Loading...
CEB Minutes 03/22/2018March 22, 2018 Page 1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, March 22, 2018 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Robert Kaufman Robert Ashton Sue Curley Ron Doino Kathleen Elrod Gerald J. Lefebvre Ryan White Lionel L'Esperance (Excused) Herminio Ortega (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Specialist Danny Blanco, Administrative Secretary Jeff Letourneau, Manager of Investigations Tamara Lynne Nicola, Attorney to the Board Code Enforcement Board Hearing AGENDA Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 March 22, 2018 9:00 AM Robert Kaufman, Chair Gerald Lefebvre, Member Lionel L’Esperance, Member Ronald Doino, Member Robert Ashton, Member Sue Curley, Member Herminio Ortega, Member Kathleen Elrod, Alternate Ryan White, Alternate Notice: Respondents 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 proc eedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES V. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. MOTIONS MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME B. STIPULATIONS C. HEARINGS 1. CASE NO: CESD20160020044 OWNER: Teresa Scoppettone OFFICER: Virginie Giguere VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Interior renovations and alterations done to interior including but not limited to, kitchen countertops, cabinets, sink, also bathroom cabinets, countertops, toilets, tile work. Work done includes electrical, plumbing, structural, etc. FOLIO NO: 46770280004 VIOLATION 1714 Kings Lake Blvd, Unit 201, Naples ADDRESS: 2. CASE NO: CEROW20170017301 OWNER: Watergold LLC OFFICER: Arthur Ford VIOLATIONS: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 110 Roads and Bridges, Article II Construction in Public Rights of Way, Division II Collier County Swale and Culvert Conversion- Naples Park Section, 110-46, Responsibilities assumed by permittee. A failed culvert/drainage swale resulting in a damaged driveway and an obstructed storm water system. FOLIO NO: 62833080002 VIOLATION 536 99th Ave., Naples ADDRESS: 3. CASE NO: CESD20170010029 OWNER: Ramiro Teran and Gerenarda Teran OFFICER: Delicia Pulse VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e). Buildings in rear of the structure and no Collier County building permit obtained. Permit 2007051003 for a re-roof did not receive a Certificate of Completion. FOLIO NO: 38341560006 VIOLATION 5671 Lancewood Way, Naples ADDRESS: 4. CASE NO: CESD20150001965 OWNER: Fabricio Fernandez and Allison J. Fernandez OFFICER: Boris Molina VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(e) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Addition added to the existing structure without first obtaining the proper Collier County Building Permits. FOLIO NO: 36457240005 VIOLATION 5472 32nd Ave SW, Naples ADDRESS: 5. CASE NO: CESD20170013903 OWNER: Nian Corporation OFFICER: Delicia Pulse VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e). Alterations to structure and no Collier County Building permit obtained. Permit Number 2006020253 for shed demo did not received a Certificate of Completion. Permit Number PRBD20170206151 for re-roof did not receive a Certificate of Completion. FOLIO NO: 36383840003 VIOLATION 5400 26th PL SW, Naples ADDRESS: 6. CASE NO: CESD20170012033 OWNER: Monica Gomez Arciniegas and Raul A. Gomez Olaya OFFICER: Boris Molina VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended, Sections 1.4.04(A), 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Unpermitted water and electric alterations made to enclosed garage. Enclosed garage was originally permitted with No. 94- 4526, specified no utilities. FOLIO NO: 65671280003 VIOLATION 698 Pine Vale Dr., Naples ADDRESS: 7. CASE NO: CES20170015783 OWNER: DBM Marina LLC OFFICER: Sherry Patterson VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended, Section 5.06.11(A)(1). Unpermitted Canopy Sign. FOLIO NO: 48173280007 VIOLATION 3470 Bayshore Dr., Naples ADDRESS: 8. CASE NO: CESD20170013902 OWNER: Jorge G. Moral-Quintiana OFFICER: Delicia Pulse VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e), (i). Pool permit 83-4450 did not received a Certificate of Completion. Constructed structure in rear and did not obtain a Collier County Building Permit. FOLIO NO: 36322120001 VIOLATION 2743 54th ST SW, Naples ADDRESS: D. MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF FINES/LIENS VI. OLD BUSINESS A. MOTION FOR IMPOSITION OF FINES/LIENS 1. CASE NO: CESD20160002752 OWNER: James Gadsden and Scottie L. Gadsden GRDN OFFICER: Steven Lopez-Silvero VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Interior remodeling including, but not limited to new drywall, new framing, electrical, plumbing, flooring and installation of a central air conditioning system, all of which were observed on improved unoccupied commercial property. FOLIO NO: 24370240000 VIOLATION 317 S 1st St., Immokalee ADDRESS: 2. CASE NO: CEPM20170007397 OWNER: Laker Investment MGMT Inc OFFICER: Eric Short VIOLATIONS: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22 Buildings and Building Regulations, Article VI, Property Maintenance Code, Section 22-228(1). Loose sewer caps not seated correctly and in need of repair or replacement. Both are a safety and health hazard. FOLIO NO: 35980440001 VIOLATION 4500 Golden Gate Pkwy, Naples ADDRESS: 3. CASE NO: CESD20150017447 OWNER: Daniel Herrera OFFICER: Joseph Mucha VIOLATIONS: Collier County 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 certificates of occupancy as required by the Collier County Building Department. FOLIO NO: 30733560007 VIOLATION 1316 Orange St., Immokalee ADDRESS: 4. CASE NO: CESD20160007274 OWNER: Real EST Holdings of Tienda Mexicana Inc OFFICER: Steven Lopez-Silvero VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Unpermitted exterior alterations being conducted to a structure on occupied commercial property. FOLIO NO: 00131360004 VIOLATION 217 N 15th St., Immokalee ADDRESS: 5. CASE NO: CESD20170008234 OWNER: 11222 Tamiami LLC OFFICER: Jonathan Musse VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.03(B)(5). Dumpster placed on a different location on the property and without a wooden enclosure which is required according to the Site Development Plan No. 91-83. FOLIO NO: 60783240004 VIOLATION 11222 Tamiami Trail East, Naples ADDRESS: B. MOTION TO RESCIND PREVIOUSLY ISSUED ORDER C. MOTION TO AMEND PREVIOUSLY ISSUED ORDER VII. NEW BUSINESS 7.1. Rules and Regulations Review 7.2. Board Chairman and Vice-Chairman Elections VIII. CONSENT AGENDA A. REQUEST TO FORWARD CASES TO COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AS REFERENCED IN SUBMITTED EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IX. REPORTS X. COMMENTS XI. NEXT MEETING DATE - FRIDAY APRIL 27, 2018 AT 9:00 A.M. XII. ADJOURN March 22, 2018 Page 2 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, everybody. If you have the opportunity to turn off your cell phone, it might be a good idea to do it now. Notice: The respondents may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation unless additional time to 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 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'll all stand for the Pledge. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Slightly out of order. I'm sure everybody has read the minutes. Does anybody have any changes or comments on the minutes from the last meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none. MR. ASHTON: Make a motion to accept the minutes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. March 22, 2018 Page 3 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. WHITE: (Abstain.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. We have changes on the agenda? MS. ADAMS: Did you want the roll call first or -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure, yeah. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Robert Kaufman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Ronald Doino? MR. DOINO: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Robert Ashton? MR. ASHTON: Here. MS. ADAMS: Ms. Sue Curley? MS. CURLEY: Here. MS. ADAMS: Ms. Kathleen Elrod? MS. ELROD: Here. MS. ADAMS: Mr. Ryan White? MR. WHITE: Here. MS. ADAMS: And Mr. Lionel L'Esperance has an excused absence, and Mr. Herminio Ortega is absent. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So today we welcome Ryan to the Board, and on your first day you'll be a voting member since we have two folks who are board members who are not present. MS. ADAMS: Okay. Roman Numeral V, public hearings, motions, Letter B, stipulations, we have four additions. The first stipulation is Item V.C.4, Case CESD20150001965, March 22, 2018 Page 4 Fabricio Fernandez and Allison J. Fernandez. The second stipulation is Item V.C.6, Case CESD20170012033, Monica Gomez Arciniegas and Raul A. Gomez Olaya. The third stipulation is Item V.C.7, Case CES20170015783, DBM Marina, LLC. The fourth stipulation is Item V.C.5, Case CESD20170013903, Nian Corporation. Letter C, hearings, No. 2, Item V.C.2, Case CEROW20170017301, Watergold, LLC, has been withdrawn. Number 8, Item V.C.8, Case CESD20170013902, George G. Moral-Quintiana, has been withdrawn. Roman Numeral VI, old business, Letter A, motion for imposition of fines and liens, No. 5, Item VI.A.5, Case CESD20170008234, 11222 Tamiami LLC, has been withdrawn. And that's all the changes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve the changes. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MS. ADAMS: Okay. The first stipulation is No. 5 from hearings -- I'm sorry -- No. 4 from hearings, Item V.C.4. It's Case CESD20150001965, Fabicio Fernandez and Allison J. Fernandez. March 22, 2018 Page 5 (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. MOLINA: Good morning. For the record, Boris Molina, Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Would you like to read the stipulation into the record? And, sir, could you state your name on the microphone so that we have a record of it. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: State your name on the microphone. MR. FERNANDEZ: Oh. Fabricio Fernandez. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MOLINA: Therefore, it is agreed -- therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall, one, pay operational costs in the amount of $59.70 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Number 2, abate all violations by first obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion and/or occupancy within 60 days of this hearing, or a fine of $350 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Second, must cease using the unpermitted structure for living purposes and disconnect all utilities within 24 hours of this hearing, or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Third, 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 March 22, 2018 Page 6 about abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Fernandez, have you discussed this with the officer? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is the space occupied or not occupied right now? MR. FERNANDEZ: Occupied. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It is? And you'll be able to fulfill the 24-hour -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any other questions of the Board? MR. FERNANDEZ: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Go ahead. MR. LEFEBVRE: This violation was first noticed on September 1st, 2015; is that correct? MR. MOLINA: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: Why has it taken so long? MR. MOLINA: His permit expired a couple times, and then he got it reactivated. His wife has cancer, so they were using the room for the treatment, so that's why they had to do extensions. MR. LEFEBVRE: And what stage of the process are you in getting this permitted? Is it permit by affidavit, or what's the -- how are you going to get this permitted? Is 60 days enough? MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. When I come in (sic) today and go to the city and explain, because my problem is the installation because I supposed to got R30. I put in R19, and the space is only 8-inch because the roof is plain. And the problem, I can't move the insulation because my wife have cancer. Can't do it. March 22, 2018 Page 7 MR. LEFEBVRE: Is 60 days going to be enough to correct? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yeah. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. I make a motion to approve the stipulated agreement as read. MR. DOINO: I'll second that. MS. CURLEY: Second. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Pick your second. Any comment on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next stipulation is Item VI.C.6, Case CESD20170012033, Monica Gomez Arciniegas and Raul A. Gomez Olaya. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. MOLINA: For the record, Boris Molina -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. MOLINA: -- Collier County Code Enforcement. MR. ROSHAN: My name is Adrian Roshan (phonetic). I'm here on behalf -- they're not able to be here because they're out of the March 22, 2018 Page 8 country at this time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You have permission to speak in their behalf? MR. ROSHAN: They gave me permission, but I didn't know I needed anything. I was told that -- they had the paperwork, the stipulation done, and they were -- I'm here just to see what was going on as far as they -- I was told by Raul Gomez that he was told that most probably they didn't have to be here at this time but they wanted me to be here to see what was going on. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you have the authority to sign the stipulation? MR. LEFEBVRE: It's signed already. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's signed already. That's fine. MR. MOLINA: Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: One, pay operational costs in the amount of $59.70 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; two, abate all violations by first obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion and/or occupancy within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Second, must cease using the unpermitted structure for living purposes and disconnect all utilities within 24 hours of this hearing, or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Three, respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator to 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 Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of March 22, 2018 Page 9 abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any questions on the stipulation from the Board? MR. LEFEBVRE: I have a question. Number 2 states that the electricity, or power, everything has to be turned off to the building. Does, typically, Code Enforcement go out and inspect that to make sure it's done within 24 hours. MR. MOLINA: Yes, sir, within 24 hours. MR. LEFEBVRE: If they're out of the country, how are you going to do that? MR. MOLINA: He has somebody looking out for the property. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. CURLEY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: Was this a place where people were living? MR. MOLINA: They were at one point. There's no one living there right now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You understand the stipulation that -- MR. ROSHAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- was signed by the folks that own the property? MR. ROSHAN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any questions? MR. ROSHAN: No, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any motions from the Board? MR. ASHTON: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any comments on the motion? March 22, 2018 Page 10 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. ROSHAN: Thank you. MS. CURLEY: The next stipulation is Item V.C.7, Case CES20170015783, DBM Marina, LLC. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. Could you state your name on the microphone. MR. SHRIGLEY: Gary Shrigley. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. PATTERSON: Good morning. For the record, my name is Sherry Patterson. I'm with Collier County Code Enforcement, senior investigator. So, therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of 59.63 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing and abate all violations by obtaining all required permits, all required inspections, and certificate of completion or -- within 90 days of this hearing, or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of March 22, 2018 Page 11 the abatement, of the violation and request the investigator perform a site visit to confirm compliance; that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any methodology to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of Collier County Sheriff's Department to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all cost of the abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: Before we go on here, I think there might have been a mistake on the stipulation. Well, you've got an "or" hanging out there with no -- it just says, "or." It should be "or remove the sign," I believe. MS. PATTERSON: Show it to me again. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Scrivener's error. MS. PATTERSON: I agree. I apologize. MR. LETOURNEAU: How could we go about -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Just scratch it out. It's a Scrivener's error. MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, we do need to add in the part "or the sign must be removed." That's the other option. MR. SHRIGLEY: I agree to that. MR. LEFEBVRE: You're the son, correct? MR. SHRIGLEY: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: And you signed this originally? MR. SHRIGLEY: Yes, I did. MR. LEFEBVRE: On your father's behalf? MR. SHRIGLEY: Yes, I did. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. So we could make that change. He agreed to it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you want to make the change before we vote on it, or you want to -- or we'll vote on it accepting the March 22, 2018 Page 12 change? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah. Why don't we go -- we have one more stip. MS. NICOLA: I think you can just take the stipulation and initial it; write it in. Like write "remove the sign," have him initial it, and that would be enough. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: Sounds good. He's here. Whatever's easiest. MS. NICOLA: That way you don't have to re-call it, and just have him initial it right now. Do you have the original stipulation? Do you have it, or is that mine? MS. ADAMS: No, we have it. MR. LEFEBVRE: So you agree that it will state that -- to remove or remove the sign? MR. SHRIGLEY: That is correct. MS. CURLEY: How many days are we giving him? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The timing on the stipulation is how many days? MS. CURLEY: One. MS. NICOLA: Ninety. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Ninety days. MS. NICOLA: That would be June 1st. MR. SHRIGLEY: Okay. MS. CURLEY: Is this open for questions? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. Go ahead. MS. CURLEY: How does it take 90 days to take two signs down? MR. SHRIGLEY: So we have building permits that are going to be going in process right now, so we're going to be taking down the building. So at least if there -- there was an original canvass awning March 22, 2018 Page 13 that was there. What we did is we put signage up on it. We didn't realize that was in violation of the code. So if you allow us 90 days, it means we don't have to take everything off right now until we actually start to demo -- you know, demolish the building. MS. CURLEY: And you have the permit for the demo already? MR. SHRIGLEY: Not yet, no. MS. CURLEY: So how did the complaint come about? Neighbor? MS. PATTERSON: Yeah. We got a complaint through Code Enforcement. MS. CURLEY: So why should the neighbor have to wait? MR. LETOURNEAU: I believe there was numerous, kind of, what -- signs hanging everywhere. They removed those immediately, and this one's really not that obtrusive compared to the ones that were removed immediately, so the county's comfortable with leaving the sign up until the building is demolished. MS. PATTERSON: Yeah. Exactly what it was is that they were -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You have to be on the mike. MS. PATTERSON: I'm sorry. Exactly what it was, there was a number of banners on the front of the business and on the fence that were basically stating what they offer for boats and things like that. And there was also some banners on the front of the building. So I went in and talked to Mr. Shrigley and explained to him that any banners, any temporary signs, they have to have permits when you put them up anywhere. So he agreed to that. There's a couple electrical signs on the wall that have been up there for quite some time. They didn't have any electric hooked to them, according to him, but he elected to go ahead and take those down. That would leave him with no signage other than what he has up there for a canopy sign. March 22, 2018 Page 14 Now his canopy sign is a large canopy sign, and it has the name Sierra Bay Marina on it. It also has his, maybe, suppliers and things that he -- MR. SHRIGLEY: The boat manufacturers, different manufacturers that we have. MS. PATTERSON: Manufacturers on there. He didn't see that as an issue when it was put up. So he did his due diligence, took down all the unpermitted banners, the other lighted signs, took them down. He's got the awning sign up there. He needs some signage. So he told me that he would be able to get this done. Within six months they're going to take the entire building out. So that's why we're here today was hoping we could give him a little bit of an extension that he can do what he needs to do and still stay in business for Collier County. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any other questions from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You have no problem with the 90 days? MR. SHRIGLEY: No problem at all, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody want to make a motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept the stipulated agreement with that one change. MR. DOINO: Second. MS. PATTERSON: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. March 22, 2018 Page 15 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. SHRIGLEY: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next stipulation is No. 5 from hearings. It's Item V.C.5, Case CESD20170013903, Nian Corporation. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name on the microphone for us. MR. BROWN: Antonio Brown. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You're the representative for Nian Corporation? MR. BROWN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning. MS. PULSE: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Would you like to read the stipulation into the record? MS. PULSE: For the record, Dee Pulse, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Number 1, pay operational costs in the amount of $59.42 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Number 2, abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificates of completion/occupancy for alterations/improvements made to main structure and shed, or restore the property to its March 22, 2018 Page 16 originally permitted state within 60 days of this hearing, or a fine of $150 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Number 3, respondent must notify the Code Enforcement -- 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 abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any questions on the stipulation from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sir, you agree to the stipulation? MR. BROWN: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any motions from the Board? MR. ASHTON: I'll make a motion to accept the stipulation as written. MS. CURLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. March 22, 2018 Page 17 MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. BROWN: Thank you very much. MS. ADAMS: The next case going in order of those that are present will be No. 3 from hearings, Item V.C.3, Case CESD20170010029, Ramiro Teran and Gerenarda Teran. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We will take a 30-second pause while Dee filters her way down to the microphone. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. PULSE: Good morning, again. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Since this is a violation, you get the opportunity to go first. And could you both state your name on the microphone for me. MR. TERAN: My name is Ramiro Teran. MS. TERAN: My name is Gerenarda Teran. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. PULSE: For the record, Dee Pulse, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20170010029 dealing with the violation of the Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(e) for buildings in the rear of the structure and no Collier County building permits obtained. Also, Permit No. 2007051003 for a reroof that did not receive a certificate of completion. It's located at 5671 Lancewood Way, Naples, Florida, 34116. Folio: 38341560006. March 22, 2018 Page 18 Service was given on December 7th, 2017. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: An aerial photo from Property Appraiser website for the year 2017 and a photo taken by me on 3/9/18. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen the photos? MS. PULSE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any objection to those photos being provided? MS. TERAN: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Can I get a motion from the Board to accept the photos? MR. DOINO: Motion to accept. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MS. PULSE: Okay. The complaint was received by -- into our department for no permit pulled for structures in the background. Our research confirmed no permits were found, and it was determined by the building official permits were required. Building official also determined, after reviewing the property history and information, the reroof permit, 2007051003, which was in void status, needed to be March 22, 2018 Page 19 resolved. Permit PRBD20171251571 for the structures was applied for on December 14th, 2017, and is currently in rejected status. No activity on the reroof permit. I have contacted owners several times to remind them the permits needed to get into issued status and processed. As of March 21st, 2018, the violations remain. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you go back to the first photo for me, please. Dee, could you point, on the picture, the buildings that we're talking about. You can use your finger. MS. PULSE: I've got to get my glasses. This structure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All this technical stuff. Push the button. MS. PULSE: Can you hear me now? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. PULSE: Yes. This structure here and this structure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Which one had the reroof? The one on the back? MS. PULSE: The main structure had the reroof. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And the structure in the back has no permit? MS. PULSE: Right. There's two of them. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You have no idea when they were constructed? MS. PULSE: Before -- I do have aerial views of the property in 1993 and -- hold on one second. MS. CURLEY: So just for clarity, the roof that didn't get the final certificate, that permit was from 2007, correct? MS. PULSE: Correct. MS. CURLEY: I mean, that's -- MS. PULSE: Sometime after 1999 is the only aerials that we March 22, 2018 Page 20 have access. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: So the home was acquired in 2001? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. It was like that when they purchased it, it seems, but we'll ask the respondent those questions. Okay. Thank you. Good morning. MS. TERAN: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You've heard the officer. And what would you like to say to the Board? MS. TERAN: Okay. When we purchased the property, those structures were already in there, so we had no idea that it was built without a permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. MS. TERAN: Until now that we find out, because we purchased the property I think 19 or 18 years ago. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This happens all the time when people have a surprise that there was no permit pulled. Unfortunately, the time to find it out is before you close on the property, but that's another story. So what we have to decide at the Board is whether a violation exists, and if one does, then we'll go to the remedy for that after we find out whether or not the violation exists, okay. So anybody want to make a motion as far as a violation is concerned? MR. ASHTON: Make a motion a violation exists. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? March 22, 2018 Page 21 MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. So we know it's a violation because there were no permits pulled on those buildings. Where do we go from here? Are those buildings sheds? Are they? MS. TERAN: One is for the water pump. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. TERAN: The other one is -- MR. TERAN: Is the storage. MS. TERAN: It was, like, a guesthouse. But we submitted permits because we asked that we could keep it as a shed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is there electricity in there? MS. TERAN: Yes, exactly. There's electricity. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the permits that you're asking for, you have to go through the inspection and all the rest of that? MS. TERAN: Yes. Convert that into a shed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you have already applied for a permit on that then? MS. TERAN: We did apply for it. Until right now, after the hurricane, it has been extended and extended, and we didn't -- we submitted the paperwork to permitting, but until now, the last paper that we received was the court hearing. So I had no idea that it was being rejected. March 22, 2018 Page 22 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Have you been in touch with the folks at Growth Management as far as that's concerned? MS. PULSE: No, sir, I haven't. The corrections letter was created on February 15th. She was not notified, and I didn't know that she was not notified until yesterday. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. As far as the roof permit, that shouldn't be a big deal. I've gone through that process myself with some friends of mine, and they'll -- what you need to do is contact the county, the county will come out, they'll send an inspector out to take a look at the roof, and you can go through that path. That shouldn't be a big deal. The other problem that you have, the buildings, I think we need to have a followup on the building permit and find out when that can be approved and when that -- that will make this whole case go away. So do you have any idea how long it would take? The building's done. There's no construction that's needed? MS. TERAN: The building is right there. There's no construction that's needed, I believe. I don't know exactly nothing about construction. My husband is the one who kind of help because he knows a bit of construction, but he recently had surgery, his shoulder. So he's in recuperation. He's not even working. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. As Herminio has advised me, if this was not done by you originally, and it appears that it wasn't, then you can apply for a building permit by affidavit. Fill out the paperwork. They do what they need to do to inspect it, and that's it. You wouldn't have to do any construction if it meets the code. MS. TERAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So it would be the timing on how long you would need to that do. MS. CURLEY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. March 22, 2018 Page 23 MS. CURLEY: Can we engage with the county. So are these buildings, did they -- the one that's covering the water pump, does it appear that it's within the distance from the property line and, et, cetera that it looks like it would be? MS. PULSE: I really can't confirm that. MR. LETOURNEAU: I can probably speak to that. I'm looking at the correction letter right now, and there's some major issues on here at this point. What they submitted, I believe, was for one of the sheds, and it was rejected because it appeared to be closer than 10 feet to the other shed, and it actually almost looks like it's touching. There's some vegetation removal that's in question, maybe possible wetlands. They need to provide the site plan; the location of the septic tank. That's probably pretty easy. But it looks like they have a few hurdles here that might take some time. MS. CURLEY: Would it require them to get a survey and things like that that's expensive? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah. They're going to have to submit a survey to show the setbacks from the structures and the property lines. I believe the hardest part's probably going to be, if it is in wetlands, because DEP takes forever to make determinations on these things. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, what I would suggest to the Board is that we try to come up with our best estimate on how long we think this would take and then extend that a little bit because of the wetlands. MS. CURLEY: So I have a question. Just to -- the roofing matter seems to be somewhat simple. Do you know if the company that you hired to do the roof is still in business? MS. TERAN: I believe not. MS. PULSE: The permit was owner builder. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So who did the roof? March 22, 2018 Page 24 MR. TERAN: Sun Roofing from -- I believe. I don't know. MS. TERAN: He contracted someone without a license, I believe. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, if you did it by owner, then you're responsible to get the permit approved by the county. But, as you said, Jeff, I don't think that's the longest item on the list. MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah. As long as it wasn't damaged by the hurricane. Hopefully it's still in good shape to pass inspection. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. When was the roof done? MS. CURLEY: Ten years ago. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Did you have hurricane damage on that roof? MR. TERAN: Yes. MS. TERAN: I believe so. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you fixed that? MS. TERAN: It has not been fixed yet, so we're still waiting. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Who are you waiting for? MS. TERAN: Well, insurance, because the insurance, we have so many issues with them. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, what I thought was simple is not simple. MS. TERAN: We have a lot of problems. MR. TERAN: They want to pay $3,200 for fix the roof. MS. TERAN: The insurance want to pay only 22-. MS. CURLEY: Take it. MR. TERAN: That's a lot to do for $3,200. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, there are issues that need to be resolved. You need time to do those. MS. TERAN: We need timing. That's what we need; timing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How much time do you think you March 22, 2018 Page 25 would need to resolve everything? I know it's going to be a guess on your part. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, let's look at the recommendations. MS. TERAN: He's in recuperation. He's the one that knows a bit of construction. It could be that -- is there a way that he can do -- construct himself with the permit? He can do it owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You can do owner builder. MS. TERAN: Owner builder. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. TERAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't we see your recommendation, and we'll go from there. MS. PULSE: It is recommended that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $59.42 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days, and abate all violations by, No. 1, obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificates of completion/occupancy for reroof and structures in the rear of the property or restore the property to its originally permitted state within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Number 2, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So it's the fill in the blanks, if you will. March 22, 2018 Page 26 MR. LEFEBVRE: I think the structures and the roof are two separate issues, so I think it should be broken down into 1 being the roof possibly and then No. 2 being the buildings or structures in the back. MS. CURLEY: I agree. MR. DOINO: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: If someone wants to structure a -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, let me just say if you allowed a particular amount of time to have them both done, you could do it with Dee's suggestion. If you want to provide different time frames for each one, then we will have to break that down into two things. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think the roof should be a shorter period of time. I know I had damage -- hurricane damage on my roof, and my roof was replaced a few weeks ago. So should be able to get that done in a relatively short period of time versus taking care of the other issues which may be a little more complicated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, in your case, not that you're here, but that was six months ago. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. What I'm trying to say is that it took about six months and, on average, most people are getting their roof done or have been done within the past few months. So I think the roof issue should be 60 days. And I would say five months to restore or to take care of the other issues. I would say have a smaller fine for -- and it sounds like I'm drafting this. MS. CURLEY: You are. MR. LEFEBVRE: But -- all right. So the roof to be -- certificate of completion within 60 days, or a fine of $100 a day will be imposed, and then, No. 2, the structures, either get a certificate of completion for those or demo permit within 150 days, or a fine of $150, and the operational costs be paid within 30 days. March 22, 2018 Page 27 MS. CURLEY: So I have a comment. MR. LEFEBVRE: Sure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't sort of agree with those tight timelines on that just -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. CURLEY: -- because they've expressed some health issues and some financial issues. If you have one of the household members not working, it's difficult, and they're dealing with something that -- a mistake that they made in 2007, which is, you know, 10 years ago. So I think there's -- I think both of these problems independently are very difficult, and there's a lot to learn about these. So I don't see where it's offending anyone. I mean, I think -- MR. LEFEBVRE: What's your thoughts? MS. CURLEY: I think they should have at least nine months to address all of these things and fix them or hit the maximum fine after that point. It's -- to separate these two tasks -- and they're both involving the county. I mean, I do agree that one's heavier than the other, but when we look into the nuances of the 2007 permit, it was a roof that he did himself with unlicensed people, which probably wouldn't have gotten the final approval, so it's likely that that roof wasn't done to the 2007 specs, and it's going to get ugly, and they're going to need money to fix that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I agree that I think 60 days is too short a time. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And maybe nine months is too long a time. Being the keen negotiator that I am, I think if you meet in the middle, maybe both of you would be happy. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. You originally said that you'd want to break it down to two different time frames. Now you're saying it's just one time frame, the nine months. What other time frame? Is that March 22, 2018 Page 28 what you're going back to, just one time frame, the nine months? MS. CURLEY: Yeah. I changed my mind, because they're both very complicated, and they have to learn a lot about the code enforcement and the county rules, and they're going to -- it takes time to learn that. MR. LEFEBVRE: The violation was first observed July 7th, then five months later a notice of violation, so they've known this since December 7th. So, literally, we're going to give them over a year to -- MS. CURLEY: Yep. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- to correct this. MS. CURLEY: It's not hurting anyone. Has all the electricity been taken out of the shed? Is that just being used as a shed? MS. TERAN: No. The water pump, we got -- how are we going to take out the electricity on the -- MS. CURLEY: No. The shed. MS. TERAN: The shed, other one. No, not yet, because we submitted papers for the -- for it to be turned to a shed. So do we need to turn off electricity on that, too? MR. LEFEBVRE: I rescind my motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, the problem with doing that is one of the sheds has the water system; is that correct? Am I correct? MS. TERAN: One shed is for the pump, water pump. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And if you turn the electric off, then they have no water in the house, so... MS. CURLEY: I wasn't talking about that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. But I just mention all of that. MS. TERAN: It just started to be so much. I thought we were being brought here for -- just for the guesthouse. That's what you started with us. You started with the water -- with the guesthouse. We had no idea that you were putting the shed and the roof. And there is March 22, 2018 Page 29 so many stuff that we didn't have no idea either. MS. PULSE: It involved both structures. MS. TERAN: Both structures? MS. PULSE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We'll go through the normal process of we'll ask you, and if you want to ask her any questions about -- MS. TERAN: I'm sorry. But that's what we had -- I thought we were being bought just for that. MR. LETOURNEAU: Mr. Kaufman? MS. TERAN: The guesthouse, that was being built years ago before we purchased the property. And all we're asking is time, because he's sick. He's not even only with the shoulder. He's diabetic. I cannot do it myself. MR. LETOURNEAU: As far as splitting up, the county always favors just kind of keeping it together. It's easier and cleaner for us. I mean, you guys do what you've got to do, but that's just the county's opinion on that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, and I agree with you. MR. LEFEBVRE: My motion's been rescinded. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion's been rescinded. So let's think about a motion that would fix everything in the best time frame that we can guess. And if it's too short, the respondents can come back and request additional time should they show that progress is being made to resolve the situation. So now the amount of days is the -- is what we're talking about. You had mentioned a shorter time frame, and Ms. Curley mentioned nine months. MS. CURLEY: I'm talking Christmas. Yeah, I'm talking Christmastime. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So do you want to make a March 22, 2018 Page 30 motion? MS. CURLEY: Do you mean do I want to address the open things on the recommendation in the stipulation agreement? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, yes. If you wanted to fill in the blanks, you only have two numbers to come up with, and one is amount of days and the amount of fine if they don't have it done by that time frame. MS. CURLEY: Yes, however, I have a comment. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Go ahead. MS. CURLEY: How many other open permits are there for owner builder roofs? I feel like this -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It has nothing to do with this case. MS. CURLEY: I know, but I feel like it shouldn't even be here on this violation, I guess, just because of -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, that's another bag of worms. MR. DOINO: What about the electrical? MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. I'll make another motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm going to keep everything together, and it's going to be 180 days or a fine of $150, and pay the operational costs within 30 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I would second that motion. Any comment on Mr. Lefebvre's motion? MS. NICOLA: Just for the record, that would be September 18th. MR. LEFEBVRE: Thank you. MS. NICOLA: I know you guys were talking about dates, so that's one of the things that I do when I start out is write down the dates, depending on the number of days. So I thought that might be a little helpful if you were talking about the time and maybe for them, too, so that they understand that the number of days coordinates with a March 22, 2018 Page 31 date. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. No comments from the Board? MR. DOINO: One comment. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We had a second. I seconded. MR. DOINO: One comment. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? Hold it. MR. DOINO: What about the electrical? What are we doing with that? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't think you can do anything with the electrical, or it cuts the whole house off. MR. LEFEBVRE: There's two different buildings, so they can -- you can turn off the power to the unit that was a guesthouse but now is a storage facility, correct, or storage? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. If you want to make that part of your motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Within 48 hours power to the storage building must be turned off. Now, the pump is on the right side, is that correct, of the property? MS. TERAN: (Nods head.) MR. LEFEBVRE: We could see it from the picture; is that correct? MS. TERAN: (Nods head.) MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. So the storage building, what now is termed a storage building, power will be turned off within 48 hours. You going to amend? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. Yes, the second amends it as well, approves, motions it or whatever. Done. Okay. Any other comments from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? March 22, 2018 Page 32 MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. So here's -- you have six months, 180 days, to get everything done. If for some reason you can't get everything done, before the six months comes about, you need to come back to Code Enforcement, contact Dee, and arrange for additional time. And I'm sure Code Enforcement is going to ask you at that time, should you need more time, what have you done. If you haven't done anything, that's not looked on favorably. But if you have started the process and you've got permits, or whatever, and you need additional time, I'm sure the Board would certainly like to hear about that, and we can go from there, okay? MS. TERAN: All right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The other thing is, turn the electric off within 48 hours, okay? MR. LETOURNEAU: The county has a question on this. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: When we go out there Monday and they don't have the electric off, is there a fine amount attached to the electric part of the -- MS. CURLEY: You can't. How do you know? They're going -- what if they have to call an electrician? What if it's wired wrong and connected to the house? March 22, 2018 Page 33 MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, I mean, I'm thinking that -- the problem with these things is if we go out there, they turn the circuit off at the breaker box, to us that's compliance because the electric is off at the -- but who's to say once Dee walks away on Monday they don't turn it back -- you know, I mean, I'm not saying they're going to, but it's going to be hard for us to monitor something like that. Now, if you want to get an electrician out there and cut everything, then, yeah, so... MR. ASHTON: As long as the electricity's turned off to the breaker. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have a breaker that serves that building? MR. TERAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You can turn the breaker off, and to Jeff's point, you can even remove it. That's not a big deal. It just snaps out, and there's one screw with the wire, so... MR. LEFEBVRE: But to his point, there's no fine attached to it if they don't do it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you want to add a fine to your motion? Amend it again? MS. CURLEY: Let's just leave it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have one "let's leave it." Go ahead. The ball is in your court. MR. LETOURNEAU: Then there's no use to going out there and checking on the electric if there's no penalty. I mean -- MR. LEFEBVRE: A hundred-dollar fine if it's not turned off within 48 hours. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I second that. Okay. So -- MR. LEFEBVRE: We've got to take a vote again. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any comments on it? (No response.) March 22, 2018 Page 34 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: (No verbal response.) MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. So you need to cut the electricity to that. MS. TERAN: What if we need an electrician? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Whatever you need to do to get it done, you need to get it done. Turn the breaker off. And if you don't get it done, it's $100-a-day fine. So it's certainly in your best interest to remove the electricity from that building, okay? Okay. MS. PULSE: I have a question. You mentioned a $100 fine. Is that per day? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, it is. MR. ASHTON: Per day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Moving right along. Thank you. MS. PULSE: Thank you. MS. TERAN: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case that we have someone present is going to be from Roman Numeral VI, old business, Letter A, motion for imposition of fines and liens, No. 1, it's Item VI.A.1. On the agenda, Case CESD20160002752, James Gadsden and Scottie L. Gadsden, guardian. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) March 22, 2018 Page 35 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You're here -- before we read this into the record, you're here to ask for something or state something. Please let us know. MR. GADSDEN: Yes, an extension on the building, because I hadn't got the work done yet to it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is there a reason? MR. GADSDEN: Yes. I applied for -- well, the contractor applied for the permit, but they reject it because they say he needs to go into more detail in actually what he's doing to the building. But as far as work-wise it's like electronical, you know, putting lights up, exit lights or -- but I think they just need something in writing also. With the A/C is -- what's being done as far as -- he's doing -- like, is he -- or was you replacing it, and -- but he's not replacing. He's just upgrading it. And also, with the parking, how much parking space there, they need -- so that's why they reject the permit. They just want it in writing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm looking at this. This goes back to September of 2016. MR. GADSDEN: Right. Originally, I had leased the building out to someone else. They was doing the work. But all of a sudden they backed out. They said they didn't want it, you know, because of what they was trying to put there, take-out restaurant, office space and, like, a thrift store. So I guess once they found out the cost and what it going to take to get all this done, they kind of backed out. So by then I got stuck with the building because it's my building. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: I have a question. Are you James, or are you Scottie? MR. GADSDEN: I'm Scottie. That's my dad. March 22, 2018 Page 36 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any questions of the respondent? MR. LEFEBVRE: It just seems like an awful long time, almost two years. Seaglass up in Bonita is building a high-rise up there, and it's taken -- probably going to completed before this thing's going to be completed, and it's a 17-story high-rise. It just seems an exorbitant amount of time to take -- MR. GADSDEN: Well, the permit was -- you know, we did -- we applied for the permit. It's just that they rejected it because they said they needed more -- go more into detail actually what you're doing. See, the contractor didn't do that, so he had to make those corrections. MR. LEFEBVRE: When was that permit submitted? MR. GADSDEN: I don't know exactly. It's been a -- MS. PEREZ: Board member, I have that information. For the record, Christina Perez, Collier County Code Enforcement. The permit application was initially applied for on October 25th, 2017. And the last rejection that was issued on that permit was March 23rd, 2017. The application itself is still valid. It expires on June 21st, 2018, so they need to do a re-submittal of what the correction letter has requested of them, which I do have that outstanding correction letter, and it actually may need more time than maybe what Mr. Gadsden's emphasizing because part of -- it also says they need to submit an approved site -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: SDP. MS. PEREZ: A site plan. It just specifies that approved site plan is required. So that -- you know, because it's a commercial building. Part of the obstacles they've been running into is that this is a very old building in Immokalee. It's right along South First Street, which March 22, 2018 Page 37 does not have a lot of street front, so that's part of the issues that they've been running into, that the new codes, in order for them to open it up as a commercial building, it has -- you know, they have very limited space as to what they're able to do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Parking. MS. PEREZ: Parking, for example, is one. You know, hence why they couldn't do the take-out restaurant. It doesn't mean that they can't do something with the building, because there are, like, reductions that they'll give out in Immokalee because it is a -- it is within a walking area. But I think there's a little bit more work that they have to do on their part. If there's any consideration that the Board could give them time, just keep in mind that they do have to come in with some type of a site plan in order get this building approved. MR. LEFEBVRE: When was the permit first submitted? MS. PEREZ: October 25th, 2017, this past October. MR. LEFEBVRE: But then you said there was an inspection on the -- MS. PEREZ: There was -- no, the last rejection. The rejection letter was dated December 23rd, 2017. So just within the last 90 days they were notified of the rejection. MR. LEFEBVRE: But it took, literally, a year to apply for a building permit from when he came in front of us in September; actually, 13 months. So nothing happened for a over a year. So the question I have: Why? Why over a year it took to even submit a building permit? And the question I have is back on the 28th of last year when you came in front of us, we granted a continuance, and it doesn't seem like anything was done in that six-or-so-month period, and then in October 2017 you came back in front of us and got another continuance when you just applied for the building permit. So a year -- 13 months to apply for a building permit is not March 22, 2018 Page 38 acceptable to me, and to string this out even further -- and I know there's things that have to be done but, again, this should have been all -- all should have been found out months and months ago, but that didn't happen because it took over a year for the permit to be submitted. MS. CURLEY: I have a question -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Shoot. MS. CURLEY: -- probably for the county. What was this building originally? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's an old building. MS. PEREZ: It's a very old building. I don't know the history of it as far as what it was used. I know at one point years ago it was commercial. The problem is that when a building is left unused for an X amount of time, then they have to revert to whatever the current codes are or, you know, the occupancy allows, whatever zoning allows. MS. CURLEY: So the illegal -- the violation of what they did to the inside of the building is what's brought this. Is there any way they can just remove what was done in there and then leave the building and not have to go through all this? Is there other options for him other than the one that seems to be a little bit too much to handle? MS. PEREZ: That is something that Scottie and I talked yesterday -- late afternoon we spoke -- that perhaps the only other option would be to demolish whatever work has been done and just leave the building, you know, continuing to be vacant. MS. CURLEY: And that would eliminate -- if that was done, would this case be closed? MS. PEREZ: Possibly, yes. I think that would be -- if whatever was done is removed and left to whatever the original state was, then, yeah, the code case would be in compliance. MS. CURLEY: And the only reason I ask that is because right March 22, 2018 Page 39 now there's $73,000 worth of fines, you know, that are accruing, and it doesn't seem like timelines are going to be met, so there has to be an Option B for this person -- MS. PEREZ: Right. MS. CURLEY: -- in an old -- I don't know if it's historic -- but in a community that could appreciate that building. MS. PEREZ: And, obviously, on a main street we'd prefer that the county be able to work with him and he be able to open a business so we don't have another vacant structure in this area. That would be, you know, in a perfect world, what we would want to see there, you know, that building, you know, become something and add to the community. But, unfortunately, yeah, that may be the only other option, to demolish whatever alterations were done and then be able to close the case with a demolition permit. So we did talk about that, but it was just late yesterday when we discussed that. So I could have that discussion with the Building Department and see what their satisfaction will be about that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: When do you think, realistically, you could bring everything into compliance, your best guess? MR. GADSDEN: I would say six to seven months, somewhere in there. Because once I -- even once we get approved for the permit, I know normally it takes, what, 15 days for them to go over it now. The contractor saying it probably going to be a little longer because of the hurricane, everybody applying for permits. So probably be a little more than those 15 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, let's say that took a month to get the permit done. Has the contractor given you any indication of how long it would take him to do whatever he needs to do? MR. GADSDEN: Where they're talking about removing, that's just a wall. It's about an 8- or 7- -- 8- or 9-foot wall, and that's the March 22, 2018 Page 40 only thing. Then it will be back to original -- the way the building was. That shouldn't, you know -- so once we get the permit, we can have that done. And -- but the thing, he's got to go ahead and do those corrections first in order to get the permit pulled. I talked to him in a couple of days (sic), he said he should have that within the next day or two, and, you know, apply for the permit again. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So have you decided which direction you're going to go in? MR. GADSDEN: Yeah. I just think it would be easier for me just to demolish that wall there, the one there that's the Code Enforcement. Get rid of that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And do you have a demo permit to remove the wall? MR. GADSDEN: No. I think he said he was going to do, like, a buildout permit, so I guess that will take care of it. I'm not sure. I don't really know too much about this stuff. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And to remove the wall, I don't know, 60 days, 30 days? I'm not familiar with what it would be, but -- MS. CURLEY: Can the county confirm that what he said was the right -- MS. PEREZ: Well, the initial description of it was more than just a wall. There was more extensive work that was observed that was done in there, so I'm not sure that it would be just a wall. The -- if you look at the document in front of you, it talks about the description of the violation being interior modeling including, but not limited to, new drywall, new framing, electrical, plumbing, flooring, installation of central air system. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All that stuff has been done? MS. PEREZ: Yes. That's what -- the work that was observed. MR. GADSDEN: Well, we just had that stuff in. It wasn't March 22, 2018 Page 41 nothing -- none of that work's done, like the flooring she said, with the air-conditioning and all that stuff was inside of the building, but none of it had been done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It wasn't hooked up? MR. GADSDEN: No, it wasn't hooked up. It was inside -- it's inside the building. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: Is it still in that same condition? MR. GADSDEN: Yes. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I would love to be able to grant enough time to get this done rather than string us along. Yes, Kathy? MS. ELROD: Do you had a -- you rented it out to someone else for a while, and that's why -- MR. GADSDEN: Yes. Originally I had leased it out to someone, but they wanted to do this take-out restaurant, then I guess they find out what -- the cost for it getting, like, the hood, the grease trap, and all that stuff was pretty costly, so they just kind of backed out. Because they put that wall there because they wanted it for office space and also, I guess, in the front part they wanted, like, a thrift store, in the back, through the restaurant. MS. ELROD: So you didn't have that done. You had -- the tenant had that done? MR. GADSDEN: Right. Yes, right, because I had leased it out. I didn't have nothing to do with it. But, you know, once they backed out, I got stuck with it because I'm the owner of the building. MS. ELROD: Extended timeline. That's why it seems like it's dragging out. He didn't do it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And it is dragging out, and I understand that, but -- and I'm sure everybody wants the space to be in March 22, 2018 Page 42 compliance. We don't want any empty buildings. It's, you know -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I just have a few more questions. Do you have -- if you go forward with the commercial part of this building, it sounds like there's a lot of stuff that you're going to have to take out and demo. It's going to cost you quite a bit of money. Do you have an engineering gauge, because you have to go for -- I'm not sure if a Site Development Plan or Site Improvement Plan. I mean, one -- if I'm not mistaken, one is going to take longer than the other. Site Improvement Plan would be a shorter time frame, correct? MR. WHITE: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. It may be best for you to engage an engineer to see what the time frames are so you can possibly look at getting -- if it needs a Site Improvement Plan or Site Development Plan, what it needs to make it commercial. Because having a vacant building doesn't serve any of us in a positive way. So I think -- if it's vacant, it's not occupied. Did we find a violation, even, yet? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, this has been -- this is the fine. MS. PEREZ: Imposition. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Because it's been so long now. MS. CURLEY: Excuse me. I'd like to make a motion to extend it for 180 days or until the September meeting. It could be, like, 190 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think it should longer than that. I mean -- MS. CURLEY: You can amend my motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If you extend it -- a continuance for six months, and prior to six months, come back before the Board if that's not enough time, and we can review at that time and grant additional time if that -- we can see progress that's being made. If after six months you come back and nothing's been done, we'd have to address that as well. (Cell phone ringing.) March 22, 2018 Page 43 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And tell them that we'll call them back. MR. GADSDEN: I'll turn it off. MS. NICOLA: The September meeting is September 27th, and 180 days would be September 18th. So I don't think -- Kerry, we couldn't get this on the agenda for September 27th, could we, if his time expired on September the 18th? It would go on the October meeting. MS. ADAMS: It doesn't matter on a continuance because we're not changing the compliance date. We would just reschedule it for the next available hearing after the six months has passed. So that would be September 27th. MS. NICOLA: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. And if the time frame doesn't seem that it's going to fit into the schedule, the respondent can come back and ask for additional time a month before it ends or two months before it ends. He'll be in a much better position to know when the end of the tunnel has arrived. MR. LEFEBVRE: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we have a motion to grant a continuance for nine months, was it? MR. LEFEBVRE: Six. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Six months, 180 days. Any comments on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. March 22, 2018 Page 44 MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Six months. Write down everything that you do between now and six months if you need more time; otherwise, get it all done. MR. GADSDEN: Yes, sir. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you. MS. PEREZ: Thank you, Board Members. MS. ADAMS: The next case is Item VI.A.2 on the agenda, Case CEPM20170007397, Laker Investments Management, Incorporated. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. TERRELL: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you state your name on the microphone for us. MR. TERRELL: Robert Terrell. I'm counsel for Laker Investments Management. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And the next time you come before the Board, you don't have to be sworn in. MR. TERRELL: I didn't think so. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We grant you unlimited swearing in as long as you're an attorney. Okay. You're here to request something before the case is read into the record? MR. TERRELL: Yes. I'm here to request a waiver of the fines. My client had a hard time -- this dealt with the septic tank plugs, and the client had a hard time getting a company to come in and do work for them. Due to the issues with the hurricane, getting just contractors is a hard time. March 22, 2018 Page 45 They were able to get it. There's an affidavit of compliance dated February 5th, 2018. So it has been completed. MS. CURLEY: Is this the duplex on Golden Gate Parkway? Is it a duplex or four-plex or something? MR. SHORT: For the record, Eric Short with Collier County Code Enforcement. It is a quad-plex. MS. CURLEY: Oh, it's Immokalee? I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Eric, you want to read this into the record? MR. SHORT: Sure. This is in regards to violations of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22 Building and Building Regulations, Article VI, Property Maintenance Code, Section 22-228(1). Location is 450 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida. Folio: 35980440001. Loose sewer caps not sealed correctly and in need of repair or replacement. Both are a safety and health hazard. Past orders: On November 17th, 2017, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. Respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR Book 5456, Page 1383, for more information. The violation has been abated as of February 5th, 2018. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of $200 per day for the period from November 25th, 2017, to February 5th, 2018, 73 days, for a total fine amount of $14,000 -- $14,600. Previously assessed operational costs of $59.49 have been paid. March 22, 2018 Page 46 Operational costs for today's hearings, 59.35. The total amount is $4,659.35 (sic). CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Four thousand or 14,000? MR. SHORT: Fourteen. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You're only off by 10,000. That's among friends. MR. L'ESPERANCE: He gave him a discount. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He gave him a discount. We have a sale today. Okay. Comments from the Board on the request from the respondent? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'll give you my two cents, for what it's worth. It was a very short period from November till it was fixed, which was right after the hurricane. MS. CURLEY: I'm looking for the date that it was originally found, because I remember that the property was acquired, and then there was remodeling occurring, and then there was a complaint from the neighbor about this; the back neighbors? MR. SHORT: Yeah. So to answer your question, there are other cases associated with this property where there's active permits for the remodeling. I will tell you, driving by the property, what a change it's been over the past six months. The property's really improved from an eyesore to a descent piece of property along the main road, Golden Gate Parkway. MS. NICOLA: I'm looking at the order that -- I didn't sign this one, but it looks like we gave him seven days. MS. CURLEY: To cover them. And they were open with a piece of plywood over top of them. MS. NICOLA: No. It wasn't just to cover them. It was just March 22, 2018 Page 47 a -- and I'm just reading this order. It was to obtain all required Collier County building permit, inspections, and certificate of completion and to repair or replace sewer caps on or before November 24th when it was held November 17th. So I was just looking at this and going, wow, we gave him a pretty quick turnaround there. MS. CURLEY: But I think -- that's why -- what was the original date? I'm just -- I just -- when the violation was first noticed? Was it -- was it an emergency addition to the November meeting or no? MR. SHORT: No, it wasn't an emergency. There would have been a -- from the date the notice was served, 30 days. And I apologize I don't have that exact date in front of me. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We didn't have any meetings in November; is that correct? MS. NICOLA: No, we didn't have any meeting in December. We had -- this was the November meeting. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. SHORT: It was a fairly simple fix. It says "sewer caps." It was actually the tank lids for a septic tank that are concrete. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And it was done expeditiously. MR. SHORT: It was -- I think it's tough to find a contractor to do such a small job, to get these concrete lids and place them on there. MR. LEFEBVRE: We, obviously, heard it and felt that it was necessary to get it done in a short period of time. I think -- to abate all the fines I don't think would be reasonable. MS. CURLEY: Well, I'll tell you the reason that we did this on a fast pace was because the respondent did not contact the county, and it was a health issue, and that was why. So that's why I'm looking for the original date that the violation -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Counsel, do you have that? MS. NICOLA: I do not. March 22, 2018 Page 48 MR. LEFEBVRE: Other counsel. MS. NICOLA: Which attorney are you looking at? There are two of us here today. I do not have it. It wasn't in -- MS. CURLEY: I don't think it was, like, October. MR. TERRELL: I would just add that we spoke to -- it's a Mr. Squibble. He's the contractor who's in charge of getting the whole property brought up on all the other issues, and after speaking to him yesterday, he called many contractors to get out there but, because of the hurricane issues, we just could not get anybody. He even offered to pay them double, is what he indicated. MS. CURLEY: What I think was this violation was in existence way before the hurricane, and even the county -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MS. CURLEY: -- the county officers had no response from the property owners. And so you're the first one we've ever seen from this company. MR. LEFEBVRE: So what we're tying to say, we're not talking about the time frame from November when our hearing was, but we're talking prior to that when the first contact was made. I make a motion that we abate all the fines except $2,000, and then there would be no operational costs for today's meeting, correct? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Correct, because it's been abated. MR. LEFEBVRE: So abate all but $2,000 of the fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do we have a second? MS. CURLEY: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. March 22, 2018 Page 49 MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. MR. TERRELL: Thank you. Is there a time frame when that has to be paid? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thirty days. MR. TERRELL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Which one is next? MS. ADAMS: The next case is going to be No. 3 under imposition of fines. It's Item VI.A.3, Case CESD20150017447, Daniel Herrera. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. HERRERA: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. MUCHA: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You are here to request something? MR. HERRERA: Yes, the fines and all that that I got charged. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. I see the fines have accrued to a total of around $130,000. MR. HERRERA: Wow. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is something that's been going on since January of 2016. These were interior improvements on a wooden structure, it's electric, drywall, installation, framing, plumbing. Everything was done without any permits. Was that you that had this March 22, 2018 Page 50 work done? MR. HERRERA: Some of it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Some of it. MR. HERRERA: Yeah. I had my contractor, Jackie Williams, doing it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Your contractor was doing it? MR. HERRERA: Yeah, Jackie Williams. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is he a licensed contractor? MR. HERRERA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did he pull a building permit? MR. HERRERA: I don't know. MR. MUCHA: He did after the fact, and everything is finalled now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. They did an after-the-fact permit? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't you read the case into the record, and we can go from there. MR. MUCHA: Okay. For the record, Joe Mucha, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is dealing with violation of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location is 1316 Orange Street in Immokalee. Folio number is 30733560007. Description of the violation is 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 certificates of occupancy as required by the Collier County Building Department. Past orders: On January 29th, 2016, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. March 22, 2018 Page 51 Respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR5241, Page 1357, for more information. On May 26th, 2016, respondent's motion for extension of time was denied. See attached order of the board, OR5278, Page 2573, for more information. On July 28th, 2016, respondent's motion for continuance is granted. See attached order of the board, OR5301, Page 944, for more information. On October 28th, 2016, respondent's motion for continuance is granted. See attached order of the board, OR5330, Page 3011, for more information. On January 25th, 2017, respondent's motion for extension of time is denied. See attached order of the board, OR5359, Page 3967, for more information. Violation has been abated as of March 9th, 2018. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of $200 per day for the period from May 29th, 2016, to March 9th, 2018, 650 days, for a total fine amount of $130,000. Previously assessed operational costs of $65.43 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing is $60.05. Total amount is $130,060.05. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MUCHA: And I just wanted to say something on his behalf. I don't know if you remember, this was previously owned by him and his wife, and they were going through, like, a big legal battle, divorce, and the whole thing. And I can say from the whole time period that I've been involved with this case, the property was never occupied; it was never rented out. So he wasn't making money off it or anything. It's been vacant the whole time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Was this the case where the divorce March 22, 2018 Page 52 attorney came before us? MR. MUCHA: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Yeah, if you look at the bouncing ball here without your comments, from January of '16, so it's all of 2016, all of 2017, I mean, it's a long period of time. MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And I understand, from memory, that he was not permitted into the structure until the legal case was settled as far as who owned the property, et cetera. MR. MUCHA: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to deny the county's request to impose the fines. MS. CURLEY: I second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. HERRERA: Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. CURLEY: Good luck. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have a good day. March 22, 2018 Page 53 MR. HERRERA: Thank you. MS. ADAMS: The next case going back to the cases in which the respondent is not present, it's going to be Item V.C.1 on the agenda, Case CESD20160020044, Teresa Scoppettone. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This was a violation of interior renovations, et cetera, et cetera. Okay. MS. GIGUERE: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hi. MS. GIGUERE: For the record, Vicky Giguere, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20160020044 dealing with violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), interior renovations/alterations including, but not limited to, kitchen countertops, cabinet, sink, also bathroom cabinets, countertops, toilets, tile work. Work done includes electrical, plumbing, structural, et cetera, located at 1714 Kings Lake Drive, Unit 201, Naples, Florida, 34112. Folio No. 46770280004. Service was given on December 15th, 2016. I would like to now present case evidence in the following exhibits: 10 photos taken by Contractor Licensing on August 16th, 2016. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I make a motion to accept the photos. MR. ASHTON: Second. MR. DOINO: Second. MS. CURLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. March 22, 2018 Page 54 MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MS. GIGUERE: So this complaint originated from Contractor Licensing. Karen Clements observed multiple unlicensed contractors working and no permits on file. On October 3rd, 2016, Building Official Jonathan Walsh determined permits are required for the work being done. A notice of violation was issue. Permit PRBD20161039954 was applied for and issued in January 2017. The permit expired due to a lack of activity in August of 2017, it was reactivated in October of 2017, and has expired again as of February. I have not had any contact with the property owner, and I've attempted contact with the contractor multiple times and haven't spoken to anybody. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Where does the property owner reside? MS. GIGUERE: Coral Springs. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Are their taxes up to date? MS. GIGUERE: I don't know. I haven't checked recently. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The reason I ask is, I mean, for something this serious, that's a big investment that's sitting out there. It just is beyond belief that they wouldn't have responded. MS. GIGUERE: Yeah. It was supposed to go to hearing originally in September, but it was canceled due to the hurricane, and March 22, 2018 Page 55 then they got the permit reactivated when they got the hearing notice. So we thought, okay, maybe this will move it along a little bit, and they just let it expire again. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Did you notice any work being done while they had a permit? MS. GIGUERE: No. I believe they only had one inspection -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. GIGUERE: -- in August. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has this been completed by Contractor Licensing? MS. GIGUERE: Yeah. They referred the case over to us. They put a stop work order on the property, and that was when Jonathan Walsh said, yeah, they need permits for what they're doing. They handed it over to us. And there's been no activity on the property since then. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you've been in contact with the contractor? MS. GIGUERE: I've attempted. I've called multiple times. Their voice mail is always full. I've even emailed. They never -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Who's the contractor? MS. GIGUERE: General Contractor & Associates. His name is Joe. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we find a violation here? MR. LEFEBVRE: 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. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. March 22, 2018 Page 56 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Do you have a recommendation for us? MS. GIGUERE: I do; that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $59.42 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by obtaining all inspections through certificate of completion/occupancy for Permit PRDB20161039954 and/or obtain any required demolition permits, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy for any alterations, and return unit to originally permitted state within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent must notify code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. Just my quick comment. Whoever makes the motion on this, I wouldn't give them more than 30 days to respond. And I'll leave it at that so I don't get myself in trouble. Would anybody like to fill in the blanks on the recommendation? MR. LEFEBVRE: If the unit is in the condition that it currently -- or from the photos, in the same condition, it's going to take March 22, 2018 Page 57 a lot more than 30 days to get all the permits and certificate of completion or occupancy for that property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's their problem. They haven't responded at all to us. This is, if nothing else, a way to get their attention. MS. CURLEY: Coral Springs is only 80 miles away. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. So that's my comment on making it a short period of time. MR. LEFEBVRE: Within 45 days of this hearing or a fine of $250 a day, and then operational costs to be paid within 30. MS. ELROD: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I was going to second it. Okay. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. GIGUERE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Next time we'll get a stool for you to stand up on so that we can see you. MS. ADAMS: And the last case is Item VI.A.4. It's case CESD20160007274, Real Estate Holdings of Tienda Mexicana, March 22, 2018 Page 58 Incorporated. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. PEREZ: Good morning. For the record Cristina Perez, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in regards to CEB Case No. CESD20160007274. Violations are of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location is 217 North 15th Street in Immokalee. Folio: 00131360004. Description is unpermitted exterior alterations being conducted to a structure on occupied commercial property. Past orders: On October 27, 2017, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinance and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR5446, Page 3533, for more information. The violation has not been abated as of March 22nd, 2018. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at the rate of $250 per day for the period from January 26th, 2018, to March 22nd, 2018, 56 days for a total fine amount of $14,000. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of $65.36 have not been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing are $59.28. Total amount is $14,124.64. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to impose. MR. ASHTON: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Wait. March 22, 2018 Page 59 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What? MS. CURLEY: Yes, I have a question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. What's your question? MS. CURLEY: So I just want to be sure -- I don't see the receipt that they're receiving these notices. Are they receiving these notices? Usually there's a -- I mean, this is weird that somebody wouldn't come. MS. PEREZ: We've also made contact with the owner's wife. She actually contacted our office on January 26th, and we advised her of the violation. She said they were going to take care of it. They did have a permit that was issued to them on September 21st, 2015, and the permit expired July 18, 2017, which is when, you know, the case then came before you. I tried to make contact with them again yesterday, provided my direct office number and my direct cell phone number. And, as of today, I still haven't received a call from them. Contractor's Licensing was also made aware of the expired permit, and they have also tried to contact the property owner themselves and went to the store, and there's just been no communication on their behalf. MS. CURLEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And their operational costs have not been paid, and that goes back to October. So we have a motion and a second to impose the fine. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. March 22, 2018 Page 60 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MS. PEREZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you, Cristine. MS. PEREZ: The next item on the agenda is Roman Numeral VII, new business, the rules and regulations review. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Anybody have any changes on the rules and regulations? MR. ASHTON: We discussed about the -- on these fines what we can do to impose some of these fines that are getting tremendous and people are walking away. I don't know how we can handle that. But I think we should -- there should be something in our rules and regulations that we can impose fines up to or -- you know, we have to do something. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Partial abatements are in the -- in our purvey right now, so I think that answers that portion, and we did one today. MR. ASHTON: Yeah, I know. And we're going to come up with -- we just take a shot, like Gerald said, you know, 2,000, whatever that one is, we're just going to do it how we feel we should do it -- MS. CURLEY: Case by case. MR. ASHTON: -- or is there going to be a set rule? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think set rule is a problem. It has to be a case by case. MS. NICOLA: I agree. I think we've talked about this before. This is not a legislative body. This board's goals are not to create law. It's to interpret the law on a case-by-case basis. We've got a statute. We've got our rules and regulations. They have to be interpreted together. If we try to legislate as a board, it's just going to cause a big March 22, 2018 Page 61 problem with the County Commission. I know that everybody wants to go there but, as your attorney, I would advise you not to. MS. CURLEY: In addition, the operational costs that are charged to these people is covering the county fees. We're not a revenue source here. So to expect us to follow a fining rule would be way outside of what our duties are here. MR. LEFEBVRE: Every case is separate and distinct from the other. There's issues with one person that don't apply to another. So I just don't see how we can unilaterally, across the board, state that this is the fine that you're going to have if you don't do this. MS. CURLEY: I completely agree, and I think that's why this Board is here. We're a board of the peers. MS. ELROD: We're compliance, not -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't disagree. And when you have a case where you have a shed that was put up on a piece of property, for instance, and the fines have accrued to $200,000, the actual -- what is going to happen in that case, if we impose a fine of $200,000 on somebody who has a shed, they're, in likelihood, going to go to the County Commission and they wind up reversing it completely rather than if there was a partial -- and this is up to the people who make the motions. If there's a partial abatement of, you know, 200 or $2,000, or whatever it is, I don't know what their resolution -- I don't know that the county would smile upon them to overrule the Board. And I don't think the Board has ever been overruled by the County Commission, by the way. MS. CURLEY: Well -- and that dovetails to my comment earlier in the middle of the meeting where, you know, the low-hanging fruit is real easy to pick, but I think it's unfair, you know, if we have, you know, a lot of open permits and -- or expired permits for things that the county knows are there, and because the voluminous amount March 22, 2018 Page 62 of them, you can't go after them one at a time. But when somebody, you know, has a violation, then they -- all of those violations that, you know, after the investigation come to fruition, you know, it's a little difficult. I mean, so if we said, oh, if you have more than one violation, we're going to fine you X amount of money, that's not fair at all because you have 40,000, probably, other permits that expired or weren't complete or didn't get theirs COs that are sitting there, and those people aren't being treated the same way. MS. NICOLA: Well, I think we've talked about that, too, that there's provisions within the statute and within the laws that govern this board to allow for enhanced fines, enhanced penalties for multiple offenders to allow this board to consider egregious conduct of a party, to enhance a fine or to, you know, impose a greater sanction. Most of what we see here before this board, at least as long as I've been here, are people who are in circumstances sometimes beyond their control, and they're trying to rectify it. So the limited amount of times that we see people that come in here that are thumbing their nose to the county or to the Board or that don't care -- we've seen that, all of us -- there are provisions within the reduction or abatement of fines prior to imposition of fine Article 10, for instance, which allow you guys to enhance it. So to make a blanket assertion or to create a policy or a rule that says that in these circumstances we are going to impose a greater sanction or a fine would be very reckless, and that's why the laws were created the way that they are is to allow you guys, as a board -- and there's a whole bunch of you up there -- to argue on a case-by-case basis and make a decision that fits the facts of the case that you've heard. And I wouldn't worry about what happens after that, because after that what the County Commission does with it is up to them. If they March 22, 2018 Page 63 decide that they don't like what you guys did, it's like the Court of Appeals overturning a judge. It happens. MS. CURLEY: Thank you. MS. NICOLA: So I don't think you guys need to worry about it. So far so good. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me change the subject a little bit to this year we started with no books. We're doing everything on the computer. I really didn't have the time to go through word by word in our rules and regulations to see if there's anything that needs to be modified to handle the change that we've gone through this year as far as doing everything on the computer. So I would say maybe give us another month to come back after we have a chance to read through it word by word and see if there's anything that needs to be modified. MS. ADAMS: I believe the rules state that the packets just need to be delivered. It doesn't say how it has to be delivered. We've already looked at that before we went into the whole electronic thing, so... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Okay. Brings us to elections. So we're looking for a nomination for chairman. MR. ROMBOUGH: I'll nominate Bob again. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you. Any other? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. March 22, 2018 Page 64 MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. Vice chairman now. MR. ASHTON: I nominate Gerald. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I second it. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ASHTON: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. Anything else? MS. ADAMS: No, nothing else on the agenda. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Okay. We're going to have a campaign luncheon after this. MS. NICOLA: I was going to say, did you guys accept your nominations -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. NICOLA: -- and the positions that were anointed on you both? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. MS. NICOLA: Okay. We have to make sure of that. I was worried a little. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And, by the way, I want to ask you, where were you on St. Patrick's Day. I looked for you in the parade. March 22, 2018 Page 65 You had a lot of signs out there but no -- MS. NICOLA: On the record or off the record? MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, let's close the meeting. MS. CURLEY: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're adjourned. ***** March 22, 2018 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:38 a.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD 4110 ' - -:----- ----- - /1 or ,,, , .,:didw,,,,.____ A.A. _____ _ RS el RT A UF rsw IRMAN These minutes approved by the Board ons; 1 a,9 ) ZO 1 , as presented or as corrected . TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC/COURT REPORTER. Page 66