Loading...
CEB Minutes 07/27/2017 Page 1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, July 27, 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 Gerald J. Lefebvre James Lavinski Lionel L'Esperance Herminio Ortega Ron Doino (excused) Robert Ashton (excused) Kathleen Elrod (excused) ALSO PRESENT: Tamara Lynn Nicola, Attorney for the Board Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Specialist Jeff Letourneau, Manager of Investigations Danny Blanco, Administrative Secretary 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA A G E N D A DATE: Thursday July 27, 2017 at 9:00 A.M. LOCATION: Collier County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Bu ilding F, 5th 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. June 22, 2017 Hearing 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. Motions Motion for Continuance 2 Motion for Extension of Time 1. CASE NO: CESD20140011921 OWNER: OMAR OTERO SR. AND LILIANA L PORTILLO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHAEL ODOM VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A). EXPIRED PERMITS FOR FENCING AND STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 39651600008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4886 16TH ST NE, NAPLES B. Stipulations C. Hearings 1. CASE NO: CELU20170003340 OWNER: J & A NAPLES FL LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR COLLEEN DAVIDSON VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION(S) 1.04.01(A) AND 2.02.03. VEHICLES FOR SALE DISPLAYED/STORED OUTSIDE OF VEHICLE DISPLAY AREA, PER THE CURRENT SITE PLAN. FOLIO NO: 385440107 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 151 AIRPORT RD S, NAPLES 2. CASE NO: CELU20160012444 OWNER: BARRY BUCHANAN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DELICIA PULSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 130, ARTICLE III, SECTION 130-95 AND COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ORDINANCE 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 2.02.03. MANY VEHICLES ON PROPERTY STORED IN THE REAR YARD AND ARE UNLICENSED/INOPERABLE. FOLIO NO: 38392800003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5412 SYCAMORE DR, NAPLES 3. CASE NO: CESD20170003732 OWNER: WILCOX FAMILY INVESTMENTS LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR COLLEEN DAVIDSON 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). ALTERATIONS/ADDITIONS COMMENCED PRIOR TO OBTAINING PROPER COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO NO: 70921000009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1147 PARKWAY DRIVE, NAPLES 3 4. CASE NO: CESD20160011587 OWNER: DOYLE RESIDENTIAL TRUST OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR VIRGINIE GIGUERE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A). PERMIT PRBD20160727005 FOR INTERIOR RENOVATIONS LEFT TO EXPIRE PRIOR TO OBTAINING THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION/OCCUPANCY. FOLIO NO: 30255003107 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 575 EAGLE CREEK DRIVE, NAPLES 5. CASE NO: CEVR20160013674 OWNER: MAINSAIL COMMUNITIES CORP OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR COLLEEN DAVIDSON VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 3.05.01(B). REMOVAL OF MULTIPLE NATIVE HARDWOOD TREES BY MAINSAIL IV CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC, ALONG MAINSAIL DRIVE, THEREBY MAKING THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE TYPE “D” BUFFER ADJACENT TO THE PRIMARY ACCESS ROAD RIGHT OF WAY DEFICIENT IN COMPOSITION AND NUMBER OF TREES. FOLIO NO: 59430040005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1371 MAINSAIL DR, IMMOKALEE 6. CASE NO: CESD20160001160 OWNER: KITE KING’S LAKE LLC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR VIRGINIE GIGUERE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.03. OUTDOOR SEATING AT TACOS AND TEQUILA NOT APPROVED ON SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. FOLIO NO: 52853280009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4820 DAVIS BLVD, NAPLES 7. CASE NO: CESD20170003341 OWNER: ELISEO VIAMONTE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DELICIA PULSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION(S) 10.02.06(B)(1)(A)(E) AND (I). OBSERVED ALTERATIONS CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO: GARAGE CONVERSION INTO LIVING SPACE WITH FULL BATHROOM AND A DOOR INSTALLED IN REAR FOR PRIVATE ACCESS. NO COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS OBSERVED. FOLIO NO: 36321920008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5428 27TH AVE SW, NAPLES D. Motion for Reduction of Fines/Lien. 4 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. CASE NO: CESD20140011921 OWNER: OMAR OTERO SR. AND LILIANA L PORTILLO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHAEL ODOM VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A). EXPIRED PERMITS FOR FENCING AND STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 39651600008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4886 16TH ST NE, NAPLES 2. CASE NO: CESD20150017447 OWNER: DANIEL HERRERA AND GLENDA GONZALEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOSEPH MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNT Y LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(A). INTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS ON A WOODEN STRUCTURE CONSISTING OF ELECTRIC, DRYWALL, INSULATION, FRAMING, TRUSSES, PLUMBING, ALL CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE REQUIRED PERMITS, INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AS REQUIRED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING DEPARTMENT. FOLIO NO: 30733560007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1316 ORANGE ST, IMMOKALEE B. Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order C. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order 7. NEW BUSINESS 8. CONSENT AGENDA A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney’s Office as Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. NONE 9. REPORTS 10. COMMENTS 11. NEXT MEETING DATE - Friday August 25, 2017 at 9:00 A.M. located at the Collier County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Building F, 3rd Floor, Naples, Florida. 12. ADJOURN Page 2 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. If you want to take your seats. I call the Code Enforcement Board to order. If you have a cell phone, now would be a great time to turn it off. Notice: The respondent may be limited to up 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 to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. Now, if we'd all rise, we'll have the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Danny, why don't you call the roll. MR. BLANCO: Mr. Robert Kaufman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Here. MR. BLANCO: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKI: Here. MR. BLANCO: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MR. BLANCO: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MR. BLANCO: Ms. Sue Curley? MS. CURLEY: Here. MR. BLANCO: Mr. Herminio Ortega? Page 3 MR. ORTEGA: Here. MR. BLANCO: Mr. Robert Ashton has an excused absence, Ms. Kathleen Elrod has an excused absence, and Mr. Ronald Doino has an excused absence. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So today, Herminio, you are a full voting member of the Board. MR. ORTEGA: Confirmed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Let's go to the agenda. Do we have any changes? MR. BLANCO: Yes, sir. Number 5, public hearings, motions, Letter B, stipulations, we have one agreement -- one addition; No. 2, Tab 2, Case No. CELU20160012444, Barry Buchanan. Letter C, hearings, No. 1, Tab 1, Case No. CELU20170003340, J & A Naples FL, LLC, has been withdrawn. Number 3, Tab 3, Case No. CESD20170003732, Wilcox Family Investment, LLC, has been withdrawn. Number 4, Tab 4, Case No. CESD20160011587, Doyle Residential Trust, has been withdrawn. Number 5, Tab 5, Case No. CEVR20160013674, Mainsail Communities Corporation, has been withdrawn. Number 6, Tab 6, Case No. CESD20160001160, Kite King's Lake, LLC, has been withdrawn. Number 6, old business, Letter A, motion for imposition of fines/liens, No. 2, Tab 9, Case No. CESD20150017447, Daniel Herrera and Glenda Gonzalez, has been withdrawn. And that's the changes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Can we get -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept the agenda as -- MR. LAVINSKI: Second. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- with the changes. Page 4 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. The minutes, anybody have any changes, corrections on the minutes from the last meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none. Motion to accept the minutes? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries. Okay. That brings us to the beginning, which is Tab 8, I believe. MR. BLANCO: Case No. CESD20140011921, Omar Otero, Senior, and Lilian L. Portillo. Page 5 (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. OTERO: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name on the mic. MR. OTERO: My name is Omar G. Otero. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And I see that you are requesting an extension of time. MR. OTERO: Yes, sir. Last time I was here I was granted a courtesy to 120 days to go ahead and do the modifications in the structure that was in my property. I started doing it the same week that I was granted that opportunity, and I contracted a crew. We did a whole modification inside, reinforced the structure, contracted the crane to do everything. I bought the materials but, unfortunately, in the process of doing that, because the structure had to be lifted 24 up off the ground, it fell apart completely, and then I -- after that I called the inspectors. About five of them went over there to see that, in fact, the structure had been demolished thoroughly. And then I proceeded to submit a new plan with the county to do it from scratch with blocks and, you know, up to code. I presented the plans; the plans are being reviewed. I was told that I needed to pay the impact fee, which I did, $1,400, and I paid $3,000 for the new permits. So I just need some more time to start from scratch right now, because we're going to do the whole thing from zero. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ODOM: Good morning. For the record, Michael Odom, Collier County Code Enforcement. The county has no objections, first of all, to this extension-of-time request. I spoke to the planner last week who was involved with this Page 6 project, and this is taking a long time. This has been open since 2014; however, I verified what the respondent had said, and he is moving forward. He just, on June 26th, applied for the permit that he is referencing, which is currently in "rejected" status; corrections sent out July 14th. So he has a lot left to do, but he is moving forward. MR. LEFEBVRE: If the building was destroyed, it would almost be like a demo permit, and that would rectify the issue, correct? MR. ODOM: Incorrect, sir. This -- he is building an addition onto an already-constructed structure there, and it's taking awhile. And we had mentioned -- Mr. Otero had mentioned, if this doesn't work out possibly going that route in the future. But this new structure is -- requires a site plan, septic, and it's going to be living quarters. So it's going to be a big improvement and a big project, so... MS. CURLEY: I have a problem with this. What's the violation then? We aren't building here. We aren't a building board. MR. ODOM: Originally, ma'am -- MS. CURLEY: If the violation's gone just by mistake, then why are we here? MR. OTERO: Ma'am, the reason the violation -- as I just explained to the Board before, I wasn't planning on building a house over there. And when I purchased that property, I requested the agricultural exemption prior to do agricultural planting. And then I had a couple of animals. I was told by people of the area that -- like I said before, the winters are harsh, so I have to build something to protect the animals that I had. And I did it without knowing that I -- you know, because I was in an agricultural part of it, I -- there wasn't a residence there. So I built that sort of a storage unit and an animals quarters, but they told me I needed residential there. MS. CURLEY: Stop, please. We needed more background on this, because this packet didn't include all of that. I had forgotten about it, so -- Page 7 (Simultaneous speakers.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm reading my notes here. It says -- MS. CURLEY: Is this where the property was cleared? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- started to do -- hang on one second. Started to do modifications. Fell apart. Was there a building permit initially? MS. CURLEY: No. No, wait. Let's back up beforehand, because didn't he clear this acreage, and then he said he wanted to make it a goat farm or something; is that what we're -- yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. MS. CURLEY: Okay. MR. ODOM: And I'll be just real specific in the background of this. The notice of violation included unpermitted culvert, unpermitted fence, and all structures unpermitted. Two out of those three puzzle pieces are good to go: Fence finaled, culvert finaled; and the building is where he's running into problems. So we didn't want to attempt to close this case out in case it didn't get finaled and that -- MS. CURLEY: It wasn't a violation for cutting trees down? MR. ODOM: No, ma'am. MR. OTERO: No, ma'am. MR. ODOM: No, ma'am. The last piece of the puzzle is the structure, and it is taking awhile, but it's the third and final piece. And he's applied, paid the fees and is moving forward, albeit slowly and, literally, things have fallen apart, but he's moving forward. MS. CURLEY: Is there livestock there now? MR. OTERO: There's one cow and a couple goats and some chickens that I have there. MS. CURLEY: Two goats and a couple chickens and -- MR. OTERO: Yeah. And I got some chickens and cows over there. Page 8 MS. CURLEY: Cows, not cow? MR. OTERO: Yeah. Two of them. MS. CURLEY: Two cows. How many goats? MR. OTERO: Huh? MS. CURLEY: How many -- MR. OTERO: Three. MS. CURLEY: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: How long -- MR. OTERO: And about 15 chickens. MS. CURLEY: So, yes, the answer is there's animals living there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What -- it said you're requesting more time. What is more time? MR. OTERO: Yes, sir. Because I'm not an expert in the construction business and stuff, but we're going to start doing it by code, I mean, as required by regulation. We've got to do the footing, then call the inspection in for the footing, and the walls -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm familiar with that. MR. OTERO: The roof is already paid for, the pre-engineered roofing, and then we have to go with electricity inspections, septic tank. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hold on. You don't have to tell me exactly every brick that you're going to put in. To start out with, you have to have building plans that are submitted, and I understand from the county that they have been submitted. MR. ODOM: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Then they have to be approved. MR. OTERO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And then construction begins. MR. OTERO: Yes, sir. Right now -- as soon as they get approved, then we starting construction immediately. Page 9 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So you're aware of your permit being denied right now for whatever reason? MR. OTERO: Yeah. That's an addition, yeah. Because it was under 900 feet, so they're going to add 120 more feet to make it 1,000. That's the requirement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So once the county approves that, you have a contractor doing this or are you -- MR. OTERO: Yes, sir, I do have the crew already hired, and I paid for all the materials already. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And the contractor has said to you it's going to take us about how long to get done? MR. OTERO: I don't know, sir, but just to be on the safe side, I would like a frame of 12 months if it's not too much to ask, then I finish up completely everything, because I had to move back here as well. MS. CURLEY: What did you say? MR. LEFEBVRE: Twelve months. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Twelve months. So what you're asking for is an extension of 12 months? MR. OTERO: Yes, sir. I could do it in four months, five months, that's the plan, but in case any unforeseen circumstances arise, I would like to have the time frame to complete it without being punished or fined by it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ORTEGA: Is this a single-family home? MR. OTERO: Yes. MR. ORTEGA: Is there a single-family home existing on the property? MR. OTERO: No, sir. No, sir, there's not. MR. ORTEGA: Okay. What's the zoning on this property? MR. ODOM: Estates. Page 10 MR. ORTEGA: Okay. But he mentioned something about agricultural. Does he mean bonafide agricultural? MR. ODOM: No, sir; that is incorrect. Initially, he was under the impression that some of the structures he had built and wanted to build in 2014 were under an ag exemption, and that was incorrect. MR. ORTEGA: Well, there's a difference between ag exemption, bonafide ag, and the zoning. MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. MR. OTERO: Farm buildings are exempted from the Florida Building Code, but you also have to have the proper zoning, meaning ag. Not bonafide ag. Zoning. So in this case he has no single-family residence, and there's structures on the property? MR. ODOM: Correct. MS. CURLEY: Well -- and I also have an issue because the agreement -- I understand that things happened -- things changed, but this agreement was from March 31st, 2016, so I don't -- I'm not feeling real generous to give another year here. And what if there was a neighbor complaint in 2014? And so this is setting a precedence where you can go ahead and make a farm in Collier County, and then you'll have six years or five years to tidy it up after you get caught. I don't like this. MR. OTERO: No, ma'am. That wasn't my intention. I'm sorry. MS. CURLEY: I just think that -- I think that you're setting -- you're being very nice to set out the procedure that he needs to go through. But had he done it correctly the first time, we wouldn't have to be babysitting this. So I find that this is a long -- a very long time and a lot of money and effort. MR. LEFEBVRE: Motion -- MR. OTERO: If I may? MS. CURLEY: No. Page 11 MR. OTERO: So, ma'am, my intention was never to -- MS. CURLEY: I didn't ask for a response. I understand -- I remember you very well now that I've refreshed my memory. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Lefebvre, you have a comment? MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to continue this case for six months. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to continue this case for six months. At six months, knowing the way things go around here, I'm sure it won't be completed. Should the respondent come back in six months and it's only partially done, we would expect to see an approved building permit and the county to let us know that there is progress being made. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. From what -- MS. CURLEY: But he said he'd get it done in four months, so you're being awful generous, Gerald. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm giving a couple months leeway, but -- plus it's still in permitting. It was rejected because it was under a thousand square feet. They got it up to a thousand square feet, so I'm giving a few weeks for them to get the permit. And if he says he's going to start, I think six months for a thousand-square-foot structure is ample time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: I have a question. Is there a general contractor that you hired to do this for you? MR. OTERO: Yes. There's the crew. The gentleman who is doing the plans -- the architect recommended a contractor that does that, so they're going to be working as soon as the plans are removed. MS. CURLEY: Okay. What I asked was did you hire a general contractor to manage this, not an architect. MR. OTERO: No, no. Yeah. There's a guy -- the guy has a Page 12 license as the contractor, yes; recommended by the architect firm, yes. MS. CURLEY: It's just curious why he didn't know the rules for the size of the structure before -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is probably done after. I don't know, but I asked that question. MS. CURLEY: But if there's a standard thousand-square-foot minimum to build a house, you'd think that -- MR. OTERO: No, because the initial thing was a modification. That was a modification. But when they submitted the plans to modify, they said, no, you have to expand it a little bit. Because it was a modification; now it's a whole new construction. MR. ORTEGA: Is this an owner-builder permit or a contractor? MR. ODOM: Correct; owner builder, sir. MS. CURLEY: That was the question that I was asking, and I wish you had just given me the answer. MR. OTERO: I'm sorry? MS. CURLEY: I asked you if you had hired a contractor to manage this for you, and you said yes, but the permit that you submitted, we've just verified by the county -- MR. OTERO: Yes, ma'am. The initial -- MS. CURLEY: -- was that you're submitting this as an owner builder. So that's my -- the reason I'm asking that is purposeful. Because we will see him back here in six months, because when you're from another county or from another city and you come here and you do things like this, it's very difficult. It's difficult for a person with a licensed contractor to do this in an efficient amount of time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I did ask the question, what did your contractor say the time frame would be on completing the project. MS. CURLEY: And he gave you an answer. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. Now we find out that be it's owner builder. Page 13 MR. OTERO: Sir, I'm -- MS. CURLEY: I'm not sure what he says is true. MR. LEFEBVRE: We have a motion and a second. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Call the question, Mr. Chair. MR. OTERO: If I could say something, please, I would appreciate it; just one second. The initial was in an owner builder because it was a modification, but now that the plans have been remodeled, I spoke to Mr. Octavio Sarmiento, which is the guy who is doing the plans with the architect, and they recommended a contractor which is going to be taking over the case. So if you want, I could give you a copy of the contract that he's going to be doing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion on the floor. Any other comments on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. It passes. You have been granted a six-month extension. MS. CURLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So we would expect that in six months, if it's not CO'ed, you'll be back here, and we'll be asking you more questions at that time or we'll be imposing the fine. MR. OTERO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One of the two. Page 14 MR. OTERO: My intention is to do it. I already paid the impact fees, and I'm not going to lose that money, so I'll be there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I understand. Okay. Thank you. MR. OTERO: Thank you, sir. MS. NICOLA: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. NICOLA: It was filed as a motion for extension, you voted on a continuance, and you just said you were giving him an extension. So am I writing this up as a continuance or an extension? MR. LEFEBVRE: Continuance. A continuance, the fines continue. MS. NICOLA: Continuance. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The fines continue to accrue. MR. OTERO: What is the difference between a continuance and an extension? MS. NICOLA: That the fines continue to accrue during a continuance period. So, in other words, these fines are continuing to accrue during the period of time that you requested to build your house. MR. OTERO: That's one of -- it's going to be a problem with the fines and stuff then. Could I -- I don't have the money to pay the fine because they're going to be overwhelming. Could I request the demotion permanent and leave the lot as it is? Can I do that? And lose all that money? I lost $45,000 in 30 minutes when that fell all apart, and it hurt me economically a lot. I'm trying to comply, and I'm trying to do the things right. But it you're going to be fining me on a daily basis, it's going to hurt me bigtime. MS. NICOLA: So what happens is you're going to receive an order that gives you a continuance, and the order says that the fines continue to accrue. And at some point there's going to be an order of Page 15 the Code Enforcement Board that says that there's going to be a request for an imposition of fines. And you can, sir, come back before this board and ask for some assistance with those fines. You can ask that the Board consider relieving you from some of that money; do you understand? MR. OTERO: Yes, ma'am. You know, I'm a working person. I'm not a rich person. I work on daily basis. That was my 401(k) plan and my savings I put in that. I lost that in 35 minutes, my house, $45,000. And then I borrowed the money to pay the impact fees, and I'm trying to comply and do -- MR. ORTEGA: Let's not beat this over the head. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We don't need to beat this to death. MR. OTERO: Yeah. And then be imposed a fine on a daily basis. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me just say there are two things that can be done now. We can impose the fine, or we could grant an extension. And all the extension does is pushes this out for six months with no liability on your part. So the -- by doing a continuance it increases our thought of fining you if nothing is done. If something is done, typically, if you were to look back at all the cases we've heard, if somebody comes into compliance, you come back here and you ask -- I've done everything, I'd like a relief on the fines, typically, that's what the Board will certainly consider. MR. OTERO: Okay. Okay, sir. Thank you for explaining that. I plan to start this week. As soon as the plans are approved, I start. So I will be showing the progress. MR. ORTEGA: This comment is for Collier County. He made a statement several times that he had to pay the impact fees. Is that fact? Because impact fees can be deferred to the end. They don't do that anymore. Page 16 MR. ODOM: The question, sir, has he paid the impact fees for this permit? MR. ORTEGA: He stated that he paid the impact fees. MR. ODOM: Haven't seen it yet, sir. MR. OTERO: Yes, sir. MR. ODOM: He may have had it. It might not have caught up. I saw yesterday he did pay a structural fee last week, but it was for $50. And if that went in yesterday, it might not have just circulated yet. MR. ORTEGA: Was there a permit in hand before? MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. MR. OTERO: Yeah. There was a permit for the modification, and they said, we're going to close it out. Since everything fell apart, we're going to close it, and then you pay the -- MR. ORTEGA: That's why they made you pay the impact fees. MR. OTERO: Hmm? MR. ORTEGA: That's why you're paying the impact fees. MR. OTERO: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This case is done. Let's move on. MS. NICOLA: Good luck. MR. OTERO: Thank you. MR. ODOM: Thank you. MR. BLANCO: Next case on the agenda, it's No. 5, public hearings, motions, Letter B, stipulations, No. 2, Tab 2, Case No. CELU20160012444, Barry Buchanan. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you state your name on the microphone? MR. BUCHANAN: Barry Buchanan. Page 17 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't you move the mic up. You're taller than I am, which isn't hard to be. Okay. Why don't we hear from the county first. Dee? MS. PULSE: Good morning, for the record, Investigator Dee Pulse, Collier County Code Enforcement. And this is a stipulation, so I'm going to go ahead and read that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. PULSE: It comes now the undersigned, Barry Buchanan, on behalf of himself as representative for the respondent, and enters into this stipulation and agreement with Collier County as to the resolution of notices or -- yeah, of notices of violation in reference to CELU20160012444, dated the 29th day of August 2016. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: No. 1, pay operational cost in the amount of $64 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Number 2, abate all violations by obtaining and affixing a current valid license plate to each vehicle not stored within the confines of a completely enclosed structure or store said vehicles within a completely enclosed structure and/or repair defects so vehicle is immediately operable, or remove offending vehicles from residentially zoned area within 180 days of this hearing, or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Number 3, the responded must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; Number 4, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of the abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I have a few questions. Page 18 How many vehicles are we talking about? MS. PULSE: Approximately 19. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. My question on the stipulation is, 180 days, we could build 19 cars. Why is it going to take six months to remove them? MS. PULSE: Most of the vehicles do not have -- some of them do not have a title because he collects vehicles for a hobby. He rebuilds them. Would be -- it's difficult for him to even get them -- somebody to take them without a title. MS. CURLEY: So this is dated August 30th, 2016? MS. PULSE: (Nods head.) MS. CURLEY: So how many cars have you managed to title or get rid of from the original 19 in the last 11 months? MR. BUCHANAN: Well, I believe there were 12 cars. I've got a problem with flooding. When rainy season comes, I can't get to the back lot -- I can't move stuff from the back to get it out because it crosses my water lines. And I have to wait for it to dry up. I run pumps all during the rainy season. I've got three pumps running right now. MS. CURLEY: Is this Sycamore? Is this off -- in Logan Woods? MR. BUCHANAN: It's close, yeah. MS. CURLEY: So do you have a backdoor neighbor, or is it Pine Ridge Road or something? MR. BUCHANAN: Yeah. Pine Ridge Road is my back. Woods on one side, which is basically what Collier County used to -- as a sheet flow for when they re-did Pine Ridge Road. So my back -- my back lot is triangled off to that so it flows down from east to west. MS. CURLEY: So there's 19 cars left -- 19 vehicles left? MR. BUCHANAN: Right. I do -- I had an automotive repair Page 19 shop for 20 years and lost it due to a lease problem. And some of it's overflow -- not overflow from there, but cars that I had there. I race SECA. I've got, you know, race car stuff. I've been affiliated with Swamp Buggy for 10 years. I've got some -- there's some donor vehicles there. That's where they've come from. I decided to -- when I got into the pickle, I decided to sell my -- put my property up for sale, and the complaint was from the Board of Realtors, Naples Board of Realtors. Thank you very much, Naples Board of Realtors. MS. CURLEY: They're nice like that. MR. BUCHANAN: Yeah. So that's where I'm at. You know, I need time to get them out. I've got acreage in Virginia, and I'm going to move stuff up there. I just am one person. I had to move my whole business. I've been -- I had a stroke in the interim, lost my bookkeeper, found out that I had tax problems. It's been a good year, so... MS. CURLEY: We're going to make it better for you. I make a motion to accept the stipulation as read. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that. MR. BUCHANAN: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: I will think -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hold on. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah. I think 180 days still is too long. We don't know if there's oils, gas, fluids in the cars. I just -- knowing this has been going on for close to a year now is, I think, just -- MR. BUCHANAN: Most of the cars are just chassis. MS. CURLEY: No motors in them? MR. BUCHANAN: Right. MS. CURLEY: There's probably more fluids running off of Pine Ridge Road into your backyard than what you're doing. Page 20 MR. BUCHANAN: Right. MR. LAVINSKI: No, I would agree. Our normal guidelines for unregistered vehicles is three days. So even three times 19 is -- we can't get up to 180 days. MS. CURLEY: So clarify. Are these not street -- these aren't vehicles, like it's not an old Cadillac. This is like a frame for a swamp buggy or a -- MR. BUCHANAN: There's donor vehicles, and then there's -- I've got three Honda S2000s that are to be race cars. MS. CURLEY: You don't get license plates for race cars? MR. BUCHANAN: No. I mean, I've got one Jeep that's basically a swamp buggy. MS. CURLEY: Which you don't get a license plate for. MR. BUCHANAN: You don't need a license plate for that. MS. CURLEY: So these things are aren't vehicles that will ever be on a road in this country? MR. BUCHANAN: No. MS. CURLEY: So he's got parts and stuff. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Call the question, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. LEFEBVRE: Nay. MR. LAVINISKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How many nays do we have here? One, two. Okay. You have six months. MR. BUCHANAN: Thank you. Page 21 MR. BLANCO: The next case on the agenda is Letter C, hearings, No. 7, Tab 7, Case No. CESD20170003341 Eliseo Viamonte. MS. RIDDLE: Good morning. I have the opposite problem (adjusting the microphone). (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. RIDDLE: I wanted to identify myself. Melinda Riddle for Mr. Viamonte. I am an attorney but, I want to be candid, I haven't appeared before a board like this in probably close to 30 years. This is not what I typically do. But I represent Mr. Viamonte in his dissolution of marriage, which is intricately tied to what is happening with these violations. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. RIDDLE: I don't know whether you want me to proceed or you want to hear from -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. The county presents their case. MS. RIDDLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You can ask questions of the county at that time. Then you present yours, the county can ask questions of you, and we go from there. We will ask questions of the county when the county presents, and we will ask questions of you and your client when you do. MS. RIDDLE: Certainly. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Dee? MS. PULSE: Good morning. For the record, Dee Pulse, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20170003341 dealing with violation of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a),(e) and (i): Four alterations consisting of, but not limited to garage conversion into living space with full bathroom and a door installed in the rear for private access. Page 22 No Collier County building permits were obtained. Located at 5428 27th Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34116; Folio 36321920008. Service was given on March 6th, 2017. And I would like to now present case evidence in the following exhibits: Five photos taken by me on March 2nd, 2017, and four photos taken by me on July 7th, 2017. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen those photos? MS. PULSE: Yes; yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any problem with those photos being entered? MS. RIDDLE: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have motion? MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries. Give us a few minutes to take a look at the photos. MS. PULSE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me ask a question while we're looking at the photos. Page 23 MS. PULSE: Sure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is this occupied currently? MS. PULSE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is there electrical that was done and plumbing that was done? MS. PULSE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: Do you know -- MR. ORTEGA: Is this in Golden Gate City or Golden Gate Estates? MS. PULSE: Golden Gate City. MS. CURLEY: Is it rented, or is there a family living in that? MS. PULSE: I'm not sure what the situation is, whether they charge rent. There is now, in the garage conversion, the last time I was there, was a mother with three children living in the garage. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: These photos are of that particular area that is unpermitted; is that correct? MS. PULSE: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So there's a kitchen, a bathroom, two bedrooms? MS. PULSE: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: How large of a garage? Is it two-car? MS. PULSE: Yes. MS. CURLEY: The children are all under 18? MS. PULSE: I don't -- I'm not sure the ages. MS. CURLEY: There's a crib. MS. PULSE: I know that there is -- must be a baby/toddler with the baby bed in there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Just to explain; you've been away for 30 years. What we do is we look at the evidence, we'll have you testify, and then we will either find that there is a violation or there Page 24 isn't a violation. If there isn't a violation, we're done. If there is a violation, then we'll go on to the next step in the process. Okay. We have all seen the pictures. Continue. MS. PULSE: The owner filed a complaint for alterations in the home. Investigation shows garage is converted into two bedrooms with a full bath. A door was installed on the rear of the structure leading into a rear east bedroom, and no Collier County building permits were obtained. I am in frequent communication with the owner who stated he wants to apply for a demo permit and, as of July 26th, the violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you read your first sentence again for me, please. MS. PULSE: The owner filed this complaint for alterations in home. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The owner? MS. PULSE: Yes, sir. MS. CURLEY: He self-reported? You self-reported? MS. RIDDLE: Yes. MS. CURLEY: You don't live at this structure? MS. RIDDLE: No. His wife -- he owns the property. His wife and child remained in the property during the process of divorce. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So he is the one who filed the case? MS. PULSE: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The complaint? MS. RIDDLE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Seems a little convoluted to me. MS. RIDDLE: We can address that. MS. CURLEY: Let's hear it. Page 25 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, what I'm -- before we hear anything, so the person who is the complainant is also the respondent? MS. PULSE: (Nods head.) MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. MS. CURLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Just to make that clear. MS. PULSE: And he is the only person on the deed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So -- MS. NICOLA: Here comes the information about the divorce. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. MS. RIDDLE: Yes. MS. CURLEY: Except he's married. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is a case, you win or you lose, you're the same person. MS. CURLEY: Just to the point. Except he's married, and on his deed he accepted -- he purchased this as a married man. So this is a homestead issue. So even though it's only him, he's got a partner there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't you -- MS. RIDDLE: Yes, the property's titled in his name. In fact, when he acquired the property, she was married to somebody else. They married, they separated in August of 2016. While they were together, they off and on had relatives reside with them, but it was in one of the bedrooms within the structure of the home. When he left, she remained in the home with their minor child, and a lot of modifications were done internally. There were people brought in -- either more relatives or more individuals brought in to rent. And this is his home, and he has had very limited access to his home. The only way that we were able to find out what changes had been made to his home was for him to go to Code Enforcement, at my suggestion, so that we could get access. Page 26 We went through the divorce court. Ms. Nicola's aware of how long it takes to get before the judge. We went -- in June we received authority for him to go in and access the property; June of this year. So this case is set for trial in October, the October trial period and, barring any continuances that we don't intend to request, he intends to comply. The difficultly that he has is he agrees that these violations are there, but she's living there. She has all sorts of people living there. We have not been successful in getting the Court to force her to evict these people and to get them out. He's the owner. He cannot comply until he gets possession of his home. We expect that that will happen, since this is definitely marital property. Notwithstanding the married designation, I do not know how that happened because he was not married. Clearly, the records -- they were married here in Collier County, and you can see when they got married, and it definitely was not when he acquired -- I believe he acquired the property in 2011. They were not married until 2015. MS. CURLEY: Was he married to somebody else? MS. RIDDLE: She was -- at that time she -- MS. CURLEY: No. Was he married to someone else? MS. RIDDLE: No, he was not. And at the time that the deed was done, he was -- I didn't represent him. He was not represented. I don't know -- the title or whoever prepared the deed, why they structured it that way, but that's how the deed is. But he was not married at the time, and the property is his. He is prepared to comply. And if the Court -- we asked for possession of the property in June so that he could start doing some of this work that needed to be done. He has a contractor ready and able, but he only gets possession upon 24 hours notice -- or not possession. He gets a right of entry. So he doesn't even have the right of Page 27 possession. We believe that there have been -- from the time that he reported to the time that we went to court and that the investigator went and took the photographs, we believe that there were some additional changes made. We believe a wall came down. But he has no control over this because his wife has other people. And we believe she's collecting rent but, you know -- when he can't get access, we're asking for a six-month continuance hoping we'll go to trial within that time and he can begin to work on his property. But, candidly, without the assistance of the domestic court, he's unable to just go in there and tell you he can get this done in 30 days. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chair, can I ask one question? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Let me -- before we do anything, I was going to ask if a violation exists or not, and we could vote on that, and then a lot of this discussion can take place. Your question? MR. L'ESPERANCE: My question is, is it your intent or purpose to leverage your position with the Court by getting a hearing -- by getting a designation and a decision from this particular board? MS. RIDDLE: No. That was not the intent, because his property is his property. And he understands that, according to family law rules, there are certain enhanced value that she may be entitled to. That's over and above anything. He was not allowed access to the property. When he went over and began to find all sorts of cars parked there overnight, he began to question, and his wife says, it's none of your business. And he wanted to make sure that he -- we expect that he will get his property at some point in time; that it was not left in such a condition that it was a disaster that he would be unable to fix. Page 28 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I'd like to see if someone would like to make a motion whether a violation exists. MR. ORTEGA: I'll make a motion that a violation does exist. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second that a violation does exist. Any questions or comments from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. MS. NICOLA: I have a question, if I can. When you went into the court to talk about the property, did you tell them that the violation existed and that there was this open Code Enforcement case that was likely going to come to hearing? MS. RIDDLE: Yes. MS. NICOLA: And did the Judge give you any indication that if the Code Enforcement Board found a violation and ordered him to get a permit to demolish this -- these additions or to bring them into compliance, that the Judge would allow a contractor or someone to go in and make the necessary corrections in order to bring it into compliance? MS. RIDDLE: What the Judge ordered was a right of access upon 24 hours' notice. The Judge further ordered that the wife was not supposed to be there, which she was, to avoid issues. But the Page 29 wife -- we asked for that. We asked for the wife to vacate for a temporary period to allow for extended access so that he could go in with a contractor, but what we received was access within 24 hours. But it's not -- he has a right of access, but it's not a right for him to be there and be able to do this work, and that's what makes it a little difficult. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me give you my two cents' worth. To begin with, this board has always been very, very concerned with any construction that has electrical and plumbing that has not been CO'ed. As a matter of fact, on many, many occasions we have asked for the property to be vacated because of that alone. Okay. MS. CURLEY: I have a big issue with that as well. This gentleman likely has a loan on this house, and he has homeowners insurance, which all these things are being violated. MS. RIDDLE: Yes. MS. CURLEY: And it's a huge liability for him. I completely understand the best thing he did was complain upon his own self. And there's no eviction or anything taking place for the tenants? MS. RIDDLE: No. MS. CURLEY: I mean, why isn't there eviction for the unknown tenants in the garage? Why have you not done that? MS. RIDDLE: Because it is the wife's position -- and some of these, I think, are her children, her adult children and family that she has moved in there, and they're collecting -- she's paying rent. Another one is a paramour. MS. CURLEY: That's not what I asked. But you did not attempt to do an eviction for the tenants of the garage? MS. RIDDLE: We can't evict because she moves them back in. People move in and they move out. Because she has possession -- not the right of possession because there's no order that says that she has a right of exclusive possession during the pendency. The fact that she is Page 30 there and the minor child is there has stayed his hand because she makes sure that she is there with the child, and he does not want to get into confrontations with the child there. Have we tried evictions of the individuals? If we could find out exactly who lived there -- I have advised him on there, but -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, you know, it doesn't matter who's there -- MS. CURLEY: It doesn't matter. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- what their position is. The space is being occupied. It is not permitted. So all of this is side stuff. MS. CURLEY: It doesn't matter. I completely agree with you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. So -- and on many, many occasions we have been very strict on when we come up with an order on when it needs to be vacated, and that's by any human. It doesn't matter; aunt, uncle, brother, sister, whatever. MS. CURLEY: Excuse me. Can we ask Jeff? Remember we've had to have the assistance of the sheriff to vacate when we had -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's generally part of all the orders. MS. CURLEY: How do we do that? MR. LETOURNEAU: I think if you get an order here saying there's a violation and you put on there that the garage has to be evicted at some point, they still have to go through the proper channels with the Sheriff's Office to evict anybody that's in there. They just can't charge in there on a Code Enforcement Board order and say everybody out or we're going to, you know, arrest them. They still have to go through the proper channels. I would have to believe that an order from this board would help their case if they went before a judge on the marital matter and say, we'll look at -- we have an order, there is a violation, people are living there, it's a safety issue. Can you please allow us enough time to get Page 31 in there at least to get a contractor and demolish? And I guess he'd have to be the one that does the eviction since he's the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Now, we've had cases in the past where there was no water or no electric to a dwelling, and we said that the -- it had to be vacated in three days. MS. CURLEY: The sheriff went there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So, you know, I don't know that there's that much difference between those cases that we have heard and this case. But, Dee, I'd like to hear what your recommendation is on this, and then we can discuss it further. MS. NICOLA: Well, if I could, I think there is a difference. And correct me if I'm wrong Ms. Riddle -- I do know Ms. Riddle. I mean, this may be an easier solution than an eviction because the Court in the divorce case has the jurisdiction to make orders which could remedy the situation. If we entered an order and said, this situation needs to be remedied in three days, say, for instance, I would think Ms. Riddle could attach that to an emergency motion in family court and ask the family court to issue a strong order that the wife needs to vacate; the wife needs to vacate with all the people, a health-and-safety issue. I mean, I understand -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: On the other hand, suppose the Court comes back and said, no, that's okay. It's a -- they can stay there. MS. NICOLA: I can't imagine that on a health-and-safety issue. I mean, I can't imagine that. MS. CURLEY: Tamara -- I believe what she says is true. MR. ORTEGA: But don't you have to establish a health-and-safety issue first? MS. NICOLA: Well, if we enter an order that says that it's a Page 32 health-and-safety risk and, as a result, we're entering an order that says we want this issue -- we want these people out of there immediately within, you know, 72 hours, Ms. Riddle's a divorce attorney, she takes that order, she files a motion with the Court and asks for an expedited hearing. And believe it or not, it actually does happen in family court sometimes; the judges see this is an emergency. This house could burn down. These people could be injured. I mean, so to me I think it's unbelievable, honestly, that they haven't considered that now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: I understand the emergency order, but the emergency order would be to probably vacate the garage. The other part of the house is permitted and allowed. MS. NICOLA: Well, right, but the garage is also -- I mean, I think the garage is a threat to the entire property. If you have an unpermitted garage with -- MR. LEFEBVRE: It is, but to try to evict the wife from a permitted residence may be difficult when it's just the garage. (Simultaneous speakers.) MS. NICOLA: Well, they may not necessarily evict the wife, but they could say to the wife, you have to comply. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One conversation at a time. MS. NICOLA: I mean, they could say, you are required to comply with the Code Enforcement Board's order that you remove those individuals immediately and that you will allow your husband the ability to remedy the situation so that these fines -- I mean, it's called marital waste. If these fines are accruing daily on this property, which is obviously at issue in the divorce, that's marital waste. Nobody wants that. MS. RIDDLE: If I may, there is an additional consideration. Correct me if I'm wrong, but another part of the house has also been set Page 33 up with separate living quarters, am I correct, with a separate -- with a kitchen, with other -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, that wasn't addressed. MS. RIDDLE: -- with sinks. So it's not just the garage. There were a lot of modifications made to the interior. There are separate entrances for this other apartment, so that separate entrance was created. There originally were some violations because they were parking and ingressing -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think there are enough violations; we found it in violation. I'd like to hear from the county what their suggestion is. Dee? MS. PULSE: It is recommended that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $64 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: No. 1, obtaining all required Collier County building permits for garage conversion into living space, including full bathroom, and unpermitted alterations or demolition permit to restore home to a permitted state obtaining all required inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Number 2, cease and desist use of garage as living space and disconnect utilities within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank per day will be imposed till the violation is abated; Number 3, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using anything 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 Page 34 the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So, basically, 1 and 2 of your recommendations, specifically No. 2, I have a question on. To disconnect utilities in that area would help as far as safety and health is concerned from a -- if there's a fire or flood or whatever, but it makes things worse for the people that are there. But it does say they need to vacate it. That is the county's recommendation. And the last part of your recommendation says to use the sheriff or whatever else means we have to do that. Do you want to comment on that, Jeff, since you talked about that earlier? MR. LETOURNEAU: I still don't think that the sheriff is going to barge in there on your order and pull people out of there without an eviction from a higher court than this. I just don't think -- especially if it's in a homesteaded property and there's a marriage dispute. I don't think they're going to get involved without a proper eviction notice. MS. CURLEY: Is this his homestead? MS. RIDDLE: Yes. MR. LETOURNEAU: Tamara could, you know, state -- MS. NICOLA: I agree with you. I don't think they will either, and I think you have to have a court order. The question is, would a court order from the divorce court be good enough, and I personally think that it probably would be. You know, we've had issues come up like this before, maybe not this particular issue, but they do have the authority, I believe, to enter an order that would be a strong order that could help with enforcing this. And it's not an issue of getting involved in the issues between husband and wife. It's the issue of the fact that this is a violation that could potentially be very dangerous. And it seems to me, just from what Ms. Riddle is saying, that the wife who's living in there with all these people is fairly aware of this. It's been brought to her attention, Page 35 and she doesn't care. MS. CURLEY: What about Children's and Family (sic)? Is that a component you can go to for the welfare of the children? MS. NICOLA: I'm not so sure that Children and Families would say that an unpermitted garage would rise to the level of removing children. I mean, I just -- I don't know. I'd say probably not, but maybe. MS. CURLEY: Fire? Electricity? MS. NICOLA: I mean, if it was -- if they went and looked at it and it was unsafe, but the fact that it's unpermitted, does that make it unsafe in and of itself? Wires hanging out? Yes. My guess is they probably haven't seen anything like that, or there would be another issue. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, our job on the Board is to make a recommendation based on the violation. Yes, you want to speak, Jeff? MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, I just wanted to say that this isn't one of our emergency hearings. We didn't really -- obviously, we've heard -- you guys have heard hundreds of these cases before. It's not like -- normally our emergency cases are somebody was out of water or electricity or something like that. Obviously, there's always a safety issue, but I don't think it rises to the point where, you know, we'd want to ask the Sheriff's Office to go in there in three days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, we have the ability to -- if we use Dee's suggestion as a template, we would need to fill out the 64.30 -- the $64 within 30 days, how much time we are going to provide that this violation needs to be rectified and the amount of fine per day after that. That's what we can do. MS. CURLEY: And this board has the discretion to pick those dates as we see fit from case to case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. Now, you would Page 36 like to -- since you spoke up, would like to fill in the blanks on Dee's template? We can go from there and discuss them. MS. CURLEY: Well, I didn't take my notes well enough, and since -- not being able to see the -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Have her -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, I was going to say, the first thing is the $64.30. That's the -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Sixty-four dollars. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sixty-four dollars within 30 days to begin with. Disconnect utilities is a second -- a separate portion of Dee's template. The first one says they're either going to get the permit to cover the work that's done, or they're going to get a demo permit to remove it; is that correct? MS. PULSE: Yes. MS. CURLEY: I can do number -- maybe the gentleman at the end can pick the dates for No. 1 since he would understand the issue that he would have. But I think cease and desist the use of the garage as living space and disconnect utilities within seven days of this hearing or $100 fine per day will be imposed until the violation is abated is fine with me. This gives this gentleman some go power to go past that. So whatever the time is needed after this seven days to do his permitting would be something that another board member could recommend. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I know that it would certainly take more than seven days to get a demo permit or a permit on the -- MS. CURLEY: Well, you want to give him seven days to get them out, and then he has the luxury of what a normal person would have to hire a contractor and have a contractor put a permit in for Page 37 demo. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So what I understand you're saying, we talk about removing the people from the area that is unpermitted -- MS. CURLEY: In seven days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- in seven days. Okay. MS. CURLEY: And then give him the regular time on No. 1 that we would offer anyone -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So seven days. That's Section 2 of your order. And if they don't remove them within seven days, the fine would be -- MS. CURLEY: One hundred a day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One hundred dollars a day. Okay. I understand that. Anybody want to discuss that at all? MR. LEFEBVRE: I think seven days is too short. She's probably going to petition the Court to tell them that we have found a violation and here's -- MS. CURLEY: What Tamara said was if you put it at a short timeline, then she's going to get the attention of a quicker schedule on the Judge's calendar. If you put 15 or 30, then it's just going to fall into a regular scheduling issue, so -- MR. LEFEBVRE: What I was thinking is -- MS. CURLEY: -- with this order in hand, it's empowering her to get -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. As a compromise on the motion, would you consider 14 days instead of seven? MS. CURLEY: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: The reason I was thinking 14 is that way you can get in front of the Court, the Court can review it, and then say yes, in fact. Page 38 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Before fines start to accrue. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I understand. MR. LEFEBVRE: Because in seven days -- not going to have enough time to go to the Court, and he's going to come back to us and say, well, I couldn't do anything in seven days because I didn't have a court order. So that's where I'm coming at with the 14. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I think the sense of urgency will be accomplished by using the seven-day timeline, and I might suggest to Susan here that she increases it from $100 to a higher amount. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. I would agree with that, too. MS. CURLEY: Well, I would do that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What was just handed to me is Dee's template. So just to let you know what that is. MS. CURLEY: So, Tamara, is that -- which thinking do you recommend, the seven or 14-day? MS. NICOLA: I mean, in all honestly, getting into family court right now is difficult because everybody seems to have a crisis. It's just the truth. And I think it would take a very strong order in order to get the Judge's attention that this board means business and that there's going to be some significant fines that start to accrue if it isn't remedied immediately. So, I mean, I don't file emergency motions in divorce court unless I have some pretty serious facts. So I think that if you give an extended amount of time to correct this violation, I don't think that the relief will be granted that Ms. Riddle is looking for and this board is looking for. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think what -- I think what Sue was asking for is seven days or 14 days. Which of the two is -- MS. CURLEY: Well, she answered that. Page 39 MR. L'ESPERANCE: She answered that. MS. NICOLA: I think that I answered the question with -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Seven? MS. NICOLA: Right. MS. CURLEY: So the motion I would make for No. 2 would be seven days with a $250-a-day fine post that. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have -- hold on. Who was the second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: That's just one part of it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Who was the second on the initial motion? MS. CURLEY: No one. MR. LEFEBVRE: No one. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So you second this motion. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Part of it. MS. CURLEY: So then we need the No. 1 completed by our permitting specialist. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I would think that the same person would have to second probably every part of it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So on the -- we can talk about getting a permit and a demo permit. Herminio, being the expert on the -- MR. ORTEGA: Once they submit for permit, it will take them five days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Let me throw some time out there and see if it's being reasonable. MR. ORTEGA: By the way, the county is forced to complete it Page 40 in five days under the their PMR. So that's guaranteed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. They could get a demo permit, which is what the respondent says he's going to do. This is not to complete the work. This is to pull the permit, or is it to pull a permit and complete the work? That's -- MS. NICOLA: The way it's written it says that it has to have a certificate of completion/occupancy. That's the way No. 1 is written, so I would assume that means complete the work. MR. ORTEGA: Even the demolition permit will come with a certificate of completion at the end in order to close it out. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, I think you'd probably need to separate that to let them know you mean business. You have to get a permit within some short period of time, and you have to get a CO on that at a longer period of time. It's probably pretty unreasonable to expect the demo to be completed in 30 days, pulling the permit and getting it done, which also includes removing the occupants, obviously. So I don't know if that would be a suggestion as which way to go. Do you want to split that in half? Part A to get the permit either to demo it or to bring it into compliance would be an affidavit. MS. CURLEY: No. Let's keep it one. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So what would be a reasonable amount of time? We have our guideline here, the beginning of your book. MR. LAVINSKI: Yep. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Looks like 120 days. MR. LAVINISKI: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It will be 120 days. MS. CURLEY: Well, that will get him past his hearing for his divorce. MS. NICOLA: That would be November 23rd of this year. Page 41 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's to have everything done. MS. CURLEY: Yep. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Or a fine of $250 a day on that one. MS. CURLEY: Got it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Is that what your -- MS. CURLEY: That sounds good to me. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: That gives him the window that he can deal with the immediate issue and then deal with the combination of occupancy issue and ownership issue. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we have a motion on the first part that they would -- how many days did we say that was, 120? MR. LEFEBVRE: Seven. MR. LAVINISKI: 120. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: 120. You're given days to pull the permit, whether it's a demo or a permit for the structure, and a $250 fine thereafter, and on Part 2 of the order we have seven days or $250 fine after that; that's disconnect the utilities and vacate the property. Does that sound -- MS. CURLEY: Perfect. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) Page 42 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. So you -- MS. RIDDLE: I understand and I followed you so far. I find myself in the unenviable position of even advocating for fines against my client, who's the innocent party, if you will, in this case; however, if the vacate order applies only to the garage, then there will probably be another section of the home that has been modified that will continue to stay occupied. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The only thing I can tell you, that if there's another violation there, they would have to open up a case on that, unless I'm wrong. MS. PULSE: I believe what she may be referring to, in the beginning of my investigation there was a wall installed which totally blocked a bathroom and a bedroom where the rear entry door, as shown in the photo, was -- created a private space. The interior wall is now removed. So it's back to the regular access of the bathroom/bedroom. The door -- the rear door will have to be addressed as well -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That could be on a second order. MS. PULSE: -- which is still in this part of the alteration of the -- with no permit. MS. RIDDLE: And just so everyone is clear, that wall that was removed was removed while our motion was pending before the family court, and it was removed by the wife or someone on her behalf. So that's the concern that we've had; that things continue to be done, and he doesn't have access to the property. So we'll work with the order. I understand. MS. NICOLA: I think you're going to have to address that issue in family court. I mean, we can only deal with the violations as they Page 43 come up. MS. RIDDLE: I understand. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Now, let me go back to your first comment, which was the fines. I'm sure that the Board would look upon any fines that are accruing where the respondent has no way of resolving them as far as lowering them or abating them at that time. MS. RIDDLE: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Okay. I guess we're done. MS. NICOLA: I'll copy you on this when it's done. MS. RIDDLE: Okay. Thank you very much. Have a good day. MS. NICOLA: Mr. Chairman, you said 9:15. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That we'd be done? MS. NICOLA: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, we would have if you didn't speak. MS. NICOLA: Everybody tells me that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Danny, where are we? MR. BLANCO: We don't have any more cases, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No more cases. Just a couple of comments then. Number one, our paperless process will probably not happen in the month of August, if I'm not correct? MR. BLANCO: We're still in the training process. We'll let you guys know when we decide to implement the full program. As of now we're not planning on doing that yet. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: In August, okay. Next meeting will be downstairs. MR. BLANCO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the Board? Page 44 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Jeff, do you want to say anything? MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, I will say that you asked me a question before the Board started that we were kind of limited on cases. Our policy is if -- in a timely manner, if the respondents come to Code Enforcement Board and it's not a health or -- I mean, come to Code Enforcement and it's not a health or a safety matter and they ask for a continuance, the first time we will just withdraw the case at that point. Now, if they ask for a second time, that's when we're going to bring it before you guys, and you make the decision. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: And we'll let you know that we've withdrawn it one time already. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. No more comments, no more -- we are adjourned. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:10 a.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD eAlimiliP, • : ERTA, MAN, CHAIRMAN ar These minutes approved by the Board on i D -2? -ZO 1-7, as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC/COURT REPORTER. Page 45