLIO NO: 60783280006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: NO SITE ADDRESS D. Motion for Reduction of Fines/Lien. 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. 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 2. CASE NO: CEVR20160020159 OWNER: MARICIA NOEL INC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOSEPH MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 3.05.08(C).PRESENCE OF PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION INCLUDING,BUT NOT LIMITED TO,BRAZILIAN PEPPER UPON PROPERTY DEVELOPED AFTER NOVEMBER 13, 1991. FOLIO NO: 71373120002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 18445 ROYAL HAMMOCK BLVD,NAPLES 3. CASE NO: CEROW20150023031 OWNER: VERONICA TRESSLER,BARBARA DETHLOFF AND ELIZABETH LUCKY 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).A CULVERT DRAINAGE PIPE IN NEED OF REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT. FOLIO NO: 00161080008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 231 WILLOUGHBY DR,NAPLES 4. CASE NO: CESD20160008108 OWNER: 212 NEW MARKET ROAD LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOSEPH MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A).INSTALLED A BIG WALK IN COOLER WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 63861960009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 212 NEW MARKET RD W,IMMOKALEE 5. CASE NO: CESD20160002295 OWNER: DESTINY CHURCH NAPLES INC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CRISTINA PEREZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41,AS AMENDED,SECTION(S) 10.02.06(B)(1)(A)AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(E)(I).AN UNPERMITTED SHED,FENCE AND POLE BARN TYPE STRUCTURE.ALSO,UNPERMITTED SHIPPING CRATES CONTAINERS USED FOR STORAGE. FOLIO NO: 41930720008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6455 HIDDEN OAKS LN,NAPLES B. Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order C. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order 5 7. NEW BUSINESS 8. CONSENT AGENDA A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. NONE 9. REPORTS 10. COMMENTS 11. NEXT MEETING DATE- Thursday July 27,2017 at 9:00 A.M.located at the Collier County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail,Building F,5"'Floor,Naples,Florida. 12. ADJOURN 6 June 22, 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. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. And if we could all stand for the pledge. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're going to pass on the approval of the minutes for now. We actually received them online, so any changes to the minutes from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, they're approved. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. June 22, 2017 Page 3 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. They're approved. Thank you. Okay. You want to take the roll? MS. ADAMS: Mr. Robert Kaufman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKI: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Ronald Doino? MR. DOINO: 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: Mr. Robert Ashton has an excused absence. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Kathy Elrod would be the voting member today to take Bob Ashton's place. And do we have any changes to the agenda? MS. ADAMS: We do. No. 5, public hearings, motions, motion for continuance; this item is also under Letter C, hearings, No. 5, which would be Tab 5 for the Board. Case CEROW20150006433, First Baptist Church of June 22, 2017 Page 4 Immokalee, has been withdrawn. Motion for extension of time, we have one addition. It's from imposition of fines, No. 1, Tab 9, Case CESD20150017888, Julien Francois, LLC. Letter B, stipulations, we have two additions. The first is No. 2 from hearings, Tab 2, Case CESD20160002817, North Naples Properties, LLC. The second is No. 1 from hearings, Tab 1, Case CESD20160017293, Manuel Lopez Parchment. Letter C, hearings, No. 5 -- I already said that one. That's been withdrawn. Number 6, old business, Letter A, motion for imposition of fines/liens. Number 3, Tab 11, Case CEROW20150023031, Veronica Tressler, Barbara Dethloff, and Elizabeth Lucky, has been withdrawn, and that's all the changes. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. We're ready to begin, unless I forgot something. MS. ADAMS: Under motion for extension of time, the first one will be No. 5 from hearings, Tab 5. I'm sorry, No. 5 -- June 22, 2017 Page 5 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's canceled. MS. ADAMS: What? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's canceled, right; 5? MS. ADAMS: No, it's actually No. 5 from imposition of fines. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, okay. MS. ADAMS: It's Tab 13. I'm sorry. Case CESD20160002295, Destiny Church Naples, Incorporated. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Quick question before we begin on this. Have the operational costs been paid? MS. PEREZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They have? Okay. All righty. Good morning. Could you state your name on the microphone. PASTOR BALL: Good morning, Greg Ball, the pastor of Destiny Church. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you're here to request? PASTOR BALL: An extension of time to get all this accomplished. We purchased the church three years ago from Faith Community, Pastor Roy Shuck. And we've been in the community now for 10 years. We were renting at Palmetto. First Gulf Coast High School and then Palmetto, and now I've purchased the property. All of the things that we need to change were there before we bought the property, so they've been there for about 15 years. But we've got to figure out what to do. So we hired Phoenix Builders, so we are entering into -- we've already submitted once, and now we have to resubmit with the adjustments, the building project. So we're going to build a new sanctuary there. We've got about five acres, and so all of these things will be gone when we move into the new building. So we just need some time. June 22, 2017 Page 6 I think Phoenix said the first submittal that we submitted took a 30-day review, now the second one could take a 30-day review, and hopefully we'll be past at that point. We have a conditional use for the property, so all this was on the conditional use already. So we're not trying to do another -- where the neighbors would vote again. I don't know what you call it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: A zoning? PASTOR BALL: Yeah. We don't want to do that. So we're just trying to get through with what we have, what's already been approved. So we need an extension to try to figure out how much time it's going to take to get all this through. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How long of an extension do you think you'll need? PASTOR BALL: The representative from Phoenix was going to be here this morning, but he asked me to ask for eight months. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I asked -- the beginning will be the shed, the fence the poll barn. They're all going to be taken down, right? PASTOR BALL: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So that's -- that would probably take care of the outstanding violation. PASTOR BALL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So if you -- and then you'll go through the normal process of Phoenix getting the approval of all of the rest of the stuff that they're doing. PASTOR BALL: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So are they saying eight months to take this stuff down? They have to get a demo permit to do that? Phoenix knows what they're doing. PASTOR BALL: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. June 22, 2017 Page 7 PASTOR BALL: I don't know exactly, but that's what they suggested to me. To get approval could take up to 90 days. So once we get the approval, then we'll start the building project. My goal is to be in the building by October 2018 with all renovations complete, the new building built -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the county? MS. PEREZ: No. We just -- the structures in question -- obviously, the entire project in itself is not part of our code case, but -- so the church could spend their money wisely, since most of them are donations from their church members; they were already in the process of doing this project. They incorporated the permit -- there's one structure that will be relocated, so that's why they have to wait until the Site Development Plan is approved so they could relocate the shed to another location to accommodate the new site plan that they have in mind. There's no utilities connected to it. They're not being used for anything but for storage. And in the area where the fence is located, it's a well that's also going to be located to another area. I did talk with the builder yesterday, and they are in hopes that if all goes as planned with their now re-submittal, you know, they anticipate the plan would be issued to them. They initially had requested 90 days thinking that that was going to be the time frame -- that they just needed a time frame for the project to be issued to them, not understanding that they had to satisfy, you know, our unpermitted structures in order for our code case to close. So that's why today Pastor -- if you see on the letter, he asked for -- they asked for a shorter time frame anticipating it was just the issuance of the Site Development Plan. But today they asked for a little more time so they could complete the project. June 22, 2017 Page 8 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Comments from the Board or a motion from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: I have one question. According to the stipulation, this was supposed to be corrected by May 25th, and Phoenix's letter is dated May 24th. What happened in that 119 days? PASTOR BALL: Well, I hired a civil engineer to work on it for me. He took three months; didn't get anything accomplished. I said, let's go to Phoenix and get Phoenix to do it. So then that's how it kind of got delayed. Phoenix didn't get it until late. MR. LAVINSKI: Oh. So there was some action taken in the 119 days? PASTOR BALL: Oh, yeah. Well, I had allowed Bob Walker's brother to park his big trailers there. So there was a church renting in Gulf Coast High School, they had two other trailers parked there, and I had a landscaper that had a trailer parked there. So as soon as I got all of this, all the stuff that I had put on there we got rid of right away. So now it's a matter of we've got to move the other stuff that's been there for a long time. MS. PEREZ: If I just may add, too, this site development plan application was submitted to the county on October 5th, 2016, and they, you know, had their pre-application meeting, submitted their project, got rejected, and now they've submitted again for the corrections. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to grant a one-year continuance. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? June 22, 2017 Page 9 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. PASTOR BALL: Thank you, guys. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So that should give you plenty of time. PASTOR BALL: Yes, that's great. Thank you. MS. PEREZ: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next motion for extension of time is from imposition of fines, No. 1, Tab 9, Case CESD20150017888, Julien Francois, LLC. MS. NICOLA: Can I just make one point of clarification on the last motion. It's a continuance, right? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. NICOLA: Because the request was for an extension, but it's going to be a continuance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Correct. MS. NICOLA: Okay, thank you. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. Could you state your name on the mic. MS. FRANCOIS: Jessula (phonetic) Francois; Julien, LLC. June 22, 2017 Page 10 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you are here to request, from your letter, a 180-day extension; is that correct? MS. FRANCOIS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Can you tell us a little bit more? MS. FRANCOIS: I had hired, first, an engineer to do the work for me and, Joe, he took the money and he never completed -- I mean, nothing was completed, and I would just keep on coming in here and asking for time. And it was ridiculous to me. I'm trying to evict the people that is living there right now. Last week when I finished -- when I came here -- when I went over there to evict them, they called the sheriff on me, which was because I had no right to touch their things without permission. The sheriff said I have to get an eviction from the court, which is $475. And I paid the -- I paid $2,000 to get another -- to do another floor plan for me, and I gave it to Ms. Christina. And I explained the situation to Ms. Christina. MS. PEREZ: Just for the record, she gave me a receipt. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Just a sidenote, and maybe you can help me. Jeff, you may want to come in. If the Code Enforcement Board, if this is a safety and health, and it is because there is electrical and plumbing that is done there, and we find that it's in violation, shouldn't the Sheriff's Office -- can the Sheriff's Office be used to have the folks move out of this without going through the whole eviction process as though they were paying for -- they weren't paying their rent or whatever, or is that too hard a question for this early in the morning? MR. LETOURNEAU: I would think that they'd still have to go through the eviction process. MS. PEREZ: Yes. We had a brief discussion last month when June 22, 2017 Page 11 we were here as far as, you know, how some of our orders say that they have to cease and desist use, you know, of these unpermitted buildings, or the buildings with unpermitted utilities, and this wasn't part of that original order. So I remember the attorney said that, you know, we couldn't change the order at the moment where we were discussing this last month. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Let me ask, Tami. When there is a health-and-safety issue here, I thought that that was immediate; we didn't have to go through the whole process of a regular eviction as though it would be an eviction for nonpayment of rent or whatever. MS. NICOLA: I think the difficulty is that she is the owner of the property and she's not living in the property, so I don't know how the Code Enforcement Board would have the authority to direct that we could evict somebody who's not a party to this action. I don't even know, if she was a party to this action, that the Code Enforcement Board would have the authority to do that. I mean, the Sheriff's Department, you could call the police and ask them what to do, but they told you to file an eviction. MS. FRANCOIS: Yeah. He was going to arrest me for touching the lady's property because I had no right to touch her property there, and then I explained to him. I mean, I show him the paperwork, and he say it doesn't matter; I have no right to touch nobody's property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, I understand that. MS. FRANCOIS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: My concern is that if a case comes before the Board -- and they sometimes come in as emergency cases where there's no water in a home or no electric, and we issue an order with two or three days to have that property vacated, whether it's the owner living in there or anybody else. I didn't think we have to go through the whole process of an eviction, because I know how long June 22, 2017 Page 12 that takes. MS. CURLEY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MS. CURLEY: We had this come up about a year ago. And is there any infants or children there? MS. FRANCOIS: No, there's no children in there. MS. CURLEY: That was what we used -- we were able to go off of there was a young child. MS. FRANCOIS: There's no children in there. And some of them did get out. Some of them -- like, when I talk rush with them, they did move out. But the immediate family, those are, like, my kids' family. Those are not my family. Those are my kids' family, and my kids have to deal with them, you know, at dinner parties and all the other things. They're not my family. They're my husband's family and my kids' family. And the property is under my son's name, but I manage the property. I keep it -- you know, I keep the grass cut. So I'm trying to make them move out. They're not, like, you know -- it's just difficult. So there's only like four of them there so far. Most of them moved out. As you could see, if you pass by, just put curtains. There's a lot of them just move out of house. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: As I understood -- I'm going from memory -- that these people are not paying you any rent. MS. FRANCOIS: No. I'm not making no money off of it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So these are squatters. Now, squatters -- if somebody moves into your house while you're out to lunch and you come home, I would think that you could call the Sheriff's Department and say, somebody is living in my property. I don't have any permission for them. There's no lease. There's no nothing. MS. PEREZ: I did talk to the Sheriff's Office myself, and some June 22, 2017 Page 13 of the people claim that they pay rent, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They have receipts and whatnot? MS. PEREZ: No; verbal. But they claim they pay rent, so the Sheriff's Office said they've established themselves, you know, there, so they have to go -- the owner has to go through an eviction process. MS. CURLEY: Well -- and she said that before, that perhaps her ex-husband's collecting rent. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is it in your ex-husband's name? MS. FRANCOIS: No. It's his family. I don't know what the contract he have. It is the fact that I don't want to lose the building because, you know, that's my son's building. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I know. I understand. MS. FRANCOIS: That's one of the divorce settlement that I claim. It's the -- it's my son's building, and I don't want to lose it. It's -- and, like I said, we're not allowed to have communication due to our prior, you know, history. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, I understand. I was just trying to see if there was an easier, less expensive way -- MR. ORTEGA: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure, Herminio. MR. ORTEGA: Is this a lawfully permitted structure where you have 20 people living -- is this farm housing or -- MS. FRANCOIS: No, sir. It's not a farmhouse. It's one of the rooms -- the big room is used for, like, a -- he put bikes there. He fix bikes, and he sell them at the flea market. The other brother fix refrigerators. And the thing is, he cannot stay close to school because he had a child -- it's something with a child he had, and he cannot stay close to a school, and he cannot get a job, so he just stayed there so he could, you know, get some money to put in his pocket. So my ex-husband just allowed him to stay there. But it's not 20 rooms. June 22, 2017 Page 14 MR. ORTEGA: It speaks of sleeping rooms. MS. PEREZ: Herminio, to answer your question, the structure does somewhat -- the layout of it appears to be a boarding home of some sort, but there is a zoning verification letter that zoning has issues -- and Jessula is aware of it -- that it cannot be used for multifamily purposes. So she's aware that the permitting process she's going to take is for a single-family home with a lot of rooms. MR. ORTEGA: So what I hear you say, right now it's in violation? MS. PEREZ: Right now it's in violation of, just in general, that there's no permits for all the alterations, the dividing walls that they've created. MR. ORTEGA: Aside from that. MS. PEREZ: Right. MR. ORTEGA: But first and foremost is life safety. And to answer the question, I think it has to be the building official or the Fire Department to establish that case. It can't be Code Enforcement. And then you can move on that, without having to have the Sheriff's Department, I believe. MS. NICOLA: I think she's either going to have to do an eviction or an unlawful detainer. And I wonder why you're not seeking advice of counsel, because I think it would be very difficult for you to do on your own. I mean, there's Legal Aid in Immokalee. There are lawyers that do pro bono. I mean, I think you should do something about it. MS. FRANCOIS: Yeah, I spoke to Maureen -- I spoke to Maureen at the Legal Aid by the Florida Community Bank. I went there. And she's helping me fill out the paper, because I got the paperwork. I paid $10 for it, and when I bring it back, I got to bring them $475. So I do -- because it's $475 to get the eviction process. MS. NICOLA: And they don't have any indigent services there June 22, 2017 Page 15 for you if you don't have the money? MS. FRANCOIS: No. MS. NICOLA: I'm just asking, because I'm pretty familiar with Legal Aid. MS. FRANCOIS: I tried. I tried that. I told her I did not have the money. I tried that, and then she said if you -- and then I would ask Ms. Cristina, can she give me a letter so I won't have to pay the whole amount. And Ms. Cristina said you have to $475. So I got the paperworks. I could just bring it in with the $475. Because I didn't want to pay the whole amount, the $475. MS. NICOLA: I mean, the good news is is that there are Legal Aid services in Immokalee that handle this kind of thing. MS. FRANCOIS: Yes. MS. NICOLA: The bad news is I think she's saying she doesn't have the money to file it. Is that what you're saying right now? MS. FRANCOIS: I'll have the money -- I'll have the money next week to file it. It's because I had to pay the new engineer for the permit plan, which -- it's right here. I had to pay the -- MS. PEREZ: Which is the letter that's in -- that, you should have received. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's in the package. Okay. No problem. MS. PEREZ: Yes. MS. FRANCOIS: Yeah, I paid it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. My concern, again, is health and safety. As Herminio said, whatever -- because the request is for 180 days, and I would hate to think that this thing could be in violation with electrical and plumbing that was not inspected for six months. The possibility of a fire or somebody getting hurt or whatever is always there, so... MS. NICOLA: I'd like to make a suggestion. June 22, 2017 Page 16 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MS. NICOLA: I don't think the eviction process should take more than 30 days. I'd like to suggest that we bring it back in 30 days to she if she followed through with evicting the people. Because, honestly, if the issue is getting these people out so that she can take action to correct the problem, I mean, that was -- my understanding is that that was the issue at the last code enforcement hearing was that the people were living in the house and she said she couldn't get them out. So step one is getting them out, and I think it needs to be done immediately. MS. PEREZ: Yes. And once that eviction process is done, then the Sheriff's Office could back that up with the trespass agreement. MS. FRANCOIS: Yes. MS. NICOLA: They can actually physically remove them with a writ of possession from the property so that she doesn't have to do it. But she has to follow the legal procedure to do it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: So we don't need a 180-day extension? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, you can -- MR. LEFEBVRE: They can withdraw this and just bring it back; the county can withdraw it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, if you want to pull it and bring it back next month. MR. LEFEBVRE: It will give her 35 days. MS. PEREZ: Then the county agrees to withdraw this case and bring it back to the next hearing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's fine. Okay. So I wish you a lot of luck. MS. FRANCOIS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hopefully you can get those folks out of there. June 22, 2017 Page 17 MS. PEREZ: So, Jessula, you know, our suggestion is that you continue with the eviction process. Once you've had that issued, contact us. We'll contact the Sheriff's Office to then have Julien sign the trespass agreement with the Sheriff's Office so anybody that is not on there, they could have them removed from the property, and hopefully you should have no issues with squatters in the future. Then we'll come back here, if you so wish to, to ask the Board for a continuance for your permitting process. MS. FRANCOIS: Okay. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. One last by-the-way -- by -the-side conversation. It says that the property is owned by Julien Francois, LLC. So the LLC, have you looked at that to see how many names are on the LLC or -- MS. FRANCOIS: Only his name. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Only his name? MS. FRANCOIS: Yes. It's only his name. Everything is under his name. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. FRANCOIS: Because when we divorced, everything just went under -- he didn't want to give me nothing. He just put everything under the oldest child's name, and I was okay with that. MS. PEREZ: And Julien gave her authorization to work on this case for him. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So it makes things more implicated, but okay. MS. NICOLA: Good luck. MS. FRANCOIS: Okay. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you. MS. PEREZ: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is from Letter B, stipulations, No. 2, Tab 2, Case CESD20160002817, North Naples Properties, LLC. June 22, 2017 Page 18 (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: John, you want to state your name on the mic. MR. HOAGBOON: Yes. For the record, John Hoagboon, Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The respondent is not present. Okay. You're going to present your case. MR. HOAGBOON: Absolutely. Before we get started, any questions regarding this, or just go ahead and start with the stipulation? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. You have a stipulation. You'll read this into the record, and then if we have any questions, we can go from there. MR. HOAGBOON: Okay. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: One, pay operational costs in the amount of $68.85 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of the hearing; Two, abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permits, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy for the awning area in front of the business within 90 days of this hearing, or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Three, the respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; Four, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County 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. Any discussion from the June 22, 2017 Page 19 Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motion from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thanks, John. MR. HOAGBOON: Thank you very much. MS. ADAMS: The next stipulation is No. 1 from hearings, Tab 1, Case CESD20160017293, Manuel Lopez Parchment. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Normally now, unless you have something you want to say before he reads the stipulation, we'll let him read the stipulation into the record, then I'll ask you if you have any questions on it, did you agree to it, and then we can vote at that time. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Good morning. For the record, Steven Lopez-Silvero, Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $65.01 incurred in the June 22, 2017 Page 20 prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Number 2, obtain all required Collier County building permits to permit the frame storage building/shed or demolition permit to remove said structure, requesting (sic) all required inspections and obtaining a certificate of completion/occupancy within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Number 3, cease and desist use of unpermitted storage building/shed as living quarters and disconnect utilities within 24 hours of this hearing, or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Number 4, respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the inspector perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Number 5, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County 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. Sir, could you state your name on the microphone. MR. PARCHMENT: Manuel Lopez Parchment. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You are Manuel Lopez? MR. PARCHMENT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You understand everything? MR. PARCHMENT: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You agree to that, no problem? MR. PARCHMENT: No problem. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any discussion from the Board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Question. Number 3 states that there may be people living in this structure? June 22, 2017 Page 21 MR. PARCHMENT: No living. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No one's living there. It's just storage? MR. PARCHMENT: No. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any other questions from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: We have one other change to the agenda under stipulations. We have another addition. It's going to be No. 8 from hearings, Tab 8, Case CELU2017004265, 11222 Tamiami, LLC. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Get a motion from the Board to change the agenda. MR. DOINO: Make a motion to change the agenda. June 22, 2017 Page 22 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. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. Good morning. MR. MUSSE: Good morning. The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Could you state your name on the microphone? MR. PURCIELLO: Yes, Steven Purciello. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you want to read the stipulation into the record, and we can go from there. MR. MUSSE: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Jonathan Musse, Collier County Code Enforcement. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Pay operational costs in the amount of $66.69 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing and abate all violations by removing all unauthorized materials from an unimproved property within 60 days of this hearing, or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed until the violation's abated. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator to perform a site June 22, 2017 Page 23 inspection to confirm compliance. That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County 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. Do you understand the stipulation? MR. PURCIELLO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And no problem? MR. PURCIELLO: No problem. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Discussion from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: Just one question. Is it really going to take 60 days to remove one container? MR. PURCIELLO: The issue is there's a permit on the property to do a fire sprinkler. I'm here as the agent for the owner. We're having some issues with the permitting process for the sprinkler. So we're hoping in that period -- the sprinkler pipe for the building is in the container, so we're hoping within the 60 days, you know, we can get the pipe into the building and get the container removed. So that's why we asked for that time. That's all. MS. CURLEY: I have a question. MR. PURCIELLO: Yes. MS. CURLEY: How are you related to the property? MR. PURCIELLO: I'm the agent for the owner for today. MS. CURLEY: I just can't see it on paper. MR. LEFEBVRE: The other question, it says that it's on an unimproved property. MR. PURCIELLO: Yes. The owner owns the building that the permit is for and also the property next door, which is an empty lot. And by mistake, when they placed the container, they put it, you know, June 22, 2017 Page 24 onto the empty lot. MR. LEFEBVRE: If it was placed on the lot that has the building -- MR. MUSSE: It would be okay. The only thing, there is a business there, and he would have to take up some parking spots. So I'm trying to work with him just to give him as much time as possible, so he doesn't block parking spots for customers. MR. LEFEBVRE: What's the current status of the permit? MR. PURCIELLO: There were some issues with it. They had to get -- with the SDP plan. They're working through that now. We're working with Cronin Engineering in town. So supposedly they're in the final stages of getting that cleared up, the issues that they had. So we're hoping shortly they can do that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any other questions from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case in which we have someone present is No. 4, Tab 4, Case CESD20160015129, Luis Flores Salceiro. June 22, 2017 Page 25 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They must be invisible. They have vanishing cream. MR. MUCHA: Sorry about that. (Jackie de la Paz, the interpreter, was duly sworn to translate from English to Spanish and Spanish to English to the best of her ability.) (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning, Joe. MR. MUCHA: Good morning. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20160015129 dealing with violations of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 3.05.01.B, 10.02.06(B)(1)(e), and 10.02.06(B)(1)(c), and Code of Laws Chapter 22, Article IV, Section 22-108. Violation description is site work, improvement of property, grading and removal of protected vegetation using heavy machinery without a permit that would allow for the same; Two, alteration of land through placement of fill that removed or otherwise destroyed vegetation without first obtaining approval from the county; Three, damaging native vegetation by the use of heavy machinery to remove exotic and nonnative vegetation. Violation location is 2298 Everglades Boulevard South; Folio 41287600004. Personal service was given on November 19th, 2016. I'd like to present case evidence in the following exhibits. I have eight photographs taken by Michaelle Crowley dated September 15th, 2016, and a copy of the Wetland Determination Report and map. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Has the respondent seen the photos? MR. MUSSE: Yes, sir. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hang on. Do you have any problem June 22, 2017 Page 26 with the photos? MR. SALCEIRO: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to accept. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. MUCHA: Can I have her sworn in so she can kind of explain the photos, since she was the one that took them. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, Michaelle. MS. CROWLEY: Good morning. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. CROWLEY: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. CROWLEY: For the record, Michelle Crowley, Environmental Specialist for Collier County. This is a photograph taken of several of the piles of fill. That's particularly crushed up asphalt. It's got pavement and the chemicals that come from the road, and in the background are the multiple piles of gravel. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can I ask what size lot this was. June 22, 2017 Page 27 MS. CROWLEY: I think -- I believe it's an acre and a half. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One fifty by -- oh. Okay. MS. CROWLEY: It is 1.64 acres. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CROWLEY: Next one. MS. CURLEY: Hundred feet of street front. MS. CROWLEY: This is looking toward the south toward the line of the adjacent property which is toward the wetlands area. And you'll see from the map where the wetlands have been determined on the property. So it shows the vegetation has been cleared, cut, and pushed to the south, as well as some of the vegetation debris that's remaining. This is a view looking directly to the east from about halfway in the property toward the rear line. You see that -- and toward the center there's the one pine tree, and that marks the boundary line, the property line between them and the property to the east. That trailer was on site. I don't know who it belongs to, but we're looking at a long view from halfway back on the property looking at everything that's been cleared, all without permits. This is looking toward the west. Behind the county vehicle, which is at the extreme right, is the driveway that was excavated with just dirt. There were some, like, concrete chunks that had hardened, and so that's how we were able to get access to the property. So you're looking to the west, and in the foreground is some of the piles, the previous piles of asphalt and gravel that you can see spread out behind that in between the two piles. This is just a representative photograph showing some of the vegetation debris. Most of it was all pushed to the side. There were no larger trunks, so to speak, but there were smaller cabbage palms, and this is just showing that some of it was green. It was not dead vegetation. It was alive when it was cleared. June 22, 2017 Page 28 The equipment that was used actually caused harm to the trees that were left standing. There were some that were left standing, some oak trees and some cypress trees, but the blade of the machine actually ripped off branches, entire large sections of the trees, and that's just one of those. This photograph is representative of some of that same damage to a different tree, you'll see the recent gouge marks on the bark of the tree, as well as the gravel has been placed within the drip line of the native vegetation, and the roots extend at least as far as the drip line does, so it causes sometimes irreparable harm of the root systems of those hardwood trees, especially slash pines and cypress trees. Again, this is -- I'm looking directly to the west. That large tree in the back marks pretty much the property line. And, again, it's just showing that what had been there is no longer there; the vegetation. This is in the rear, so it's in the area where the gravel was not placed. The gravel and the fill was not placed -- it wasn't spread out completely. This is a map that was -- can you turn it the other direction. MS. ADAMS: This way? MS. CROWLEY: No, east and west, the long way; so that the writing is upside down, actually. MS. ADAMS: Like that? MS. CROWLEY: No. Everglades Boulevard should be on the left of the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, one more. MS. CROWLEY: One more turn. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: There you go. MS. CROWLEY: There you go. So from Everglades property was the frontage of the property. The wetlands is pretty much one -- approximately one-third along the southern or right edge of the property, and the wetland determination June 22, 2017 Page 29 was done in November or December of 2016 by Collier County after the code case was open, after the stop work order was issued. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's the black -- MS. CROWLEY: The hashed marks is the wetland area as determined by physical inspection by somebody qualified by the DEP to do an informal wetland determination at the county. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CROWLEY: And it's within that area where some of the gravel is placed, where a lot of the clearing has taken place where the vegetation was pushed to the south. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I have a couple of questions that may help us. Question number one, was there a permit of any kind on that piece of property? MS. CROWLEY: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. As I you understand the rules, anything, an acre, you need a permit to do any kind of clearing, especially with heavy equipment? MS. CROWLEY: Well, let's just clarify. A building permit, once issued by the county, does grant approval to remove one acre of vegetation, native and nonnative. The county would never have issued a permit for any kind of work until the DEP had weighed in on the wetlands on the property. So before they can apply for a building permit at the county level, they're going to have to work with the DEP and mitigate any impacts to the wetlands that either the already-completed work has done or any intended construction would do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And was this reported by a neighbor-type complaint or a drive-by? MS. CROWLEY: No. This one -- it came in from the Transportation Department who saw the temporary driveway, you know, with the fill brought in across the swale. You know, they June 22, 2017 Page 30 noticed -- and that clearly doesn't meet code. They recognized it, that it was just done by somebody with machinery crossing that, so they reported it to the county. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Now this is, as I see, nine months ago approximately? MS. CROWLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you've had discussions with the respondent? MS. CROWLEY: I have not. I was not the assigned investigator. I was, with the consultant, helped Code Enforcement in dealing with it. I was on site during the first initial inspection, and I took all the photographs. Investigator Serna, who does speak Spanish, actually did communicate with the owner. I did receive a phone call from a woman on behalf of the owner, and he was there, and so we did have a long discussion after he discovered the stop work order on his property. And I've worked with Investigator Serna in the past in answering questions. Subsequent to the stop work order, subsequent to the owner reaching out to the county to say what do I need to do, he did obtain -- apply and obtain a right-of-way permit for the driveway access to the property. He did apply for and obtain a fence permit for the perimeter fence, but that's pretty much where we are at the county level. He cannot get any more building approvals for a building permit, for instance, for a house from the county until he works with the DEP and mitigates the impacts to the wetlands. And then once he has either that environmental resource permit from the DEP or an exemption letter from the DEP that says it hasn't been affected -- which I don't think that will happen, but that is one of the options -- then he can apply for a building permit to the county. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anything else? MS. CURLEY: I have a question. June 22, 2017 Page 31 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Go ahead. MS. CURLEY: Just maybe secondary to the -- so do you know who actually did this for them? MS. CROWLEY: The owner did. He did it himself. MS. CURLEY: Oh. And then can you explain to me the tar; like, what does it do? I mean, how is it damaging? MS. CROWLEY: It has petroleum chemicals. If it's pavement, you know, it has the oily things. But you can buy it at a place that sells gravel. You can just get broken up pavement. MS. CURLEY: So it's a fill that's commonly used, or no? MS. CROWLEY: It's used pretty often. I'm not saying that it would necessarily be ever approved inside of a wetlands, but... MS. CURLEY: That's what I was asking. Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. The whole point is, there's no building permit to do what was done. MS. CROWLEY: That is correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So regardless of what is on the site or -- okay. MS. CROWLEY: Yes. And we've had discussions this morning and tried to explain to the owner and Jackie, his translator, that even if he chooses not to apply for the building permit -- but I understand he does. But even if he chooses not to, the property still has to be restored, and the harm that was caused has to be fixed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't we go to the respondent. Good morning. MR. SALCEIRO: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you speak enough English to talk with us or not? MR. SALCEIRO: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. Okay. We'd like to hear your June 22, 2017 Page 32 side of the story; if you have any questions of the county. THE INTERPRETER: He came from Spain approximately two years and four months, was unaware. He bought the property, was unaware that he couldn't do that. He had gone in with a machete and cleared out what he could with the machete, but he got full of poison ivy, and that's when he went to go get -- got the Bobcat. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. THE INTERPRETER: He said they had the two little survey sticks that they put up, and he went by that, and he did what he did. How the dirt and everything got there -- he drives the -- that's what he does for a living. He drives a dump truck, and he brought the dirt over so that when he -- because he's going to do his house by owner. And he brought the dirt to have it there so that when he started building -- but he was unaware. He didn't know. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He's unaware of the rules? THE INTERPRETER: Right. He didn't know -- he didn't know anything about any permits or anything like that. I've only known them for approximately a year now, but everything was already starting to roll when -- you know, because I know because I live close by, but -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. THE INTERPRETER: Everything was already -- had already happened. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: In his discussion with the county, they made him aware of the rules at that time. Did he offer some suggestion on what he would do to -- THE INTERPRETER: All the material that was there that wasn't supposed to be there, he's removed it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. THE INTERPRETER: And they did tell him that -- they did -- he did the driveway, did the fence -- the fence and hasn't done anything June 22, 2017 Page 33 else. And now he gets his plans for the house next week. He receives the plans so that he can go get permits and do what he's got -- go to the DEP -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. THE INTERPRETER: -- and do what he's got to do. They didn't know. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. No, I understand. Okay. Any questions from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I guess my first question is, does a violation exist? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. I'll make a motion that a violation does exist. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second that a violation exists. Any discussion on that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Now we know a violation exists. What can be done? So any suggestions, comments from the Board? MR. LEFEBVRE: I guess a couple questions. June 22, 2017 Page 34 Where in the process of a permit for the house to be built are you? THE INTERPRETER: He has not gave -- he didn't have one yet. He went to the -- okay. He went to the architect, and the architect gave him some papers that, by next week, he will have everything ready so that he can go get his permits: MR. LEFEBVRE: He still has to go to DEP, correct -- THE INTERPRETER: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- to get a determination? Is that in the works? THE INTERPRETER: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: How long does it take? THE INTERPRETER: They told him that until he had his plans, that they couldn't work with him yet, because they need to know, I guess, where the house is going to be built in order to -- I guess. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. MS. CROWLEY: Right. The DEP will need to know what's going to be on site, where it's going to be, where those are in relation to the wetlands on site. MR. LEFEBVRE: See how much he has to mitigate? MS. CROWLEY: That is correct. So without those plans, they really can't make a decision. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So he is aware of the steps that need to be done to resolve the situation. He gets the plans, where they're going to put the house, goes to DEP. THE INTERPRETER: I'm going to help them with this. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So that's where we stand now. Do you have any idea how long this process is going to take? THE INTERPRETER: He says as soon as possible. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I'm guessing that if everything went properly, it would probably take about a year to complete the construction of the house and whatnot. But as long as the June 22, 2017 Page 35 property is mitigated in whatever way it needs to be mitigated, that's a different date. MR. LEFEBVRE: The permit would negate the need to bring the property back to the original state, correct? So once he receives -- MS. CROWLEY: It would unless it's been cleared -- the impacts are more than one acre in size -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Right, right. MS. CROWLEY: -- because if that's the case, and I believe that it is based upon my calculations and the amounts that I paced off, I believe it will over one acre -- he's looking at hiring an environmental consultant to submit a mitigation plan to restore that part of it which would not be allowed by the building permit for the home, that is correct. And if he -- I did not realize until this morning that he was going to be building it himself. So a year might even been optimistic. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, he doesn't necessarily have to have a CO on the house, but he can work concurrently with building a house and mitigating the land. MS. CROWLEY: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: I don't care how long he takes to build the house. What we care about is how long it takes to mitigate -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The violation. MS. CROWLEY: Right. And the vegetation -- replacement vegetation typically would not go in until he was ready and there weren't going to be any more, you know, trucks driving over where the trees are going to be placed, and you'd want to coordinate it as much as possible with rainy season, with irrigation systems. So there's some factors that the replanting of the vegetation would probably be one of the last things to occur, that is correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did you try to come up with some stipulation on this with the respondent? MS. CROWLEY: We tried. One of the problems is is the June 22, 2017 Page 36 uncertainty of the timing involved. We did ask -- with getting the plans for the house in a week, he believes that he might be able to apply and have all the documents needed to apply to the DEP within 30 days. And at that point, the rest of it was premised on this many days after the DEP acts, apply for a building permit, but we didn't get that far. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. At this point I'd like to ask the county, unless the Board has some more comments, on what their suggestion is. MS. CROWLEY: Want to go ahead and read it? MR. MUCHA: Bear with me, here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MUCHA: That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $67.64 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days, and abate all violations by: One, must apply for an environmental resource permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for review of existing and/or proposed site alteration or for an exemption letter from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for clearing and/or proposed construction for a residence within the wetland areas and must mitigate with the DEP as necessary to offset impacts to wetlands within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank for each day the violation continues; Two, any vegetation removal, clearing, fill impacts that have already occurred and which cannot be mitigated through approvals by the DEP must be restored to original condition through the implementation of a mitigation plan submitted within 45 days of action by the DEP, which mitigation plan meets the criteria pursuant to Collier County Land Development Code Section 10.02.06(D)(3)(a), June 22, 2017 Page 37 (b), (c), (d), and (e), and upon approval of mitigation plan must complete the installation of all required plantings to restore native vegetation and all three strata within 30 days of plan approval. The mitigation plans shall be prepared by a person who meets or exceeds the credentials specified in the Land Development Code or Chapter 7 of the Administrative Code unless waived by the County Manager or designee and must be approved by Collier County; Three, within blank days of receipt of ERP or exemption letter from DEP, must apply for a building permit for construction of residence. If the fill material brought on site is not approved for use as part of the building permit, must remove fill from the property within blank days of final action by DEP; Four, must hire an environmental consultant within blank days of this hearing to submit a Time Zero Monitoring Report with photographs of all native trees which are not located within areas intended for construction of a residence and that have not -- and that have been affected by mechanical clearing. Affected trees shall include, but are not limited to, trees which may have had root systems compacted by mechanical clearing using heavy machinery and trees which have been directly damaged by fill or by the blade, wheels, or body of the heavy machinery; Must include with the Time Zero Monitoring Report a restoration plan to include replacement strategy of any dead or dying native trees that may occur within a one-year period. Dead or dying native trees impacted by machinery or fill shall be replaced with like species and monitored to ensure 80 percent survivability for a period of no less then three years. All replacement trees shall meet size, grade, and canopy spread with minimum Collier County standards and must be planted within 30 days of approval of the plan of the county. Lastly, the respondent must notify the code enforcement June 22, 2017 Page 38 investigator when the violations have been abated in order to conduct the final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violations, the county may abate the violations using any methods to bring the violations into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you be more specific? Okay. Now, this is going to take some work. We have a question. MR. LAVINSKI: I have a question of the respondent. In general, does he feel he has the financial wherewithal and the energy to pursue this process, which is not going to be an easy one? THE INTERPRETER: Thirty days, he said, for the vegetation process? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. We can adjust the days. But the question is, are you going to do it? Do you have the money to do it? THE INTERPRETER: He's going to do it, but little by little. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: So -- excuse me. So in the stipulation that we just read, it states that he would be required to hire an environmental engineer to assist with the rehabitation (sic) of the plants that were destroyed. Is that an expense that he has in his budget for his new home? THE INTERPRETER: Do we know what we're talking about? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How much money, you mean? MS. CURLEY: That's why I'm asking, because it's part of your budget now. And if you sign this, then -- THE INTERPRETER: His question is, how much is it going to cost? June 22, 2017 Page 39 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We don't know that at this point. MS. CURLEY: That's your question. It's for you. THE INTERPRETER: Well, he doesn't know what it's going to cost to do it. I mean, if it's going to cost, like -- MS. CURLEY: So -- THE INTERPRETER: I mean, he's wanting to. He wants to do it. MS. CURLEY: I guess I'm -- just myself, this makes me very unhappy, and it's -- and it's unfortunate because there is a lot of our county dollars now to assist him because when he moved here he didn't ask for help first. So now to ask for, you know, permission to fix this now, it's -- you know, it's an exhausting task for a lot of officials. And what we just heard was that it's going to be monitored for three years, his property, by officials to make sure that these plants are still alive. THE INTERPRETER: He says yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. THE INTERPRETER: How long does he get to do this? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, before we get to that, you have a question? MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, I guess a statement. This recommendation was written without the knowledge that a house was planned on being built. MS. CROWLEY: No, it was -- I tried to cover both. I tried to cover both, because when you -- when you do -- the recommendations you mean? MR. LEFEBVRE: This recommendation, was it drafted with the knowledge that a house was going to be built on this property? MS. CROWLEY: I can't say that he's going to follow through on it, but the answer is yes, we anticipated that the owner would be following one; his desire was to put a home on the property, yes. June 22, 2017 Page 40 MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Because it says that action has to be taken after ERP permit has been received, but then the house isn't going to be completed in 45 days. MS. CROWLEY: No. The first suggestion was apply for the building permit within 30 days after whatever action the DEP took. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. CROWLEY: But if he chose not to go through, after he realizes what the cost might be, we still had to anticipate what if the house never gets built. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. If the house doesn't get built, then, hypothetically, if all the land was cleared, 1.6 acres would have to be revegetated to the standards of the environmental -- MS. CROWLEY: Including the wetlands area, that's correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. But if the house is built, then there's less that has to be -- MS. CROWLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, let me see if I can simplify things. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah, because this is going to be -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. To begin with -- MS. CURLEY: Wait a minute. Wait. I have a question before you go. So -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: The gentleman has purchased this with an agreement for deed, which means he doesn't really own it until 85 months from November. So will the county issue a permit to somebody who isn't really in physically (sic) ownership of it to him to build it? MR. LEFEBVRE: He's in ownership of it. It's just a mortgage he has on it. Most people have mortgages. MS. CURLEY: Well, it's slightly different. He doesn't own it. June 22, 2017 Page 41 He owns it -- it's a combination, so it's slightly different possession. It's not -- he doesn't own it and then he got a mortgage. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me try this. Who's paying tax on the property? MR. DOINO: There you go. MS. CURLEY: It sometimes often doesn't matter. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He's paying taxes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Mortgage amount. Sales price, 24,000; mortgage amount, 17,000. Eighty-five payments at $200 a month equals $17,000. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So let me go back to -- ah, they're having a meeting over there. Let me see if I can make this a little simpler. As I understand it, Number 1, there's a violation. Number 2, the violation right now has to do with the lot being cleared and the problem with the wetlands. That's what I see right now. In order to come into compliance -- and I'm not talking about dates. In order to come into compliance, you are going to have to go to DEP? MS. CROWLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And in order to go to DEP, you have to tell them, if you intend on building a house, where the house is going to go. MS. CROWLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the first thing is, you have plans for a house, and the plans probably show where the house is going to sit on the property. MS. CROWLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Then when you take that to DEP they say, you have to do this or that to bring the property into compliance. And until -- June 22, 2017 Page 42 MS. CROWLEY: We don't use the word "bring into compliance." They would have to mitigate for the value of the impacts to the wetlands. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And at that time the county can issue a building permit. MS. CROWLEY: Yes, because the environmental resource permit from the DEP will have his plan attached. And the only plan -- building plan that he can apply for is one that matches what he submitted to the DEP. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we have now gone -- now, going back to Sue's question about, in order for him to go to DEP to provide his plans, he probably will need help from some sort of a specialist that says this is what you have to do to get the property in compliance so that you can get a building permit. We agree? MS. CROWLEY: Agreed, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Sue, will you agree? We don't know how much it's going to cost, but he's going to need one of those people, okay? And then, he needs the time -- one second. Then he needs the time to have a response from DEP. I'm trying to make this a little simpler if I can. Yes? THE INTERPRETER: Now, meaning help, help from the county that they're going to help him pay for it or -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Somebody's going to have to help him in his working with DEP. THE INTERPRETER: Yeah, okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the DEP is going to look for this, kind of, tree over here or whatever it is, so he could probably -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Environmental specialist. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The environmental person, before he June 22, 2017 Page 43 submits to DEP, if he had that person helping him, I'm sure it would be well worthwhile. THE INTERPRETER: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We're okay so far? MS. CROWLEY: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Now, at this point, once he goes to DEP and they tell him what they have to do to restore the property, this case goes away. We don't care if it takes him a week, a month, a year, 10 years to build the house, as long as he's in compliance with the building codes. MS. CROWLEY: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CROWLEY: Although, the DEP typically would not require him to restore the vegetation. They would say that the impacts to the wetlands, according to their calculations, amount to X dollars. He will write them a check for X dollars, which they use to purchase other wetland properties, to preserve them throughout the state. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CROWLEY: But they will not say to him, plant this many trees on the property. That will be for the environmental consultant's determination and calculation after doing a survey of the adjacent properties, two of which are still undisturbed -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CROWLEY: -- to see what kind of vegetation was there, would have been there and, assuming that it goes over one acre, what it would take to restore -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The excess -- MS. CROWLEY: -- the excess. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- of the one-acre property to its original state. MS. CROWLEY: Yes. June 22, 2017 Page 44 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So let's -- I would like to follow your format, Joe, but -- MR. MUCHA: By all means. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So let's just start with Item 1. You have the building plans almost completed to build a house? THE INTERPRETER: He should receive them next week. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ORTEGA: Can I pipe in a minute? MS. CURLEY: Yes, please. MR. ORTEGA: Remember that it's not just the building plans. It's your septic field, if there's a storage building, if there's a pool. Any impervious structure has to be noted. The environmental consultant will aid him in providing what trees, what plants need to be replanted, also location of a structure to minimize the impact on the -- to the various (sic). CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So help us out here. You're the expert on this. So, number one, you have the building plans. You now go and get some assistance, I would think, to take to the DEP to get them working on an approval. We agree? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How much time would we allow -- let's see. This is one week here -- to resolve the DEP issues, hiring somebody, have them propose what needs to be done, et cetera, et cetera? MR. ORTEGA: Probably about 60 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Let's make it three months. MR. ORTEGA: If the plans are all -- as he stated, they're ready to be picked up. But does he have his drain field plans ready as well? THE INTERPRETER: No. MR. ORTEGA: Add to that another two weeks. June 22, 2017 Page 45 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So three months? THE INTERPRETER: They have not done that yet. MR. ORTEGA: Minimum. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So now the building plans are ready in a week. We add all this up and we're at three months, maybe even four months before he can go to DEP. MS. CURLEY: Does the timeline change when you're a builder/owner? MR. ORTEGA: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. A code is a code. So let's just say that's four months. And we can adjust these as -- I'm just trying to get a baseline. MR. ORTEGA: When you're an owner/builder, you're acting as a contractor with all the responsibilities that a contractor has, actually, according to Chapter 49. So it's not different. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So let's say four months. We can change it. I'm just trying to come up with a timeline. Four months, he has hired somebody to take a look at the property, see what needs to be done and is ready to take his building plans, that includes a septic field, to DEP for their approval. Okay? DEP will take how long, round figures? MR. ORTEGA: Probably about 30 days. MS. CROWLEY: I think 60 might be closer. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Sixty days. So we have two months for DEP approval, and then he goes to the county and submits everything. And that would take... MR. ORTEGA: The county's going to -- they're going to be under a five-day PMR, but the Health Department's not going to parallel that. They try to. So I would add probably another 15 days to that date. But there's one thing that I left out, and this is for you. When you consider permitting and you have your plans and your June 22, 2017 Page 46 Health Department information, you're probably going to have to undergo a Type A drainage design as well. So now he has to hire a civil engineer to be able to perform that task. So that -- you can add another week or two to that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So the county probably won't -- maybe I'm being generous, or too generous. But let's say it's going to take another three months to get your building permit issued, that includes the drainage fields and everything else. Okay. How many months did I say? Three, okay. Okay. At that point can we get ourselves into compliance here somehow? And no because? MR. LEFEBVRE: I would say no because everything hasn't been restored. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, we'll give him time to restore it. You have to know what to do first before you can restore it. MS. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, while this is happening, while the permitting is going through, his environmental consultant will be -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Able to restore it. MS. CROWLEY: Not -- well, they have to do a survey, they have to submit a plan to the county to say here's the numbers of the trees, the ground cover, the number of shrubs that we calculate were impacted by it, and then it would be reviewed by the county and approved and give the thumbs-up and say, yes, that is acceptable. MR. LEFEBVRE: Your testimony earlier stated that this wouldn't be done until -- MS. CROWLEY: Correct. I'm not saying it's going to -- MR. LEFEBVRE: -- the house was completed. MS. CROWLEY: Normally you don't want to put the vegetation where the construction equipment is going to be going through, because why waste the money if it's going to be damaged or -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're not going to plant a tree and June 22, 2017 Page 47 then dig a hole for a septic. MS. CROWLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I got it. MS. CROWLEY: There's a normal chronology that you would do. So that restoration would typically come at the end. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Now -- MR. LEFEBVRE: So let's include construction of the house. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, he can come into compliance before construction of the house. MR. LEFEBVRE: He could. One way would be to not build the house and restore -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, it depends what the DEP says and what the environmental people say on where you have to put the trees, et cetera. But I'm adding up the time now. Some of this stuff can be done currently, but I'm at three, five, eight. I'm at eight months, okay. I would think if we came up with a plan that showed eight months, with the ability to come back to the Board after eight months to say he's in compliance or he needs more time based on all the things he's done, we would be in a situation that could work. How am I doing, Jeff? MR. LETOURNEAU: He's never going to be -- he's got really two options. He can build the house and then mitigate whatever is above an acre that he's allowed to clear for the house -- MS. CROWLEY: Yes. MR. LETOURNEAU: -- or he could restore the property according to what they put out there on their recommendation. Obviously, it would be a lot better to build the house because to restore it at this point the other way is going to be really costly. Let's be honest about that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well -- and he won't know that until June 22, 2017 Page 48 he speaks to DEP. They may say to restore over an acre is going to cost you $2,500 for plants or whatever, and maybe that's the way he may want to go. But you don't know that until it happens. MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, I mean, he's not just dealing with DEP. He's dealing with the county also. I mean, DEP is the wetland. The county's going to want, you know, mitigation on the trees in the three strata and everything else. So he's dealing with both areas on that one right there. If he builds a house, gets the DEP approval, you know, pays whatever fine they're going to levy on him and then mitigates, you know, whatever is above an acre is going to be a lot easier than going the other route. So I would say that I doubt he's going to go to the -- replanting of the whole property. So I see the way you're going here. Yeah, give him the eight months option to have the permit issued, but to get full mitigation it's going to take inspections, CO, and the mitigation of the remaining whatever above acre (sic) he's cleared. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. I think eight months is fair, and it can come back at that time if it's not done, and we can see the progress that's being made. MR. LETOURNEAU: However, though, if you just put it on here, he's got to get his permit issued in eight months. Will you be able to go back after that eight months and compel him to get the inspections and the CO and mitigate the rest of the property? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, in eight months, he needs to come into compliance based on the code case. That's it. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. I'm not getting that then. I'm sorry. MS. CROWLEY: No. You mean eight months even to apply for the building permit? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, no, no, no. Whatever it takes to June 22, 2017 Page 49 take Paragraph 2 and comply with it, the description of the violation. MS. CURLEY: I don't -- I just think adding what somebody might do in the future to their property is really not part of this case. I think it just makes it more complex that we should be considering that he's going to build a house. The case is the clearing, and so however he amends that, whatever our timeline that we give him, whether it be six months or 60 days, if he has to come back, he has to come back. But, you know, there's the time frame now that's in place because questions weren't asked in the beginning. Had this person asked for assistance in the beginning, they would have a better grasp on the money and the time and the materials that they need. So I don't think giving somebody eight months to come back, you know, is -- I think you're taking into consideration part of the case that doesn't exist. MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, I mean, if you give him the building permit option, you could stagger it with, you have to have the permit issued in eight months, but you're still going to have to have something on here that, you know, tells him he has to get his inspections and CO and take care of the rest of the property. He just can't say, okay, I got my permit; I come back here in eight months. What happens if he never follows through and builds the house? MS. CURLEY: Well, that's my point is that you give him a short amount of time to figure out the expenses that it's going to incur, and so if you have backup expenses that are going to cost as much to correct the offense -- you know, what if it costs as much to fix it as it does the build the house? Well, that's not an economic, you know, transaction that anyone wants to enter into. He may fix the land and move on. But that's, again, not our problem, but we at least need to give this June 22, 2017 Page 50 person who -- I mean, let's bear in mind that I'm having trouble following this, and this is this man's second language, so he's having somebody interpret this for him. So if I'm having trouble following this -- and I'm pretty astute about stuff like this -- it's going to be, you know, a really tough thing for this man to achieve, understanding and in complying with all this. So I think just maybe a smaller window where we can monitor it better where -- if we have to take a different, you know, direction, and stop thinking about the house that's not yet planned yet. MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, yeah, this is tough. I'm sorry. I was -- you know, you could go with Step 1, working with -- like you already laid out, the eight months, have the permit issued. Step -- within -- all right, eight months. Step 2, build the house within the next 12 months after the permit was issued. Then you could put an "or" in there, or mitigate all the vegetation in the DEP per what Michaelle would require as far as the Land Development Code would require. He'd either build the house or replant the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. I don't want to see us put in there you have to build a house by any date because it's not part of the violation. We want to -- I mean, it would be simple for us to just say, you have to answer the description of violation, bring it into compliance in six month, end of case. How you do it is up to you. We could say that, and that would -- that is something you can do. What we're trying to do is help the respondent to know what has to be done to do that, and maybe we're going too into the weeds too deeply to do that, but someone could say, I make a motion that we say we give the respondent six months to come into compliance. Done. Am I wrong? MR. LAVINSKI: Well, I wonder where we are if the DEP comes back and says, okay, the mitigation fee is 30- or $50,000. June 22, 2017 Page 51 MR. LEFEBVRE: The DEP's not going to come back with a determination on what it's going to cost. MS. CURLEY: The fine, he's saying. MR. LAVINSKI: No, the fine. He's violating wetlands. MS. CROWLEY: They call it mitigation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Because -- this is how the -- MR. LAVINSKI: Same; mitigation fee. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- mitigation works is because you're destroying part of your property, you have to pay to purchase somewhere else. MR. LAVINSKI: Right. And that fee is $50,000. MR. LEFEBVRE: Probably won't be 50-. MS. CROWLEY: It probably will not be $50,000. MR. LAVINSKI: How about 30-? MS. CROWLEY: It depends upon the extent of it and the quality of the wetlands. You know, they rank the wetlands according to their quality. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. So we don't have any idea? MS. CURLEY: Is it $50 or 50,000? MR. LAVINSKI: So why don't we just get ourselves up to that point? MS. CURLEY: Just for educational purposes. MR. LAVINSKI: Get the DEP approval. MS. CROWLEY: It might be the 10- to $15,000 range. MR. LEFEBVRE: There's way too many variables. MR. DOINO: Bring this back? MR. LEFEBVRE: No. MR. ORTEGA: How about a 90-day period just to gather intel so the man knows where he stands, and then he could come back to the Board. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think that's an excellent idea. June 22, 2017 Page 52 MR. DOINO: I like that one. MR. L'ESPERANCE: If that's in the form of a motion, I will second it. MS. CURLEY: So that was very helpful, that bit of information, because -- THE COURT REPORTER: I need one at a time. I'm having trouble. MS. CURLEY: So that information about the DEP -- MR. DOINO: Yeah. I'll make a motion; 90 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hold on one second. We're going to talk one at a time, or you need two more hands. Okay. Mr. Doino wants to make a motion. Go ahead. MR. DOINO: Make a motion for 90 days; that we come back and see what's said from the DEP. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I will second that motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can I throw a suggestion in there so we don't make this -- that it's -- we bring it back. It's not a continuance. There are no fines accruing, et cetera, so that we just come back in 90 days after the respondent has had an opportunity to do his due diligence, and then we'd be in more of a position to resolve the situation. MS. CURLEY: I think -- I don't -- what's Jeff shaking his head for? MR. LETOURNEAU: I mean, I'm not sure we're going to be any better off 90 days from now. Have you found a violation? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, we did. MR. LETOURNEAU: I mean -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, in 90 days he will have had an opportunity to have his building plans and go to DEP to see what the story is. MS. CURLEY: Well, again, you keep talking about the building June 22, 2017 Page 53 plans. It's not like you're a partner with him on this. It's not -- that's not our board's business; his -- MR. LAVINSKI: He needs the plans to -- MS. CURLEY: If he finds out that he has a $15,000 mitigation fee that he has to pay -- he paid $20,000 for the lot -- that's not going to work out. It's just not in the cards. So I think we need to take it baby steps. But there's a fine. I don't know why we -- I think the fines -- we found that there's a violation happening, and I think if we put money on it now while we give him 90 days, if the house doesn't come to fruition, that's fine. We can discuss removing the fines later. But, I mean, this man destroyed this entire piece of property and didn't ask for help, so I think that there -- I agree with the 90 days, but I think it should be -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I don't think we ever had a motion here without a fine. So I would oppose this motion if it -- there's not a fine attached to it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, the fine would come after the 90 days, so there is no fine prior to the 90 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: There's nothing compelling him to move forward. MR. LAVINSKI: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: He'd be at the mercy to come back in front of this board and say I don't have the money, so forth and so on. I think we need to compel him with some kind of monetary incentive. MR. LAVINSKI: I agree. MS. CURLEY: Jeff? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So? MR. LETOURNEAU: The county agrees with that, yeah. MR. DOINO: A hundred days -- I mean, $100-a-day fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: After the 90 days? MR. DOINO: After 90 days. June 22, 2017 Page 54 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any problem with that? MR. LEFEBVRE: I think $100 is not -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's $100 a day. MR. LEFEBVRE: A day, right. I understand. For what has been done to this property, I think 100 is a little bit on the light side, but that's just myself. MR. DOINO: We could see after it comes back then, you know. MR. LEFEBVRE: We typically don't change a fine. MR. LAVINSKI: We can't change that. MR. LEFEBVRE: We typically don't change a fine after a period, so... MS. NICOLA: I don't think you can. MS. CURLEY: Well, let's -- it's a fine. MS. NICOLA: I mean, once the order is done, the order is done. You know, the appeal process has ended. You don't come back and redo it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm looking at some logical things. The property is bought for 20,000, as you said. You can have fines that will be more -- that cost you more than the property is worth, and you're making the decision for him. So I don't think $100 is outrageous. I think 90 days should give him the opportunity to see where he sits and what he's going to do. We'll find that out in three months. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm not looking at it as a basis of what the fine is versus what the property costs. That's irrelevant. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I know. MR. LEFEBVRE: The property could be worth a lot more than that; don't know. But what I'm looking at is the significance of the damage done to the property. That's -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, we have a motion and a second. I call the question. June 22, 2017 Page 55 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You had added 100 to it? MR. DOINO: Yes, correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The second agreed to that? MR. LETOURNEAU: Could we get some clarification on what the vote is at this point that you're voting on? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. Saying that we grant the respondent 90 days. MS. CURLEY: So are we talking about Line Item No. 1? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm not looking at what they wrote at all other than the 67.64 to be paid within 30 days. Okay? I'm -- if I'm misspeaking, somebody correct me; that we grant the respondent 90 days or $100 a day after that if he does not come into compliance; that he come back here -- we're going to say that -- to come back to let us know exactly which avenue he wants to pursue. MS. CURLEY: Excuse me. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. So you're -- just -- it's broad. You're relying on the county to make the determination he's come into compliance in that 90 days at that point? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. MR. LETOURNEAU: And then if he doesn't, then, you know, if he's halfway there, you can grant him more time or whatever at that point? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct, at 90 days. MS. NICOLA: But for purposes of preparing the order, it can't be vague. I can't just say we need 90 days to come into compliance. How do we define that? Because -- are you suggesting that we write this order as written? Because I don't think that covers what we've been talking about here. So I think we have to modify the terms of this order to make certain what it is that is expected of this man in 90 days. Are we going to write it up that we expect that he will obtain building permits? Are June 22, 2017 Page 56 we -- I mean, are we expecting that he obtains building permits and has the DEP involved? I mean, I just think it has to be clear, particularly with the language barrier. MS. CURLEY: Can we modify the stipulation? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: There is no stipulation. MR. LETOURNEAU: No. The recommendation you mean? THE INTERPRETER: Is the problem -- is the problem that you think that he's not going to do this, or he's not going to be able to do it? MS. NICOLA: The problem is trying to figure out what exactly we need to require him to do within 90 days so that he clearly understands it, so that the county clearly understands it, and so that the Board clearly understands it. That's what we all want here. And I'm charged with drafting an order that tells him what he needs to do. And so for my purposes, I need to have that very clear. And this -- I'm a lawyer. This is very confusing to me. What we're -- I mean, we're all over the place here, so we have to be clear. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Does "come into compliance" -- MS. NICOLA: Pardon me? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Does "come into compliance" -- is that too broad a statement. MS. NICOLA: You tell me. Absolutely that's too broad of a statement, because he doesn't understand what it means. I know you do, Bob, so tell me what it means. MR. LAVINSKI: I don't. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That means that the description of violation is resolved in that the site work that was done is now -- all this is into compliance. MS. CURLEY: Well, we have to give this gentleman some tools to either succeed or not. And by saying "come into compliance" is not giving him the tools that he needs. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I'm all ears. Come on. June 22, 2017 Page 57 MS. NICOLA: Well, we started with he has building plans that are in the process of being obtained. THE INTERPRETER: He will get them next week. MS. NICOLA: He will get them next week. So Step No. 2 would be that he needs to go to the Building Department and -- no. Okay. See? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You have to go to DEP. MS. NICOLA: He has to go to the DEP first. So Step No. 1 would be how much time does he have to get those plans to the DEP? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I wrote -- MS. NICOLA: Is this the 90 days? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I wrote them down, and then I added them up. MS. NICOLA: So we'll just take that piece of paper that you've handwritten, and we'll have you sign it -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. NICOLA: I can't see that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I know this is a complicated case. We're trying to be as fair as we can to the respondent, and we are trying to be as fair to the taxpayers who have the right to keep the property the way it should be out there. So you're doing a balancing act. He has the building -- he should have his building plans in a week, and he should be able to get to DEP as part of resolving Paragraph 2, those things. He should -- MR. ORTEGA: Not exactly. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Excuse me? MR. ORTEGA: Not exactly. When you say "building plans," it's not just the building footprint. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, no, no. All the necessary -- all the necessary plans that he intends to bring to the county to apply for a June 22, 2017 Page 58 building permit. Okay? I'd almost like to stop right there and, if he can do that, give him time to do that, and then tackle the rest of this, because then it starts getting complicated. You have your building plans, you take them to DEP. DEP says, thank you very much. Here's what your fine is, what your mitigation cost is, if you will, and at that time we're going to know whether this is going to go forward or not. MS. NICOLA: So the question is, to the county, is 90 days sufficient to do that, to know what the fine's going to be, to be able -- for this person, as an owner/builder, to know that he will be able to go forward; is that enough time? And I don't know, so that's why I'm asking the question. MS. CROWLEY: I don't know either. The DEP's going to be making the decision, and that's out of the county's hands as far as the time frame. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's why I added extra time in there -- whether it's 90 days. I had written down three months, so that's close to 90 days. At that point he has his plans, he takes them to DEP and has hired somebody, I guess, to find out what it's going to cost to restore the property or whatever has to be done. DEP says, your mitigation costs are whatever they are, and before he submits all that for his permit for the county, he should have an idea of whether he's going to go forward with that or not. MS. CROWLEY: Yes, by then he would know what the mitigation amount is going to be. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's what we don't know now. MS. CROWLEY: Correct. And he, presumably, by that time, concurrently, will have consulted with his environmental consultant to give him a ballpark figure as to what he'd be looking at to restore June 22, 2017 Page 59 beyond the one acre and, presumably, his environmental consultant will have access to those plans, ultimately, to know where the driveway's going to be, where the drain field is, where his garage is going to be; all those impervious things that could impact the wetlands to know, are the calculations going to include any part of the wetlands restoration or not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Now, at that point, I'd almost like to separate it, as you've done, Joe, into, one, 90 days for that. Then we can require him to return here to let us know what he's going to do and how much time he's going to require. But 90 days, I think, should be sufficient time to do that. He's not going to be in compliance in 90 days. MS. NICOLA: Let me pose a question, because I think part of the difficulty is No. 2 of the recommended order. Could we or, should we, I guess is the question, draft it up as No. 1 with the 90 days, because I think that makes sense but, perhaps, continue or withdraw the issue of No. 2 for -- could we break it into two issues. Because it is two issues. The issue of the second part of the order, which is to come into compliance with the vegetation, have that issue on another day, because we don't know right now if he's going to build the house. If it's too onerous for him to build this house, if he finds out he's got a $30,000 fine from the DEP, my guess is that he's probably not going to be able to pay that, and the idea of building your dream home is no more. So part No. 2 of the order, it doesn't really make sense today because of the unknown. I almost think that what we should do is draft up No. 1, give him the 90 days, then he'll be able to tell us when he comes back here whether he's going to be able to come into compliance with No. 2. I mean, I just think it's almost nonsensical to put No. 2 in effect right now with an unknown. June 22, 2017 Page 60 MS. CURLEY: I agree. In addition, we could be mindful of sometimes when we keep a shorter time frame on this -- because then we have the properties transferring, you know. Then we have these things that linger on for years and years. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you put the -- your sheet up there that has 67 -- MR. LETOURNEAU: I've got a question for Tamara. If we do this and he comes back in 90 days and he's made some progress on 1, can the Board add onto that order later on and compel him to mitigate further after this? Because this is -- I mean, this is not even partial mitigation at this point. I mean -- MS. NICOLA: Well, I think that what you can do is I think you can grant the county's request for No. 1, and then you could abate the county's request or you could continue the county's request, if you will, for the second part of the violation. So maybe what we do is we say, you know, we're going to go vote -- we're going to vote in part, and we're going to defer in part. So we're going to vote that there's a violation that exists for No. 1 which is, obviously, that he has improperly cleared his property and that something needs to be done about it; that he needs to go to the environmental resources -- the DEP and get the environmental resources permit and that we are unable at this point to make a decision on the second part, which is that he has to mitigate the vegetation. He has to take some action to restore the property, because we don't know at this point whether he's going to build a house or not. I mean -- and I know that we don't want to look into the future, but I think we kind of are because he's not going to be able to know whether he can do what he wants to do until we know how much it's going to cost him. I mean, that's very clear to me from -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So if we read this, the 67.64 is paid within 30 days, must apply for an environmental permit from Florida June 22, 2017 Page 61 Department of Environmental Protection for review of the proposed site alteration for the exemption letter, et cetera, within 90 days, or a fine of $100 each day, and the county defers any further action on this violation until after the 90 days, or words to that effect. MR. LEFEBVRE: Point of order. Are we still working on the current vote that we have? We have a motion and a second. We never voted on that. We never rescinded that. MS. NICOLA: I think you would need to rescind -- MR. LEFEBVRE: So for point of order, we need to either rescind that order and work on this. MS. NICOLA: You would have to rescind the motion that the violation exists, and then you would have to have someone else make a motion -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The motion that a violation exists, that's done. It doesn't have to be rescinded. MR. LEFEBVRE: The recommendation. MS. NICOLA: The recommendation, yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Doino, would you rescind -- you want to rescind your -- MR. DOINO: With the 90 days? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You rescind your motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: And the second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do we have a second to rescind it also? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. June 22, 2017 Page 62 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. I don't know if you need to vote on it or not. MR. LEFEBVRE: It was never voted on. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, we did it in case. So, got that. Now, if we go to Paragraph 1 that's in front of us and we put the 90 days in there or the fine of $100 each, we need a paragraph for No. 2 that says we want to defer any further action on this violation until after the determination is made per Paragraph 1. MS. NICOLA: I just think that maybe in No. 2 we could probably write in there language -- we can include the language as part of No. 2, but we say in the order that the issues concerning the vegetation removal, clearing, et cetera, is deferred to another date. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I have no problem -- MS. NICOLA: And it can just be brought back. I think it can be brought back by the county, which is a simple open-ended deferral. It's almost like reserving jurisdiction in a court order for a further determination. That's what we're doing here, basically. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we don't know the exact language for Paragraph 2 unless you want to come up with it right now. MS. NICOLA: I'll come up with it later. How's that? It's basically going to be a reservation of jurisdiction in Code Enforcement language. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We're going to defer Paragraph 2 and any other paragraphs after that at a later date. Okay. So based on that -- is that your motion? June 22, 2017 Page 63 MR. DOINO: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And is that your second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any discussion on that? MR. ORTEGA: One final comment. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. ORTEGA: Sue brought up a -- and Tamara brought up a point, an important point. It's important what we're saying here. What's even more important is that he understands it -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I will explain to him. (Simultaneous speakers.) MR. ORTEGA: -- part of the steps. Number 1, we're talking about an environmental consultant. He doesn't know where to go. The county has environmental consultants. They're not going to tell you who to use. THE INTERPRETER: I can -- I'm -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let's vote on this first, and then we'll do the explanation portion next. Okay? All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: We're not going to discuss it? Okay. Go ahead. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You want to discuss before we go to -- MR. LEFEBVRE: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those opposed? June 22, 2017 Page 64 MR. LEFEBVRE: Opposed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So it passes. Now, would you like to -- MR. LEFEBVRE: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. It's important, as you said, for the respondent to know what he needs to do now. So he needs to -- THE INTERPRETER: I'm here to help him. We're friends. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. What we voted on in the language you'll get says that he needs to do what Paragraph 1 here says, which basically is -- THE INTERPRETER: He can't read it. MS. NICOLA: You can. THE INTERPRETER: I can't see it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Which basically says -- (The interpreter is reading to the petitioner.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. What the order says, basically, is you pay the 67.64 within 30 days, and you're going to take your building plans to DEP, you're going to speak to an environmental consultant to find out just -- it's for your benefit -- what needs to be done, and return here in 90 days, and then you'll know what you're going to do, and you can let the Board know, and then the Board will be able to grant additional time as required to do what you need to do. Jeff, you're shaking your head. MR. LETOURNEAU: It's just too ambiguous, but, you know -- I think it would have been a little bit better just to maybe simplify what Michaelle had and comply (sic) him to come into -- you know, there's really no -- anything to get him into compliance at this time. I mean, he -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well -- MS. CURLEY: Also, this -- this has been since December 15th. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. June 22, 2017 Page 65 THE INTERPRETER: The reason why it took -- I mean, this is all like -- I mean, what happened happened. He was served papers. He never showed them to us. He never said anything to us. He was speaking to a gentleman that was speaking to him that came to -- that gave him his fines or whatnot, the -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Investigator Serna? THE INTERPRETER: Yes. And then that's what the problem was. He never said anything to us. We didn't know. I found out last night when he brought me the paperwork. Because if I would have known -- you know, we built a house by owner. It took us a year. We had to go through all of this, you know, but we were unaware. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He did remove a lot of the stuff that was dumped there, so it's not like nothing was done. THE INTERPRETER: No, he's -- and he wants to do good by -- you know, he wants to build his house. He just -- he's only been here from Spain only two years, a little over two years, and he was unaware. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So we're trying our best to be as helpful as we can to the respondent. It's -- this is not a health -- safety and health. It's a piece of property that a year from now will still be a piece of property. I don't think it will harm anything. If it does, it will be -- the EPA will tell him what needs to do -- what he needs to do to restore it so no harm comes to the property. Yes, Jeff. MR. LETOURNEAU: One question. When we do come back in three months, would you recommend that the county have some kind of simplified recommendation -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. LETOURNEAU: -- to move on from that point? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. I've got something in mind right now, June 22, 2017 Page 66 so... MR. LAVINSKI: Don't let Joe write it. MS. NICOLA: I think, too, that we probably have to -- MR. MUCHA: I didn't. MR. LETOURNEAU: Joe was dreading having to read that thing, to be honest with you. MS. NICOLA: I think that the last part of the sentence, too, has to be removed, which says, "and must mitigate with the DEP as necessary to offset impacts," because we've already discussed that that's not going to be possible within 90 days. So I would just suggest that we leave it as "within the wetlands" period, and strike the rest of that sentence, because that's really going to be part of the Part 2 issue, for, you know, future determination. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. NICOLA: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Well, will that ensure us that he's got DEP approval and he's paid the fine, whatever it is? MS. NICOLA: I have no idea. That would be up to DEP, right? I mean -- MR. LAVINSKI: The mitigation cost. MS. NICOLA: -- I don't know how long they give him to pay a fine. MR. LAVINSKI: Whatever you want to call it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. THE INTERPRETER: I have a question -- he has a question. Is he going to be able to -- when they give him this fine, does it have to be all paid up upfront; do you know? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't know what their process is. MS. NICOLA: No clue. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: In order for them to give you the paperwork -- June 22, 2017 Page 67 MR. LEFEBVRE: The approval, yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It could be, as you said, a bigger number. It also could be a smaller number. MS. CROWLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We don't know. MR. LAVINSKI: But it could be a show stopper. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, it can; no question about it. MR. LAVINSKI: So let's not get beyond that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That's what we tried to do with this. Okay. Any other comments, questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We will see you after the summer. Okay. Thank you. THE INTERPRETER: Thank you so much. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We're going to take 10 minutes. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board back to order. Our next case is? MS. ADAMS: Okay. The next two cases are together, so they'll be combined. It's Tab 6 and Tab 7. Case CEVR20170001173, KGB Properties, LLC, and Case CEVR20170004251, KGB Properties, LLC. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name on the microphone, please. MR. BONITO: Kevin Bonito. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Are you the K in KGB? MR. BONITO: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Did you see how I figured June 22, 2017 Page 68 that out? Okay. Jonathan? Do you want to hear both cases together? We'll vote on them separately. One's for 5327 and the other one is 5325, I believe, the address. MR. MUSSE: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MUSSE: Okay. Good morning. For the record, Investigator Jonathan Musse, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CEVR20170001173 and Case No. CEVR20170004251 in dealing with the violations of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 3.05.08(C), 1.04.01(A), 2.02.03, and Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances Chapter 54, Article VI, Section 54.185(D) and 54.179, presence of prohibited exotic vegetation including, but not limited to, Brazilian pepper, java plum, air potato, carrot wood, earleaf acacia, Australian pine on this unimproved property not zoned estates or agricultural, and located within a 200-foot radius of an abutting improved property. Also observed the illegal outside storage located at 5327 Georgia Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34113, Folio No. 62093440000, and 5325 Georgia Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34113, Folio No. 62093400008. Service was given on March 14th, 2017. I would like to present the case evidence in the following exhibits: For case number ending in 1173, five photos taken on March 9, 2017, and six photos taken on May 10, 2017. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen the photos? MR. MUSSE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can I get a motion to accept the photos. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. DOINO: Second. June 22, 2017 Page 69 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. MUSSE: And for case number ending in 4251, 13 photos, taken on March 9th, 2017. All photos were taken by me. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Same question. Has the respondent seen the photos? MR. MUSSE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No problem with the photos? MR. BONITO: No. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion and a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) June 22, 2017 Page 70 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. MUSSE: I conducted a site inspection on January 23rd and observed some possible exotic vegetation on those two unimproved lots. I forwarded the photos to Environmental Specialist Michaelle Crowley, where she later identified Brazilian peppers and air potato. She also informed me that this was exotic vegetation within a 200-foot radius from an improved property ordinance. I was able to get in contact with the business owner of KGB Property, LLC, Mr. Kevin Bonito. He requested a meeting on site with Ms. Crowley so that he can get a better understanding of the violation and find out exactly what needed to be done to come into compliance. After speaking with Ms. Crowley, finding out her availability, I tried making -- made attempts to contact Mr. Bonito, but we could not get -- I didn't get a response back. Myself and Crowley conducted a site inspection on the property on March 9th where she was able to identify six exotic vegetations, including Brazilian pepper, java plum, air potato, carrot wood, earleaf acacia, and Australian pine. I also observed the illegal outside storage consisting of, but not limited to, manmade vegetative debris, TVs, cardboard boxes, chairs, jet ski, tires, bottles, et cetera. I reissued the notice of violation to add the additional exotics and outside storage. I made several reinspections; didn't see much of an improvement. The outside storage was still there. A site inspection was conducted yesterday. Violation remains. I was able to get in contact with Mr. Bonito. He informed me that he plans on building a home on these two lots within the next year. As of right now, there is no exotic vegetation removal permits, no permits for the home at this time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you have any pictures of June 22, 2017 Page 71 the debris? MR. MUSSE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh. MR. MUSSE: It's not much outside storage. I mean, I've been to worse properties, but there is -- nonetheless, when I saw the jet ski, that definitely had to get removed. MR. LEFEBVRE: The jet ski has been removed, you said? MR. MUSSE: It needs to be removed, I would imagine. MS. CURLEY: It doesn't -- there wasn't, like, a homeless camp or something there before? MR. MUSSE: Probably at one time it was. But when we walked through, we didn't see any homeless people there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Is that all the photos? Okay. Sir? Your turn. MR. BONITO: I spoke with Jonathan about, you know, all the violations. So I understand what needs to be done to correct it; just remove all the exotic vegetation and, you know, all the debris, everything like that that's just been dumped there. I had a plan to build a home shortly. I had a financial situation with family, so the funds have gone somewhere else. I have received quotes to clear the property and have made several attempts but one -- the only quote that I have right now in writing is 32,000 just to clear all -- the two -- of all the exotic vegetation. So it's kind of pricey. What I wanted to ask for is something kind of simple, about a year, to have all the exotic vegetation removed and all the debris that are there in order for me to build a home. I have planned to have the building process started within the next year. And whether I build or not, I'd still have everything cleared within one year. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Before we discuss those items, we have to find out whether a violation exists. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion a violation exists. June 22, 2017 Page 72 MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second that a violation exists. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing -- yes? MS. CURLEY: Is this for both -- are we hearing both cases? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're going to vote on each one individually. Okay. This one is -- MR. LAVINSKI: 1173. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. There are two lots; 5325 and 5327. So let's vote on 5327 first. All those that agree that a violation exists, say aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. And for the other lot, 5325, same motion. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? June 22, 2017 Page 73 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. Here we are. One item I wanted to mention; I don't know if you gathered it from the previous cases. In order to clear the vegetation -- I don't know what size lots these are or how much you're going to clear. If you intend to build on there, it makes sense to get your building permit and do that. You just can't go in there, unless you get just a clearing permit, to do it. So I just wanted to mention that upfront. You might want to get more information on that from either Michaelle or from Jonathan. So, with that, questions, comments from the Board? You have a suggestion for us? MR. MUSSE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. It will be a suggestion for both lots. And, again, whatever it is, we'll vote on them separately. MR. MUSSE: Okay. The county recommends that the Code Enforcement Board order the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $65.36 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by removing all Collier County prohibited exotic vegetation that exists within a 200-foot radius from any abutting improved property. The use of heavy machinery to do mechanical clearing of exotic vegetation requires a vegetative removal permit to be obtained in advance. When prohibited exotic vegetation foliage is removed but the base of the vegetation remains, the base in every cut stem or stump must be immediately treated with a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved herbicide containing a visible tracer dye within X amount of days of this hearing, or a fine of X amount of dollars per day will be imposed until the violation's abated; Two, removing all unauthorized accumulation of litter from the property to a site intended for final disposal within X amount of days June 22, 2017 Page 74 of this hearing, or a fine of X amount of dollars per day will be imposed until the violation's abated. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct the final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MS. CURLEY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Shoot. MS. CURLEY: So just -- because I'm not familiar with this. If you were to get a building permit -- and that would include clearing the lot for -- MR. MUSSE: They do actually -- part of the building permit, if you get a home, one of the inspections is exotic vegetation removal. MS. CURLEY: So it would need to be done the same way, but -- MR. MUSSE: It's just part of building process for a home. MS. CURLEY: So if you get a permit -- I'm just -- if you get a permit, like, how long -- once he clears that, how long does he have to start building? MR. MUSSE: That's a good question for the Permitting Department. They have six months. Once the permit's active for six months, each passing inspection extends that six-month period. So as long as they keep that permit active, they're okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: From an economy of scale, if you're going to clear the lot anyhow, you might as well do it, and with a building permit -- MR. MUSSE: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- otherwise, you're going to spend June 22, 2017 Page 75 money for a vegetation removal permit -- and I don't know if it would be one or two permits since it's two lots -- and then when you get your building permit, you're going to wind up clearing the site for your home, so... MR. MUSSE: Yep. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But that's up to the respondent to decide. MS. CURLEY: Can we ask you, are you building the home on -- combining the lots for your home, or are you -- MR. BONITO: No. It would be two separate homes. MS. CURLEY: Two separate homes, okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What's the size of these lots? They're 660 by -- no. MR. BONITO: No, they're small residential lots. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, 80 by 100. Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Eighty by 125, probably. MR. BONITO: I think that's right. MS. CURLEY: Well, I think that a year is a little long to pick up some debris. So I could try to take a swat at this, the blanks here, if you don't mind. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: I think I'll start with No. 2 first, removing all unauthorized accumulation of litter from the property to a site intended for final disposal within 60 days of this hearing, or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that the same thing that you want -- we'll vote separately. MS. CURLEY: No, that's for No. 1. I think that's not a hard exercise. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, no, no. I meant for -- MS. CURLEY: I mean, excuse me, No. 2. Now, No. 1, I would June 22, 2017 Page 76 like some assistance with that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, no, no, no, no. That's not what my question is. My question is we have two -- MS. CURLEY: Oh, I beg your pardon. Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: 5325 and 5327, so it would be the same -- MS. CURLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- suggestion for both of those properties? MS. CURLEY: Yes, sir. Number 2 for both properties would be 60 days to pick up the trash, or a $100-a-day fine posts the 60th day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: And No. 1, does anybody want to lend a hand here? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. I think -- with regard to No. 1, I think we ought to take a hard look at this, because if you ride down Livingston Road, County Barn Road, Santa Barbara Road -- Boulevard and look east, you see forests of exotic vegetation. So I can't really get excited about this gentleman having to remove that stuff in the next two-and-a-half months or whatever. MS. CURLEY: I agree. I was -- MR. LAVINSKI: So I think -- if you want to go along with it, something like a year, or a fine of maybe $50 a day. To be realistic, I mean, if this were the last two lots in Collier County with exotics, I could get excited, but I can't get excited when I ride up those three roads I mentioned and see the exotics. MS. CURLEY: Okay. So then we'll fill in No. 2, without reading -- or No. 1, without reading everything; we'll give him -- so do we do days or a -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: 365 days. MS. CURLEY: 365 days, or a fine of, let's just say -- let's just June 22, 2017 Page 77 stick to the $100. MR. LAVINSKI: I would think 100 would be too high. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You have two of them, so whatever it is times two. MS. CURLEY: Okay, $50. So Item No. 1 is 365 days, or a fine of $50 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated, and that's for both properties. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And the $65.36 will be paid within 30 days? MS. CURLEY: Times two. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Just keep in mind, he said he's going to build two houses. Obviously, he's not going to live in both. So one he's going to sell. So this is more -- or potentially sell both of them. So this is more of an investment-type for him. MS. CURLEY: Congratulations. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just -- I think to give him a year might be -- and $50 is a little bit low. A little bit long for 365 -- 365 days and a little bit low at $50. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Call the question, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. I'll just review it real quickly. And I'm going to -- this will be on -- the number of the property is 5325 for the first one. It's 65.36 to be paid within 30 days, 365 days to remove the items in Paragraph 1, or $50 thereafter, and for No. 2, 60 days or a fine of -- is that -- $100, excuse me -- $100 per day for Item No. 2. This, again, is for Property 5325. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. June 22, 2017 Page 78 MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Same motion for Property 5327. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. You understand where we're at? MR. BONITO: Yeah. I mean, basically clear the vegetation in one year, clear all the litter/junk within 60 days. MS. CURLEY: Yes. MR. BONITO: And I have to pay the $65. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: For each case. MS. CURLEY: Each case you have the administrative fee. MR. BONITO: Once I clear the, whatever, litter and junk, how do I -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You'll contact -- Jonathan will let you know who to call. He'll give you his card. June 22, 2017 Page 79 MR. BONITO: All right. All right. Thank you. MS. CURLEY: Hopefully we won't see you again. Good luck. MR. BONITO: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is from No. 6, old business, Letter A, motion for imposition of fines/liens No. 2, Tab 10, Case CEVR20160020159, Marcia Noel, Incorporated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And just on this case that -- we have a revised Tab 10 that the operational costs have been paid. Okay. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Sir, could you state your name on the microphone for us. MR. NOEL: CJ Noel, president of the company. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you're here to request something? MR. NOEL: Yes. I've cut the trees, get the place cleared off, and I'm asking to have all the fees waived. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You are now in compliance? MR. NOEL: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And all the fees have been paid? MR. NOEL: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any discussion from the Board? MS. CURLEY: Just a day of trees. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Anybody like to make a motion? MR. LAVINSKI: So, Joe, does this mean that he has an ongoing maintenance program included? MR. MUCHA: I'm sorry? MR. LAVINSKI: Is there an ongoing maintenance program regarding the exotics that they have to comply with? MR. MUCHA: I think -- I mean, there was pepper hedges there, is that correct, Mr. Noel? June 22, 2017 Page 80 MR. NOEL: Yes. MR. MUCHA: And it was removed. MR. NOEL: Completely removed. MR. MUCHA: As far as I know, we're good for now. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay. MR. MUCHA: I mean, yeah, we're -- the case is closed on our end. MR. LAVINSKI: All right. I'll make a motion to abate the -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Reword that; to deny the county's motion. That's what they like to hear. MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. Whatever he said. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Go ahead. MR. LAVINSKI: I make a motion to deny the county's request to implement a fine of 5,813.09 and abate that to an amount of zero. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. For the Board's edification, for whoever wasn't here, this is the way the magistrate does it and what they've requested of us to do as June 22, 2017 Page 81 well. Does the same thing. MS. CURLEY: Thank you. MR. NOEL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MR. NOEL: Do I get a copy of that somewhere? MS. NICOLA: You will. I'll draft the order, and I'll send you a copy. MR. NOEL: Okay. Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case is No. 4, Tab 12, Case CESD20160008108, 212 New Market Road, LLC. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. HOWELL: So help me God, I do. MR. MUCHA: I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you are here to -- state your name on the mic. MR. HOWELL: I'm Cecil Howell. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you're here to? MR. HOWELL: If I can get my fines waivered on this case. MS. CURLEY: Did everybody see the revised tab? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. The operational costs for today have been paid. Any discussion or motion from the Board? MR. LAVINSKI: I'm just surprised he's still here after our previous case. MR. HOWELL: I tell you what, I have a new appreciation for y'all watching this for what, two hours and -- almost two-and-a-half hours for all that y'all go through. I didn't realize y'all went through this every day or whatever. But God help you is all I've got to say. MR. LEFEBVRE: It's only once a month. MS. CURLEY: All right. It's a lot better live than on TV, though. June 22, 2017 Page 82 MS. NICOLA: By the way, you are on TV. MR. HOWELL: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you sing or dance or anything? MR. HOWELL: No, sir. MS. CURLEY: I just have one comment, and then I'll make a motion. I'm a little disappointed that we're not talking about agriculture or trees today. But since we're talking about a walk-in cooler, I make a motion to deny the county's fines of $22,563.09. MR. DOINO: Second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. Any discussion on that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. HOWELL: Thank you, guys. Appreciate it -- and ladies. MS. ADAMS: And the last case is from Letter C, hearings, No. 3, Tab 3, Case CESD20160016422, Najeeb Ullah. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. DOINO: What tab is this? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Three. MS. CURLEY: Three. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The respondent isn't present. June 22, 2017 Page 83 MR. MUSSE: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. MUSSE: For the record, Investigator Jonathan Musse, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20160016422 dealing with the violations of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i); interior remodeling consisting of, but not limited to, removing of drywall and insulation with plans to replace them with new drywall without first obtaining a valid Collier County permit. Located at 5349 Holland Street, Naples, Florida, 34113; Folio No. 62205720000. Service was given on October 7th, 2016. I would now like to present the case evidence in the following exhibits: Five photos taken on October 6th, 2016, and two photos taken on June 6th, 2017. All photos were taken by me. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Could we get a motion to accept the photos. MR. DOINO: 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. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) June 22, 2017 Page 84 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. MUSSE: I conducted a site inspection on October 6th, 2016, where I observed the dumpster in the front yard. The front door was wide open, and I was able to observe the interior of the property and observed that it was completely gutted. I checked our data base and did not find an active permit for the work being done. On October 7th, 2016, the Building Official reviewed the case and confirmed that a permit would be required for the work being done on the property. I was able to get in contact with the property owner, Mr. Ullah, where I informed him of the Building Official's determination and what he would need to do to obtain a permit. Mr. Ullah, with the assistance of the permitting consultant, Octavio Sarmiento, Jr., obtained Permit No. PRBD20161039192 for demo of all interior Sheetrock, wall and ceiling, also demo back wood deck. On March 23rd, 2017, I noticed the permit was about on expire in a month. I sent Mr. Sarmiento an email informing him of the permit's expiration date and if he could give me an update. A week before the expiration date, I again sent Mr. Sarmiento an email requesting an update and also reminding him about -- the permit is about to expire. On the 23rd of April 2017 the permit expired. A couple days later I received an email from Mr. Sarmiento stating that he spoke with the contractors and advised them to call in for the final inspection. As of right now the permit has not been reactivated. Violation remains. A site inspection was made yesterday where I observed that the remodeling was complete and the property is currently -- currently has a tenant. I spoke to the tenant and was able to observe from the inside of June 22, 2017 Page 85 the house that everything was remodeled and done. I spoke to Mr. Ullah, stating that he didn't believe a permit was required for the work that was done. He kind of got the demolition permit as a courtesy and did not obtain a permit for rebuilding -- remodeling the dwelling. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So he got a permit to do the demo -- MR. MUSSE: Just the demo. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- but not a permit to redo everything. MR. MUSSE: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hanging the drywall. Was there plumbing and electrical involved? MR. MUSSE: Fully. Yeah everything; yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Everything. Okay. Okay. So does a violation exist? MR. LAVINSKI: Make a motion that a violation does exist. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Jonathan, you have a suggestion for us that's shorter than the last suggestion we had? June 22, 2017 Page 86 MR. MUSSE: The county recommends the Code Enforcement Board to order the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $65.36 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy within X amount of days of this hearing, or a fine of X amount of dollars will be imposed until the violation's abated. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MS. CURLEY: I have a question. Shouldn't No. 1 just say building permits since now we know he's built it? MR. MUSSE: Unless he wants to tear down his entire house; but you're right. MS. CURLEY: It may be a little misleading because he thinks he has that already as a courtesy to you. MR. MUSSE: He has not got the CO for the -- he hasn't cleared that permit, finalized that demo permit yet. So if he -- unless the Permitting Department will void that out in place of the building permit, he would have to close out that original demolition permit. MS. CURLEY: So we should say "and;" the building permit and demo permit, not and -- not "or." MR. MUSSE: Correct. MS. CURLEY: Okay. So can we change that? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You can. MR. LEFEBVRE: Question. Since you had knowledge that the property has been rebuilt, the description of violation doesn't really June 22, 2017 Page 87 state that. Should the description of violation also state that the property has been rebuilt without permits or inspections? MR. MUSSE: When I issued the notice, it was just when I caught him -- when the violation (sic) was just gutted. So as -- and I was following the demolition permit. Once I saw that it expired through the reinspection, I'm like, he's done. MS. CURLEY: So we have -- you have a whole new case? MR. MUSSE: It's -- technically we'd be using the same ordinance but a different type of violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: But then you go to your recommendation saying that he should get a certificate of occupancy, but in the description of violation you're not asking -- you're not stating that it has been redone, so it doesn't really -- MR. MUSSE: Yeah. That's why we put any required Collier County -- we kept it general, if any kind of permit -- sometimes a lot of cases they don't even need a permit for different -- case by case. We just add it in there in case the building official says that they required a permit or, no, they don't need a permit. That's just -- we just put the language there. MR. ORTEGA: I'm sorry. Could you repeat that one more time where you don't need a permit. MR. MUSSE: In some cases -- like, you want a scenario why you wouldn't need a permit? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If someone put down carpet. MR. MUSSE: Carpet, tile, you don't need a permit to -- MR. ORTEGA: Well, there are exemptions to permits. MR. MUSSE: Yeah. MR. ORTEGA: But not in this case. MR. MUSSE: No, no, not in this case, no. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have a quickie. They stripped a house, they had a permit, but they never got the final on it; is that June 22, 2017 Page 88 correct? MR. MUSSE: They only got a demo permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. They got a demo permit. MR. MUSSE: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Then -- and it expired without the final inspection? MR. MUSSE: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And then they redid the house. MS. CURLEY: Fast. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, unusual -- yeah, fast. Was this done by contractors? MR. MUSSE: Yeah. He hired a permitting consultant, Octavio Sarmiento, and then Octavio contracted it out to a contractor. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And did they pull -- MR. MUSSE: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- permits? MR. MUSSE: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm curious as to what Contractor’s Licensing would say about this. MS. CURLEY: They probably weren't licensed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, they – Contractor’s Licensing would certainly want to know that. MS. CURLEY: Well, that's why you don't get a permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But I know there were referrals from Contractors Licensing to Code Enforcement. Do they also go in the oppose direction? MR. MUSSE: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I just thought I'd mentioned that in passing. Ian may not be busy enough over there. Yes, Jeff? June 22, 2017 Page 89 MR. LETOURNEAU: Ian's no longer with us. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, he's not? MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, he's still with us on Earth, but he's no longer with the county. Yeah, he took a job with the city. We'll make sure -- I think what happened was they were demoing the structure, somebody made a complaint, Jonathan caught them. They got the permit to demo, they never followed through with the inspections or certificate of completion, and in the meantime, on top of everything else, they went and rebuilt it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Was there ever a stop order done on this? MR. MUSSE: Yes. MR. LETOURNEAU: So we'll make sure that they come into compliance on both issues, the demo and the rebuilding. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I assume that what they're going to have to do now is get a permit by affidavit, you know. MR. LETOURNEAU: I think they could probably combine the demo and the rebuilding together. MR. ORTEGA: It will be a separate permit. The county will not issue a CO on the demo until they apply for the alteration permit. But there is one thing that they may not be aware of, and that is that under a permit by affidavit, FEMA is exempt, which means that if that structure's below the current base flood elevation everything below that point has to be FEMA-approved material. Not like the past code, which they will allow it under the 50 percent rule. Not anymore. So it may be -- if they're in the flood zone, they may be in for a surprise, unfortunately. MS. CURLEY: Is it -- Naples Manor. MR. ORTEGA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, that's -- MS. CURLEY: Okay, then. June 22, 2017 Page 90 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let's go through the recommendation and see -- MS. CURLEY: Just one other thing. I know we didn't address it, but is there a safety factor since we do have all this unknown construction inside with people living in there? MR. MUSSE: It doesn't appear to be unsafe, although I haven't been inside the dwelling itself. But there is a gentleman living in there who looks like he works for the construction company. That's one of the -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's always been our opinion on the Board that if you have electrical and plumbing done without a permit, there's a safety consideration; so to echo what you just said. Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion that the 65.36 be paid within 30 days; violation in No. 1, 60 days, or a fine of $300 per day would be imposed. MR. LAVINSKI: What was that amount? MR. LEFEBVRE: $300 per day after 60 days. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. June 22, 2017 Page 91 MR. MUSSE: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The last item we have under reports, Marlene Serrano would like to give a report to the Board. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. NICOLA: Is it possible that I could be excused for this? It's my daughter's birthday. I don't need to be here for this? Do you guys mind? Please? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Not at all. MS. NICOLA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But we'd like some birthday cake. MS. NICOLA: Okay. I'll bring it next month. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We'll hold you to it. MS. SERRANO: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Board Members. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. SERRANO: For the record, Marlene Serrano, Manager of Operations, Code Enforcement. And I'm here to inform you of a change that would impact the way the Board is conducted in the future. We are -- we're going to be utilizing software that is currently used by the Board of County Commissioners for their agenda items. And this software is cloud-based, which means you can access on your personal computers. We're going to be loading all the items to this software. We're going to create an agenda, and then the moment the agenda created, you will receive an email notifying you that the agenda and the attachments are ready for your viewing. The day of the meeting, you will bring either -- we're looking to see purchase iPads for you to view the agenda items here, or you can bring -- if you're more comfortable with your laptops, you can bring that also. So I just printed a couple of, like, you know, screen shots of what June 22, 2017 Page 92 the program looks like so you know what it looks like. It's very easy to use. We're going to offer you training. So it's not something that we're going to throw at you. And then we're working on probably implementing this in the August/September meeting. So the first meeting we're going to handle the meeting parallel. So you're going to have your regular packets, and then we're also going to have this way of handling the meeting. So you will have the software in front of you, and also you will have the packets on the first one. The good thing about this -- this is how the agenda will look, which is exactly like it looks like now. No changes to the format. You're going to be viewing the same documentation that you normally view. So, you know, the notice of hearing, everything that you normally get in your packets would be loaded in there. The software will give you the capability of you entering notes to yourself. So once you view the item, if you want to have a note to yourself of something that you want to ask during the meeting, you can put that in there -- and that will be told to you in the training. But you could be able to put that in there, and then when you're here, the only person that will view those notes are yourself. It's only one person. So not the rest of the Board. Okay. So if you want to pass to the next one. So once you bring up -- this is kind of small. I don't know if you can put it bigger. This is what it looks like. And then you can do -- when you press "agenda," you will get an agenda. When you press "agenda packet," you will see the attachments to the agenda item, and then the next one will show -- you can do what is called a split view, and then you can have it on one side of the same screen, you can have it one side, the items, and on the right side you're going to have what you're looking at. So once you click on that, you will see -- like in this case, if you June 22, 2017 Page 93 click something on the left -- if you go to the next one -- you will see what it is. So once you attach -- on the bottom. Okay. So the second part, if you click on one item that says the notice of hearing on one case in particular, you can see the actual notice of hearing. You can scroll down and see all the attachments to the packet, which is the same that you receive. So I just want to let you know that this is coming, so just -- training, like I said, will be provided. It's not -- it's something that you would -- this is where we're going with all the meetings in the county right now. So the Board of County Commissioners is handling their meetings like this. We also have the MPO; the metropolitan planning also is handling the meetings like this, and then we're next. So I just want to -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're going to have to -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Jim, are you okay with this? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. I have a question. In case you have a board member over 80 years who still uses a flip phone, are you going to have tutors? MS. SERRANO: Definitely. We are here to help you. So whatever -- however, you know, long it takes, we will be here to assist you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you want to ask them how you see the agenda on your flip phone? MS. SERRANO: Oh, no. You're not going to be able to. MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. I may need a bigger screen. MS. SERRANO: Able to. MS. CURLEY: So it wouldn't be on this screen ever? MS. SERRANO: We can do it so you can log in from here or we can -- you can bring your laptop. I have -- we have to still work with IT in different things when it comes to access or something like that, so June 22, 2017 Page 94 -- but it would be -- I mean, the way the Board does it right now, they look at the screen in front of them. They log in, and they can -- it's on the Internet. So all you've got to do is log in, and then you will see it, so... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: There's going to be a requirement that we change our rules. MR. LEFEBVRE: We probably can't meet anywhere else but here then. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, I don't know about where we could meet or where we can't meet, but our rules don't call for what's being implemented, so at some point in times the rules would have to be modified to meet what the county wants to do. MR. LEFEBVRE: And the other thing is, if we're not in this room and people use these computers here, we won't have -- like, upstairs on the fifth floor in August, correct? No, next month. MS. SERRANO: That's why we're exploring the iPad situation. So that way whenever we do the meeting, if we have the meeting here or we have it in the fifth floor, you will have a way of looking at it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Maybe we can borrow the iPads from the commissioners. We can all share the iPads with all the committees. I'm only joking. MS. CURLEY: Let's just -- who here does have an iPad on this board? Three of us. MS. SERRANO: Our plan is to purchase iPads for all of you, so you will have an iPad. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh. MS. SERRANO: It's just if you're not comfortable. Some people are not comfortable with Apple products. So, you know, that will be the only -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We'll need the markers to write on the pads, you know, your notes. June 22, 2017 Page 95 MS. SERRANO: You can -- MS. CURLEY: It's so easy. MS. SERRANO: It's very easy to use. I currently use it for the board meetings, and I'm telling you it's very easy to use. MS. CURLEY: And for the over-80 people, they do make bigger ones. MR. LAVINSKI: Do we have an opt-out provision? MS. CURLEY: I'll print it for you. If you need me to, I'll print one for you. MS. SERRANO: Any other questions? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the training dates and all the rest of that schedule, you'll notify us down the road? MS. SERRANO: Yes. We have -- in the county there is a group that is handling this implementation, two different areas. So they are the ones that are training us on how to create the agenda and to create -- you know, load all the items in there, and then they will be the ones scheduling the training. So -- and, like I said, if we need more than one training, definitely. Once you see it, it's very easy to use. If you use a computer nowadays, you will be able to use it. MS. CURLEY: It's a huge savings in toner and paper. It is huge. MS. SERRANO: It is. Okay. Any other questions? MR. LEFEBVRE: When do you think the implementation will be? MS. SERRANO: We have a test environmental. We have an actual meeting already loaded in there, so we can see how it works. We have to learn how to create the agenda in there so we can accomplish that. And so it's -- you know, I would say -- I would say August, probably. MR. LAVINSKI: Of this year? MS. SERRANO: Yes, sir. June 22, 2017 Page 96 MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. My term's up next February. MS. SERRANO: I hope that doesn't make it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you, Marlene. MS. SERRANO: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Our next meeting is -- our next meeting. MS. ADAMS: July 27th. It's on the -- this building on the fifth floor. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: On the fifth floor. MS. ADAMS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I did notice they're putting a new roof on. Okay. No other items, we are adjourned. ***** June 22, 2017 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :45 p.m. CODE :NFORCE 01 NT BOARD M► P it BER g� AN, CHAIRMAN These m'nutes approved by the Board on • Z - l 3 , as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC/COURT REPORTER. Page 97