Loading...
CEB Minutes 09/27/2018September 27, 2018 Page 1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, September 27, 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 (Excused) Sue Curley Ron Doino Gerald J. Lefebvre Herminio Ortega Kathleen Elrod Ryan White ALSO PRESENT: Danny Blanco, Code Enforcement Specialist Helen Buchillon, 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 September 27, 2018 9:00 AM Robert Kaufman, Chair Gerald Lefebvre, Vice-Chair 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 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. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3.1. August 23, 2018 Minutes IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. MOTIONS MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 1. CASE NO: CESD20170011238 OWNER: Caryn Mary McGrath OFFICER: Jonathan Musse 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). A mobile home that was removed between 2006 and 2007 without a valid demolition permit, and a dock lift, shed, and power pole installed without first obtaining a valid Collier County Permit. FOLIO NO: 46420360009 VIOLATION 659 Palm Ave., Goodland, FL ADDRESS: B. STIPULATIONS C. HEARINGS 1. CASE NO: CEPM20170015094 OWNER: St. Moritz Club Condo OFFICER: Jonathan Musse VIOLATIONS: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22-228(1) and Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Damaged aluminum carports and dumpster enclosure. FOLIO NO: 55352040006 VIOLATION 528 Augusta Blvd., Naples, FL ADDRESS: 2. CASE NO: CESD20180002262 OWNER: CTPML LLC OFFICER: Michele McGonagle VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(e). Interior alterations commenced prior to obtaining proper Collier County Permits. FOLIO NO: 384600003 VIOLATION 213, 235, and 261 Airport Road South, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 3. CASE NO: CESD20180006068 OWNER: Carmen Vasallo OFFICER: Steven Lopez-Silvero VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Unpermitted flat-roofed aluminum storage shed, an unpermitted re-roof on a permitted frame storage shed, and two unpermitted canopies attached to the dwelling all in the rear yard of improved occupied residential property. FOLIO NO: 63852560007 VIOLATION 1013 New Market Road W, Immokalee, FL ADDRESS: 4. CASE NO: CESD20180007276 OWNER: Carlos Arreaga and Veronica Arreaga OFFICER: Michele McGonagle VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06(B)(1)(e), and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Replaced windows without obtaining required Collier County Permits. FOLIO NO: 73280360005 VIOLATION 2515 Bayside St., Naples, FL ADDRESS: 5. CASE NO: CESD20180003319 OWNER: SN SCP LLC OFFICER: Arthur Ford VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Permit PRBD20170416174 expired November 4th, 2017 for interior and exterior renovations, no contractor involvement. FOLIO NO: 66674378306 VIOLATION 342 Cromwell Ct., Naples, FL ADDRESS: 6. CASE NO: CESD20180000943 OWNER: A D G N P Mortgage Inc OFFICER: Thomas Pitura VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Guest House converted into three units. The first unit the garage and utility room were converted into living with an unpermitted kitchen and bathroom. Second unit an exterior wall was added in the kitchen and bedroom of the main structure and the third unit an unpermitted kitchen and bathroom all constructed without first obtaining the authorization of the required permit(s) and certificate(s) of occupancy as required by the Collier County Building. FOLIO NO: 37162681000 VIOLATION 891 5th St. SW, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 7. CASE NO: CEVR20180007002 OWNER: PKZ Holding Company OFFICER: Colleen Davidson VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended, Section 3.05.08(C). Brazilian pepper and other exotics located on property. FOLIO NO: 25120010081 VIOLATION 3443 Pine Ridge Rd., Naples, FL ADDRESS: 8. CASE NO: CESD20180005962 OWNER: Jon Richard Brimmer Sr. and Ana Brimmer OFFICER: Michele McGonagle VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06(B)(1)(e), and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Removed garage and garage door without required permits. FOLIO NO: 32480480001 VIOLATION 1003 Cardinal St., Naples, FL ADDRESS: 9. CASE NO: CEVR20170007400 OWNER: Juan Carlos Nava and Fermin Martinez Jr. OFFICER: Virginie Giguere VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended, Sections 3.05.01(B), 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e). Removal of native vegetation using heavy machinery without first obtaining a Vegetation Removal Permit, and where the total area cleared exceeds the one acre allowed to be cleared by the Building Permit issued for construction of the principal structure. Alteration of land through placement of fill that removed or otherwise destroyed vegetation without first obtaining approval from the County. Possible impact to wetlands area by removal of native vegetation and placement of fill. FOLIO NO: 00129080008 VIOLATION 1909 Immokalee Dr., Immokalee, FL ADDRESS: 10. CASE NO: CESD20160018001 OWNER: Bonnie Baker Jones OFFICER: Jon Hoagboon 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). An unpermitted pool and spa with wooden deck attached to neighboring home. FOLIO NO: 46070600009 VIOLATION 24 Golf Cottage Drive, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 11. CASE NO: CEVR20180005925 OWNER: Eric P. Solomon and Cammeron Solomon OFFICER: Virginie Giguere VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended, Sections 3.05.01(B), 3.05.02(G)(5), 3.05.04(D), 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e). Removal of native vegetation where the total area cleared exceeds the one acre allowed to be cleared by the Building Permit issued for construction of a principal structure, and removal of native vegetation ground to cover within a Wetland area. Mechanical clearing of ground cover within the drip line of Native canopy trees including, but not limited to, Bald Cypress. Mechanical clearing of Prohibited Exotic Vegetation without first obtaining a Vegetation Removal Permit, and removal of small amount of soil within the drip line of vegetation that is to remain in its original location. Mechanical clearing is defined as clearing that would impact or disturb the soil or sub-soil layer or disturb the root systems of plants below ground. FOLIO NO: 41933120003 VIOLATION 6180 Hidden Oaks Ln., Naples, FL ADDRESS: 12. CASE NO: CESD20170004210 OWNER: Annette Carulli OFFICER: Arthur Ford VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Bathroom installation, toilet, sink, and shower without required Collier County permits, inspections, and certificate of completion. FOLIO NO: 62571320008 VIOLATION 694 111th Ave N, Naples, FL ADDRESS: VI. OLD BUSINESS A. MOTION FOR REDUCTION/ABATEMENT OF FINES/LIENS B. MOTION FOR RE-HEARING C. MOTION FOR IMPOSITION OF FINES/LIENS 1. CASE NO: CEPM20170018436 OWNER: George J. Sorbara and Jennifer Tarvin Sorbara OFFICER: Jon Hoagboon VIOLATIONS: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22-231(15). Pool not maintained, water green in color. FOLIO NO: 24021600009 VIOLATION 151 Burning Tree Dr., Naples, FL ADDRESS: 2. CASE NO: CEROW20170001009 OWNER: George J. Sorbara and Jennifer Tarvin Sorbara OFFICER: Jon Hoagboon VIOLATIONS: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 110, Article II, Division 1, Section 110-31(a). Existing culvert and drainage system has collapsed. FOLIO NO: 24021600009 VIOLATION 151 Burning Tree Dr., Naples, FL ADDRESS: 3. 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 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i), and 1.4.04(A). 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, FL ADDRESS: D. MOTION TO RESCIND PREVIOUSLY ISSUED ORDER E. MOTION TO AMEND PREVIOUSLY ISSUED ORDER VII. NEW BUSINESS VIII. CONSENT AGENDA A. REQUEST TO FORWARD CASES TO COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IX. REPORTS X. COMMENTS XI. NEXT MEETING DATE - FRIDAY OCTOBER 26, 2018 XII. ADJOURN September 27, 2018 Page 2 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board to order. If you have a cell phone, good time to silence the ring. Let's see. Let me see if I did it, because that would really be embarrassing. I'd get over it, but it would be embarrassing. Okay. Now I'm silenced. Okay. Notice: The respondents may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation unless additional time is granted by the Board. Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes unless time is adjusted by the Chairman. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Robert's Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and, therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. Okay. I'd like everybody to stand for the pledge. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Everybody got their minutes attached to the agenda. So any question on the minutes? Any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a new way of requesting time to speak. You push your button, you come up on the screen, et cetera, et cetera. We'll see how that works, okay. Get a motion from the floor to accept the minutes? MR. DOINO: Motion to accept. MR. WHITE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion, and we have a September 27, 2018 Page 3 second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Why don't we start with the roll call, and before we do, I'd like to welcome our newest full-time member to the board, Kathleen Elrod. MS. ELROD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Welcome. (Applause.) MS. ELROD: I feel like I've been here before. Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Roll call. MR. BLANCO: Mr. Robert Kaufman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Here. MR. BLANCO: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre. MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MR. BLANCO: Mr. Ronald Doino? MR. DOINO: Here. MR. BLANCO: Ms. Sue Curley. MS. CURLEY: Here. MR. BLANCO: Mr. Herminio Ortega? MR. ORTEGA: Here. MR. BLANCO: Ms. Kathleen Elrod? MS. ELROD: Here. MR. BLANCO: Mr. Ryan White? September 27, 2018 Page 4 MR. WHITE: Here. MR. BLANCO: Mr. Robert Ashton has an excused absence. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Since Mr. Ashton is out, Ryan, you'll be a full voting member today, I believe, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. MR. LEFEBVRE: We have one opening, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Let's see. Do we have changes to the agenda? MR. BLANCO: Yes, sir. Roman Numeral 5, public hearings, motions, Letter B, stipulations, we have one addition. No. 6 from hearings, Case No. CESD20180000943, ADGNP Mortgage, Incorporated. Letter C, hearings, No. 1, Case No. CEPM20170015094, St. Moritz Club Condo, has been withdrawn. Number 2, Case No. CESD20180002262, CTPML, LLC, has been withdrawn. Number 9, Case No. CEVR20170007400, Juan Carlos Nava and Fermin Martinez, Jr., has been withdrawn. Number 10, Case No. CESD20160018001, Bonnie Baker Jones, has been withdrawn. Number 11, Case No. CEVR20180005925, Eric P. Solomon and Cammeron Solomon, has been withdrawn. Number 12, Case No. CESD20170004210, Annette Carulli, has been withdrawn. Roman Numeral 7, old business, Letter C, motion for imposition of fines/liens, No. 1, Case No. CEPM20170018436, George Sorbara and Jennifer Tarvin Sorbara, has been withdrawn. Number 2, Case No. CEROW20170001009, Georgia Sorbara and Jennifer Tarvin Sorbara, has been withdrawn. Roman Numeral 9, reports, we have one addition. We'll be going over proposed changes to the Code Enforcement Board rules and September 27, 2018 Page 5 regulations, and that's all the changes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Get a motion to accept the modified agenda. MR. DOINO: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MS. ELROD: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Let me just do a little arithmetic. MR. BLANCO: First item of the agenda, it's Roman Numeral 5, public hearings, motions, Letter A, motions for extension of time, Case No. CESD20170011238, Caryn Mary McGrath. Mr. Chairman, if I may just give a brief summary of the case. The case -- the Code Enforcement Board found the respondent in violation back in May 24th of 2018, and they were ordered to comply on or before September 21st, 2018. The respondent present here today would like to request an extension of time. And I'm sure she will go into detail about the specifics of the case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have in the package here a letter from the respondent, I believe. September 27, 2018 Page 6 MR. BLANCO: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It starts off "Dear Danny Blanco." So give us a chance to read that, and we'll go from there. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning. Could you state your name on the mic? MS. McGRATH: Good morning. Angela McGrath. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. McGRATH: My spouse and I, Caryn, purchased a piece of property, 659 Palm -- East Palm Ave. on Goodland, and we were in violation of a few things when we purchased the property, of which we've been trying to correct. I don't know how far in detail you want me to go. But we're just waiting on a permit to be issued. We have everything on our permit card that's been signed off, and you probably see that on your screen there. We also -- there was a trailer. That was removed in -- I believe was it '97, Jonathan? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: 2006 and 2007, looks like. Let me just read that statement so we're coming from the same place. "A mobile home that was removed between 2006 and 2007 without a valid demolition permit and a dock lift, shed, power pole installed without first getting a permit." So that's what the order was. MS. McGRATH: Okay. So to verify that, we didn't own the property when the trailer was removed. We hired a title company. Evidently they didn't find it, but we offered to pay it anyway, and they sent it back as they would take it off. They sent my check back. And they gave me a refund. So the trailer they took off of that permit, but here's the documentation. Do you want to see it? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, no. Hold on one second. I have a question then. If -- is that the only violation that was on this order? September 27, 2018 Page 7 MR. MUSSE: No. There was a -- one was a demolition, the removal of the mobile home without a demolition permit, which is what she's explaining right now that they're not required to get one. The dock lift was recently finalized. The permit was CO'd just recently. So the only thing right now that she has is the tiny home that she needs to get permitted. MR. LEFEBVRE: That's not part of our order, is it? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's not part of this order that I see. MR. MUSSE: I thought it was a shed. She now is converting it into a tiny home. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I see it says shed there. They're converting the shed into a home, okay. MS. McGRATH: Well, it was set two weeks before the hurricane, so we didn't have time to do anything with it. So we since -- because there's no room on the lot to put a 2,000-square-foot home, because the lot's 45 by 90 -- and then they made me put a Hoot system in. That took up a third of the lot. So our only choice was to put the first tiny home in all of Collier County. So we have been going back and forth with the 288-square-foot tiny house of which we've done everything they've asked us to do from engineering, letters. I mean, I have a whole stack of engineering letters that they made me get for this house. There's eight of them. So I did the best I could. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Basically, you're asking for 30 days to get everything resolved? MS. McGRATH: Well, I'm actually asking for a little bit more, because my permit company said that it could take up to three weeks, but he said, you don't want to go back again and do that all over, so ask them for a little bit more time. So maybe 60 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So I guess you're asking for 60 days. September 27, 2018 Page 8 MS. McGRATH: Yes. I was going to ask for 90, but I thought that was pushing it. So I'm sure I'll have it in 60, but I really didn't want to come back again. So whatever you can give me. But everything on here's been passed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the Board, push your little buttons because we have a new -- Mr. Lefebvre. MR. LEFEBVRE: Are operational costs paid? MR. BLANCO: I do not have that on me right now. MR. LETOURNEAU: Hold on. Let me check real quick. MR. BLANCO: Yes, they have. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we offer a continuance for 60 days. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to grant a continuance for 60 days. Any comments on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MS. McGRATH: Thank you very much. MR. MUSSE: Thank you. MS. NICOLA: I just want to make a point of clarification, because the fines have not been imposed at this point. September 27, 2018 Page 9 Continuance usually means that the fines continue to accrue, but we haven't imposed any fines. So when I'm writing up this order, I'm thinking that I need to write it up without fines accruing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I would think it would be no fines until after the 60 days. MS. McGRATH: We paid a fine when we left here last time. MS. NICOLA: You paid the operational costs last time. There's a difference. When we wrote up the order last time, there was a fine that would accrue when the violation passes, but usually we have a hearing to impose the fines. So I just want to make sure that we're all clear what I'm going to be doing when I write up this order today. Just continuance -- MR. BLANCO: Mr. Chairman, if I may, the continuance would -- the fines would start accruing from September 22nd till -- from September 22nd, basically. If the Board grants an extension of time, then that compliance date that was ordered will be extended 60 days, and no fines would accrue. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So let me ask Mr. Lefebvre if he wants to make it a continuance or an extension of time. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, I'm looking at the stipulation, and the stipulation states that we had a meeting on May 24th and we gave 120 days, correct? MR. BLANCO: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: And what -- that 120 days was up when? MR. BLANCO: September 21st, 2018. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. And today is the 27th, correct? MS. NICOLA: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: So there would be six days of fines that have accrued. MS. McGRATH: At $100 a day. MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct? So the fines are accruing, actually. September 27, 2018 Page 10 MR. BLANCO: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. So the continuance would be the correct way of going, because there's fines that are accruing, and they will accrue for the next 60 days or until she gets the final CO. MR. BLANCO: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And at that time she can come back and ask for the abatement, the reduction of the fines. MR. BLANCO: That's correct. MS. McGRATH: Okay. So you're telling me that right now we're being fined $100 a day from August 21st -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: September. MS. McGRATH: Or September 21st. Okay. So the permit came in six weeks late. On my permit card, it never said I had to have flood vents. There was, like, six things that they asked me to get that's not on this; a Boler (phonetic) tester is not on this. And my biggest question is, if you call in an inspection and the inspector comes out and says, I pass this, but I need an engineer letter to go with it -- so in saying that, I probably could have had everything in by the 21st, but they made me get eight different engineer letters. So you are at the mercy of an engineer to sign off on what I already paid for on the inspection, and then I already paid 1,000 to $2,000 per letter. So I think that's wrong. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand what you're saying, and I think that the time to make that argument, which appears to be a good argument, would be after everything is done, so -- MS. McGRATH: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- unfortunately, you'd have to come back, whatever fines have accrued, and ask for an abatement or reduction at that time. Probably not now because it's still in violation. MS. McGRATH: Okay. So right now you're just granting me the extension, but the violation at $100 a day is still accruing? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. September 27, 2018 Page 11 MS. McGRATH: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But the Board has the power, if you will, to eliminate all -- once everything is done and we see it in front of us and you have the documentation on why it wasn't done, that's a convincing argument. MS. McGRATH: Okay. I understand. Thank you. MR. BLANCO: Mr. Chairman, if I may, are operational costs being assessed for today's hearing for the extension of time? MR. LEFEBVRE: The continuance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. BLANCO: For the continuance. So just a reminder to the Board, in order for our office to assess the operational costs, the Board needs to state that on the record. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion maker. MR. LEFEBVRE: Let's put it on the record, and what is the amount? MR. BLANCO: Operational costs for today's hearing are in the amount of $59.35. MR. LEFEBVRE: So operational -- in addition to the continuance, operational costs of 59.35 to be paid within 30 days of this hearing. MS. McGRATH: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Herminio, you have a comment? MR. ORTEGA: Just for clarification purposes, I take it you pulled this permit on owner/builder? MS. McGRATH: Yes. MR. ORTEGA: Okay. When you cite items like, for example, blower door test and flood vents and all that, something that a general or a contractor would know, you're afforded the same powers of a contractor when you act as an owner/builder. So whether it's on the September 27, 2018 Page 12 permit card, on the conditions or not, it's still your responsibility. MS. McGRATH: Well, we hired a permit company and paid a lot of money to our permit company, and when they give you the instructions on what you need and then they give you this permit card, as a homeowner, this is what I would think that you would go by. MR. ORTEGA: Right, but you're not a homeowner. MS. McGRATH: Not a normal person would know that unless they were instructed by a permit company or -- MR. ORTEGA: You're acting as a contractor in the eyes of the law. MS. McGRATH: Okay. I understand that, but why -- the 10-plus times I went in and talked to Mr. Moore, why no one said anything about flood vents until last week? And I had to special order those at $256 apiece and put four in. MR. ORTEGA: I really don't know how that was presented. MS. McGRATH: So no one ever said anything. So my -- MR. ORTEGA: Again, what I just said still stands. You're afforded the powers of a contractor -- MS. McGRATH: Okay. So building official doesn't know anything, then, when you go down and talk to him, because had he said that, I would have done that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think that at the -- when you get everything done, that would be the time to go into all of these details. MS. McGRATH: Okay. All right. I understand. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you, okay. MR. BLANCO: Next item on the agenda, it's Roman Numeral 5, public hearings, motions, Letter B, stipulations, No. 6 from hearings, Item No. 5C6, Case No. CESD20180000943, ADGNP Mortgage, Incorporated. Mr. Chairman, for the record, we did have a power of attorney September 27, 2018 Page 13 from Mr. Robert Sanchez authorizing him to enter into the stipulated agreement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Now you can read the stipulation into the record. MR. PITURA: Good morning. For the record, I'm Tom Pitura, code enforcement officer, Collier County. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of 59.70 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits for the unpermitted alterations made to the guesthouse, or a demolition permit to convert guesthouse back to its originally permitted state; request all related inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within 90 days of this hearing, or fine of $250 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation by 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. Let me ask a question or two. Under the description of violation, it says the guesthouse was converted into three units. The first unit of the garage, whatever, the second, the same thing, third. So those three units were then, according to the stipulation, they'll be eliminated and made part of the house? September 27, 2018 Page 14 MR. PITURA: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The bathrooms -- so a demo permit would have to be issued for this, and that would take the plumbing out, any additional electric, whatever it takes to put it back together again. MR. PITURA: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And the respondent is aware of that? MR. PITURA: He is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do we have any questions from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Just a quick -- what was the -- what is the zoning in that location? MR. PITURA: Zoning is -- MR. LETOURNEAU: It's Estates. MR. PITURA: Estates. Zoning E. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So they're just going to leave it as a single-family unit, I guess? MR. PITURA: Back to its original state. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any comments from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Anybody want to make a motion to accept the stipulation or deny it? MR. ORTEGA: I'll make a motion to accept the motion (sic) as written. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. DOINO: Second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. Sue, you have a comment? MS. CURLEY: Yeah. Who's signing the stipulation? What's the September 27, 2018 Page 15 person's name? MR. PITURA: Robert Sanchez. MS. CURLEY: And who is he? MR. PITURA: He is the power of attorney for one of the officers of the ADDP (sic) mortgage company. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: (No verbal response.) MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you. Tom, are you new? MR. PITURA: I am. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We'll break you in. MR. BLANCO: Mr. Chairman, we have an additional change to the agenda. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm sorry, we're out of changes. MR. BLANCO: Roman Numeral 5, public hearings, motions, Letter B, stipulations, we have one addition. Number 4 from hearings, Item No. 5C4, Case No. CESD20180007276, Carlos Arreaga and Veronica Arreaga. Mr. Chairman, before we proceed, I think we need a motion from September 27, 2018 Page 16 the Board to accept the changes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, we will. I just wanted to take a quick look at it. Okay. Get a motion to -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Motion to accept the changes. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion and a second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You want to read the stipulation into the record for us. MS. McGONAGLE: Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $59.56 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Two, abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy for the unpermitted window replacement within 90 days of this hearing, or a fine of $150 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Number 3, respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator September 27, 2018 Page 17 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. I have a couple of questions before we continue. Was it all the windows or just one window or -- MS. McGONAGLE: The only ones that I observed were the two in the front, but when they went to get the permit, they also had replaced a door that I didn't know. So they've included everything that was replaced in the permit. They do have a permit application in. It was just rejected, and he can explain to you why it was rejected. But they are in the process of resubmitting. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. ARREAGA: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name on the microphone for us. MR. ARREAGA: Good. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Your name? MR. ARREAGA: Carlos Arreaga. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Are you doing this work yourself, or did you hire a company to do this work for you? MR. ARREAGA: Well, almost myself. I know to do something, but I got friends who helped me. You know, the economy is not very good. Save some kind of money. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The reason I ask is there's a difference between owner/builder, in other words, you pulling the permits or the company that you hired to do that pulling the permits. MR. ARREAGA: I pulling. September 27, 2018 Page 18 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You pulled the permits, okay. That's all I wanted to ask. Okay. Do we have any -- Herminio? MR. ORTEGA: The question was already answered. There is a permit in place. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody like to have any more comments or make a motion? Silence is deafening. MR. ORTEGA: I make a motion to accept the motion (sic) as written. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? MS. ELROD: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Sue, you have a question? MR. LEFEBVRE: She wanted to make a motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You wanted to make a motion. MR. ORTEGA: I'll withdraw mine. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: That's fine. I was just going to make a motion. I didn't know I didn't have to press the toggle to make a motion. That's not the rules I was given at the beginning of the meeting. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The beatings will start right after the meeting's over. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? September 27, 2018 Page 19 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. ARREAGA: Thank you very much. MS. McGONAGLE: Thank you. MR. ARREAGA: Have a nice day. MR. BLANCO: Next item on the agenda, going in the order of the respondents that are present, it's Roman Numeral 6, old business, Letter C, motion for imposition of fines and liens, Item No. 6C3, Case No. CESD20170012033, Monica Gomez Arciniegas and Raul A. Gomez Olaya. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: For the Board, this was the sheet that was left on your position. The violation has been abated as of August 7th. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. MOLINA: Good morning. For the record, Boris Molina, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference of CEB Case No. CESD20170012033. Hearing date: September 27th, 2018. Board of County Commissioners versus Monica Gomez Arciniegas and Raul Gomez Olaya. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i), and 1.4.04(a). Location: 698 Pine Vale Drive, Naples, Florida; Folio 65671280003. Description: Unpermitted water and electric alterations made to enclosed garage. Enclosed garage was originally permitted with Permit No. 94-4526. Specified no utilities. Past orders: On March 22nd, 2018, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent September 27, 2018 Page 20 was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the Board, OR5493, Page 3304, for more information. On July 26th, 2018, the respondent's motion for continuance of this case was denied. See the attached order of Board, OR5540, Page 2952, for more information. The violation has been abated as of August 7th, 2018. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Part B of the record, fines have accrued at a rate of $250 per day for the period from July 21st, 2018, to August 7, 2018, 18 days, for a total fine amount of $4,500. Part C of the order: Fines have accrued at a rate of $250 per day for the period from March 24th, 2018, to August 7th, 2018, 137 days, for a total fine amount of $34,250. Previously assessed operational costs of $59.70 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing, $59.84. Total amount: $38,809.84. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I have one question. What's the difference between Part B of the order and Part C other than the letter? MR. BLANCO: Mr. Chairman, Part B on the order was the order to obtain building permits, demolition permits, inspections, and then Part C, the order to cease the use of unpermitted structures for living purposes and disconnect all utilities. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So from what I am reading and what I remember, this was a garage conversion; is that correct? MR. ORTEGA: That's right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And now it's -- since it's been abated, I'm assuming it's been converted back to a garage? MR. MOLINA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And all of the plumbing, electrical, whatever, has all been removed? September 27, 2018 Page 21 MR. MOLINA: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I'm going to ask the same question I asked earlier. What's the zoning there? Is that Estates? MR. MOLINA: It's not Estates. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: RSF-1? There's a test after this meeting. MR. LETOURNEAU: It's residential. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Residential single-family? MR. MOLINA: Yes. MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Now, sir, you are here to? MR. GOMEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you state your name on the microphone for us, please. MR. GOMEZ: My name is Raul Gomez. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. GOMEZ: I bought this property back in 2009 with my wife. We have no kids. Our first property. My wife, Monica, she's been working -- she used to work for Port Royal Club for more than 15 years. So with our savings, we used for -- to buy the property. When we buy the property, that was -- I don't know; you have to file. They always say guest residence in the piece of the garage that was converted. So we were so happy. We move, was the building, and I get some updates inside of the unit without to know I was breaking the law. When I went to the county to request the draw, because the house is 1970, was nothing, just this one. I said, well, how can I get it for my property? They said it's nothing there. It's just this one. I did the upgrades. Nothing happened. My wife get accept overseas to go to a American university in this Martin Island, and we September 27, 2018 Page 22 rent the house, and at the same time -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Slow down for me. You were selling the house or -- MR. GOMEZ: No. I rent the house. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, you rented the house out to somebody else? MR. GOMEZ: Yes, because she got accepted, so we have to move overseas to St. Martin. Unfortunately, the people to I rent the house was not good people. They were destroying the house. So I came to see. Was a mess. So I say, no, you need to leave my property. So he said, okay, I'm going to screw your life. I'm going to call Code Enforcement because you're breaking the law. I said, you can call, whatever you want. I know what -- I'm not breaking the law. But I found I was breaking the law. So when I got the Code Enforcement, I called right away to Mr. Molina, Mr. Boris. I say, why am I breaking the law? He explained me everything. And I ask him, what should I have to do to get everything straight up to not breaking the law? Tell me what I have to do. And he told me, if you have people there, nobody living there. I did right away. I wasn't here. So my mother-in-law went to the department, and she spoke with Mr. Ryan Paul on behalf of me, say, what did I have to do? So he say, he needs to do -- to get the permit by affidavit, fill it out for an engineering company or some company. So I did. I hired Forge Engineering to do the paper -- to do all the stuff. He said, you need to hire plumbing and electrical to sign the papers; I did. They do you all the job; say everything is fine. Now you can go to -- go and ask for the permit. And I was told the place is not going to be a living space. It's just September 27, 2018 Page 23 going to get the permits to live as is. Don't remove anything. Everything is fine, but nobody was living there. He say it's fine. Whatever I have to do, I will do it. So I hired this company. They do all the job. They say everything is fine. You can go to request the permit. So I went to get an appointment with Mr. Ryan Paul, said this is the -- what you request, the permit by affidavit, everything, the job is done. And he said, let me one second. I'm going to need to talk to Mr. Walsh. He went to talk to Mr. Walsh and said, I have bad news for you. This is not going to work out. I say, why? He say, I'm sorry -- in the beginning they said you need to get an elevation survey your property -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me stop you one second. I have one question since we're right in that area. Who did the work initially to convert the garage into living space? MR. GOMEZ: Like I said, when I move to the -- when I bought the house, was the structure, some job inside, but I did some adjustments inside by myself. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You did sinks or -- MR. GOMEZ: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. GOMEZ: Yeah, like a -- I fix it. Because my plan was to have -- after I get -- my wife get pregnant, so I have kids, so I say, I want to bring my parents to take care of my kids, since I was working. I was working at La Playa Resort for 10 years, so I want to bring in parents to take care of my kids in the space. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So I'm asking this question first before Mr. Ortega's going to ask the question. You're not allowed to do a permit by affidavit if you're the one that modified the unit. MR. GOMEZ: No, no, no. Okay. I got lost in that point. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You were at the point where September 27, 2018 Page 24 -- in the house and you did some things. MR. GOMEZ: Yeah. It was long time -- when I bought the house. Not now. The permit by affidavit was now that Mr. Ryan, Mr. Paul, told to my mother-in-law you need to do this permit to get everything done. You request the permit, and everything is fixed. So I request to talk to Mr. Walsh. So they give me an appointment. I came like three or four times to Naples, and I spoke with him. And he explained me everything. He said, yes, you get the elevation certificate, is right for your property, but now you are not going to be allowed because now the codes change at some point, and now you are not in that range because your house is old. So maybe it's not high enough to have it. So he told me, you have two choices. Raise the floor or get a demolition permit. I say, Mr. Walsh, my time is -- I don't have more time. I need to find somebody, if they can do the job to raise the floor. And he say, don't worry, think about it, and request more time. That's what I did, but I get denied for the time, because I was somebody -- to ask a company to have to raise the floor, everything, it was so expensive. I say, I'm broke. I don't want to spend that money. So the cheap way is just get demolition permit by my own and do the job. So I requested time. I get denied. So as soon as I get denied, I flew to Naples, and in less than a week, I request the permit, and I did the job. I say, I don't want to deal with this one anymore. I did this the fast way. I will do it, and I did. But at the same point, I talked to Mr. Walsh. I say, I feel frustrated because I didn't know the law. He said, no, maybe you need to find a lawyer to sue the company who sold you house. I said, listen, I don't want to -- that cost money. It was my mistake. I didn't know the law. I was happy when I see the plans say guest residence in the plans all the time when I bought the house without to know that I was September 27, 2018 Page 25 breaking the law. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Those plans came from the company that you bought the property from? MR. GOMEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. GOMEZ: Like I told you, when I went to request the plans was in the corner (sic). He say, I'm sorry, there's nothing here. Now I get the fines. I say, I apologize. Take long time. Unfortunately, when that happens, the hurricane happens, and I -- Mr. Molina told me they're going to -- for that period they're going to be zone -- they are not going to work anymore with the case because they're going to take care of the -- after Irma. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The point we're at right now is it is now -- this has been taken care of, and that's where we are right now. MR. GOMEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Now, Sue, you have a question first. MS. CURLEY: Yeah. I just wanted to make sure that -- I understood that he said he purchased the house like this because he had a survey, and then you said that -- you said something different, so he -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I asked -- my question was, who did the work? Did you do the work that converted it from a garage into a living space, and he said he did. MS. CURLEY: He bought it -- it was already -- this -- the way -- he bought it that way, he said. So you're -- MR. GOMEZ: The structure. The structure, but they had power inside, some inside. I said listen, I just want to -- it's a great way to make -- I do some work that -- I know how to do some work, so I did it. But the structure was there. When I saw it said guest residence, I September 27, 2018 Page 26 saw power, I saw water. I say, why not? Because I think it was a showroom. The guy, he had that showroom for the -- he was doing like some stuff. He was selling some stuff. It was a showroom. MS. CURLEY: So there was power and water in that structure? MR. GOMEZ: Was power, and water line was there. MS. CURLEY: Yeah. That's -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It was converted from a garage to living space. That's what we heard initially on the order; is that correct? MR. MOLINA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Which meant stuff was done: Plumbing and electrical. I asked the respondent who did it. He said he did it. Now, it doesn't really matter. It's done, and it is now in CO status; is that correct? MR. MOLINA: It is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So, unfortunately, that's water under the bridge, and we had nobody to speak to at the time this originally came before the Board, and because we had nobody to speak, all we saw was the complaint. MS. CURLEY: And the letter that was sent. He sent communications to Danny. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. MR. GOMEZ: And, unfortunately, with the -- the hurricane happened, my wife, she get -- had injure. She fell down in the -- during the hurricane. She's fine, but she need to stop -- she stopped her studies, because mow she's in medical treatment, so we had to move back to Naples last -- two weeks ago, and now we have to deal with this. Even my home is still damaged from the hurricane. We have to replace the roof. It's all damaged. And we tried to deal with the insurance, because I wasn't here. So I had to hire a company to do the all the stuff, so the house, like, is a mess. It's our first house, and to September 27, 2018 Page 27 have this problem, plus, it's all damaged from the hurricane, but that's life. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Ortega. MR. ORTEGA: I think any additional comments on my behalf are only going to extend this conversation. It's been abated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Correct. MS. CURLEY: I'd make a motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Hold on. Sue, you have a motion. MS. CURLEY: I'd like to make a motion to deny the county's request for both Part B and C of the fines but to include the operational costs payable by the -- by Mr. Gomez. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we have a motion -- MS. ELROD: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- to, in essence, abate the fine, correct? Yes. Okay. Do we have a second? MS. ELROD: Yes, second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second by Ms. Elrod. Mr. Lefebvre, you'd like to say something? MR. LEFEBVRE: Typically, when we deny the imposing of fines, we don't assess the operational costs. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: All right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'll go back to the motion maker. Do you want to eliminate the -- MS. CURLEY: Yeah. I was just trying to follow Danny's rule from about a half hour ago. So should I not include that, Danny? MR. BLANCO: Whether the operational costs are assessed is up to the Board. What I said earlier was relating to the motions for extension of time or a continuance. MS. CURLEY: Okay. Then I will modify my motion. September 27, 2018 Page 28 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the second, would you -- MS. ELROD: Accept the modification. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Accepts that. Okay. We have a motion. We have a second. Any other discussions on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. MR. GOMEZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good luck to you. MR. GOMEZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. BLANCO: Next item on the agenda is Roman Numeral 5, public hearings, motions, Letter C, hearings, Item No. 5C3, Case No. CESD20180006068, Carmen Vasallo. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let the record show that the respondent is not present. I do ask one question, Danny. We have a couple of folks in the back. Are they -- have cases. MR. BLANCO: Oh, they're just observing, sir; observing the September 27, 2018 Page 29 hearing today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The hearing thing? MR. BLANCO: Yes. Mr. Chairman, if I may put the notice on the record. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Notice? MR. BLANCO: That we -- that our office sent the notice to the respondent on time in compliance with -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. BLANCO: -- our county ordinance. For the record, Danny Blanco, Code Enforcement. Notice of hearing was sent regular mail and certified on September 14th, 2018. Property and courthouse were both posted on September 17th, 2018. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I'm looking. Okay. You want to present your case now? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes, sir. Good morning. For the record, Steven Lopez-Silvero, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20180006068 dealing with a violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Observed a flat-roofed aluminum storage shed, a recent metal reroof on a permitted frame storage shed, and two canopies attached to the dwelling all unpermitted and in the rear yard of improved occupied residential property located at 1013 New Market Road West, Immokalee, Florida, 34142; Folio 63852560007. Service was provided on May 31st, 2018. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: It's going to be six pictures taken by myself on April 18, 2018, and May 17th, 2018, and also an aerial of the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can we get a motion to accept the September 27, 2018 Page 30 photos? MR. DOINO: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MS. ELROD: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: I had to outline some of these pictures because the respondent or property owner didn't allow me into -- this is the rear yard of the property. So this is my legal view from the street from what I could get from the fence-line upward. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. It's a good thing you're tall. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yeah. The picture on the left is a flat-roofed aluminum shed, unpermitted. The picture at the right just shows the angle or the location of where that shed's located. It's in the rear corner of that yard. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: There's a permanent residence on that property as well? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: There is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: The picture on the left is the frame -- is a permitted framed storage shed. What's not permitted is the metal roof that they added on the top. September 27, 2018 Page 31 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that where the blue tarp is? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: It looks blue from the picture, but it's actually metal color. MS. CURLEY: Is that the picture on the left? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: The picture on the left, yes, ma'am. The picture on the right is Canopy No. 2, because they added two canopies. They're, like, a plastic awning is what they added, attached to the rear of the dwelling. If you zoom in, you can see it. It's hard to see it there, but it's at the rear of the dwelling, that overhang that extends past the roof. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Where the arrow is. We got it. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes, sir. And then that's a front view of the storage shed with the unpermitted roof, and the front view. MS. CURLEY: The entire property is fenced with that barrier fence? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: From the side plane of the home to the rear. Actually, the whole property's fenced in, the front and the rear. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Herminio, do you have a question? MR. ORTEGA: It seems that fence is over 6-foot or 6-foot; am I correct? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: The fence is about six feet. From what the respondent -- MR. ORTEGA: On the front of the property? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes. From what the respondent advised me, she installed this fence before the requirements for the height of the fence changed. MR. ORTEGA: Okay. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: So that's why it's six feet all around, according to her. But the only opaque section is the rear yard. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Herminio, what's the current zoning on that or -- September 27, 2018 Page 32 MR. ORTEGA: Well, it depends on the zoning. In some areas you're allowed 6-foot from the setback all the way to the back and around the back, and 4-foot in the front, unless you're on the water. E zoning, for example, allows for greater heights than that. So I take it this is RSF? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: This is residential single-family 3. MR. ORTEGA: So it might be limited to 4- and 6-foot. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Was that changed in the last year? MR. ORTEGA: No. It's been like that for a while. And that fence looks pretty new, doesn't it? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: It appears new. I didn't see any rust spots or anything on it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, we're not looking for any additional violations, just the ones that are in front of us. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: And then the last image is just an aerial map outlining of all the separate alterations. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you point on that -- that's better -- where the shed is. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: That's the flat-roofed unpermitted -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: -- aluminum shed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It meets setbacks and all the rest of that? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Right. This one's the permitted frame storage shed with the unpermitted metal roof, and these are the two canopies right here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you're saying that they had it permitted, the hurricane came, or whatever it was, and they had to replace this roof, and they didn't get a building permit? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes. And if you look at the next September 27, 2018 Page 33 image, you'll show the -- you'll see there's a change in the material of that roof, of the frame, the permitted frame storage shed. It changed from -- I believe it was shingle to metal from one year to the next. MS. CURLEY: So this is 2017, the date in the bottom of the picture before us now -- MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes, ma'am. MS. CURLEY: -- 2018. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Here. That's one material, and then you slide; it changed to metal. MS. CURLEY: Can you see the fence in that picture, too, if you were -- MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes. The fence has been existing for several years now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Have you had -- you want to continue with your case? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Sure. On April 18th, 2018, I conducted a site visit and observed a metal -- correction -- the mentioned violation. Research of the property history revealed that no building permits have been obtained for the accessory structures and/or alterations in question. I later met with the property owner to explain the details of the violation and provide the corrective action needed for compliance. As of September 26th, 2018, no building permit and/or demolition permits have been obtained, and the described structures and/or alterations remains. The violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the first time you spoke with them, it was on the 18th, is it? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Was the first time I went out, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: On September 18th? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: On April 18th. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: On April 18th. September 27, 2018 Page 34 MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you spoken to them since then? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Just this week. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And what did they have to say? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: They're going to try to get the required permits for what they have. I know that aluminum -- that flat-roof aluminum shed's right on the fence. They're not going to meet setbacks. They're either going to have to -- the county's going to require them either to move it to meet setbacks or remove it altogether. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we have no respondent to -- MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: The respondent advised me she couldn't make today's hearing due to a medical appointment she couldn't cancel or reschedule. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: Mr. Kaufman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. Just to clarify the fence issue, there was a fence permit issued in 1993 and CO'd for a property. So I image it quite possibly could have been before there was a 6-foot requirement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. And it's not on our violation here, so -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- it's immaterial. Okay. First thing we need to do is to find out if the respondent is in violation. I'm looking for a motion from the Board. MR. DOINO: Motion a violation exists. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a September 27, 2018 Page 35 second? MR. WHITE: Second. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. You have a suggestion for us? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: I do. The county's recommendation: That the Code Enforcement Board order the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $59.49 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Number 1, obtaining all required Collier County building permit or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion and/or occupancy for described structures and/or alterations within blank days of this hearing, or a fine amount of blank dollars 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 September 27, 2018 Page 36 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. Do we have any comments or suggestions from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, I'll take a shot at it. 59.49 paid within 30 days, 90 days to bring this into compliance or a fine of $150 a day. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing and seeing none, all those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: (Absent.) MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Show that Ms. Curley is taking care of other business. Okay. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Thank you. You guys have a great day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You, too. MR. BLANCO: Next item on the agenda is No. 6 from hearings, September 27, 2018 Page 37 Item No. 5C6, Case No. CESD20 -- my apologies. We heard that case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you want to hear it again? MR. BLANCO: No, sir. Next item on the agenda, it's No. 7, Item No. 5C7, Case Number CEVR20180007002, PKC Holding Company. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. BLANCO: For the record, Danny Blanco, Code Enforcement. Notice of hearing was sent regular mail and certified on September 14, 2018. Property and courthouse were both posted on September 17, 2018. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning. MS. DAVIDSON: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Colleen Davidson, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CEVR20180007002 dealing with violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 3.05.08(C). Brazilian pepper and other exotics located on property. Located at 3443 Pine Ridge Road, Naples, Florida, 34109; Folio No. 25120010081. Service given on May 31st, 2018. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Three photos taken by myself on May 7, 2008 (sic); three photos taken by myself on September 26th, 2018; and one aerial photo of property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We get a motion from the Board to accept the photos? MR. WHITE: Motion to accept the photos. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: From Ryan. MS. ELROD: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Second, Kathy. September 27, 2018 Page 38 All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MS. DAVIDSON: On May 7th, 2018, we received a complaint for Brazilian pepper. Conducted a site visit and observed overgrown vegetation. I submitted pictures to Environmental Specialist Michaelle Crowley who determined the vegetation is, in fact, Brazilian pepper. A notice of violation was issued on May 31st, 2018. I've spoken with the property manager numerous times, and in July the exotics were scheduled to be removed by a landscape company. After my site visit on August 7th, 2018, no progress had been made, and I prepared it for hearing. Yesterday, on my prehearing site visit, I observed a landscape company who was in the process of cutting the Brazilian pepper; however, a significant portion still needs to be cut, and all exotic vegetation still needs to be removed from the property. As of this morning, violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What's the development that's there? I'm trying to figure out where it is. MS. DAVIDSON: This is in Livingston Woods. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. DAVIDSON: It's the PUD on Pine Ridge Road. There's a -- they butt up on Livingston Woods, and there's a wall. And the PUD is September 27, 2018 Page 39 required to maintain the wall and any vegetation on that side of it. MR. WHITE: Is this behind the medical and commercial office? MS. DAVIDSON: Yes. Cambridge Square. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I used to live there. Not on the wall, but in the area in Livingston Woods. Okay. It looks like it's in progress of being done? MS. DAVIDSON: It is in progress. There's still a significant amount that needs to be done, which is why we came this morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you spoken with them? Did they say that they'd have it done by some particular date? MS. DAVIDSON: I've left messages with the property manager. She has not called me back. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: First thing we need to do is find out if they're in violation or not. MR. DOINO: Make a motion -- make a motion a violation exists. MR. WHITE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second that a violation exists. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. September 27, 2018 Page 40 Okay. And you have a suggestion for us? MS. DAVIDSON: The Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $59.63 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by removing all prohibited exotic vegetation and obtaining any and all required Collier County vegetation removal permits within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. That 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: Okay. Anybody like to take a stab at filling in the blanks here? MR. ORTEGA: I'll take a stab. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ORTEGA: That they pay operational costs within 30 days of this hearing. I have a quick question. Would you say this is 50 percent complete? MS. DAVIDSON: Yes, 50 percent. MR. ORTEGA: Okay. And removal permits, let's see, within 60 days at a fine of $100 per day. MR. DOINO: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's what I had written. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? September 27, 2018 Page 41 MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you, Colleen. MS. DAVIDSON: Thank you. MR. BLANCO: Next item on the agenda is No. 8 from hearings, Item No. 5C8, Case No. CESD20180005962, Jon Richard Brimmer, Sr., and Ana Brimmer. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. BLANCO: For the record, Danny Blanco, Code Enforcement. Notice of hearing was sent regular mail and certified on September 14th, 2018. Property and courthouse were both posted on September 17, 2018. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Michele? MS. McGONAGLE: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Michele McGonagle, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20180005962 dealing with a violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06 (B)(1)(e), and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Removed garage and garage door without obtaining required Collier County permits. Violation location: 1003 Cardinal Street, Naples, Florida, 34104; September 27, 2018 Page 42 Folio 32480480001. Service was given on May 7th, 2018. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Two pictures taken by me on April 17th, 2018, and one picture from a previous code case taken on October 19th, 2012, by Investigator Giguere. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Before we do that, Herminio, you want to say something first? MR. ORTEGA: I think the pictures will tell us what I'm going to ask, but it says remove garage and garage door. So you're actually talking about the structure itself? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you get a picture of nothing. MR. ORTEGA: Basically; exactly. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could we get a motion to accept the photos? MR. DOINO: Motion to accept. MR. WHITE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MS. McGONAGLE: That's where the garage door used to be. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the garage came out over the slab September 27, 2018 Page 43 where the car is parked? MS. McGONAGLE: No. Danny, could you go back to the other picture. This is the frame for the -- MR. LEFEBVRE: So the garage was not removed? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah. We could have probably stated that a little bit better. The garage aspect was removed and possibly turned into something else. We haven't been inside, correct, Michele? But we can see from the picture that the garage door was removed and a false wall was put up right behind the garage door. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. The garage conversion is -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah, it's a garage conversion. Yeah, they didn't remove the garage. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. McGONAGLE: And at the time I didn't know that. The complaint was for the man door added, but I'll go into that. On April 17th, 2018, I made a site visit and observed a new man door and concrete where the garage door should be. I met with the property owners who claim the door was already there when they bought the house. I reviewed previous cases on this property and found a picture which was taken on October 19th, 2012, which shows a garage door existed at the time, and that's the picture you're looking at now. On April 20th, 2018, I submitted a determination request, and Building Official Jonathan Walsh determined a violation exists. Alterations to structure for removal of garage and garage door requires a permit. A notice of violation was prepared and served to the property owner on May 7th, 2018. A permit application was submitted on May 28th, 2018, and rejected on June 19, 2018. I called the property owners on July 27th, September 27, 2018 Page 44 2018, and they stated they met with Renald Paul after they received the notice of violation, and he explained what they needed to do to resubmit for the permit. On August 2nd, 2018, corrections were not submitted for the permit, so I called the property owner and left a voice mail explaining that they needed to submit the garage conversion plans. On August 21st, 2018, corrections were not submitted, and the case was prepared for a hearing. Violation remains as of today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did you have an opportunity to look through where the door was when you were out at the property? MS. McGONAGLE: The only thing I saw was what you could see in that one picture, that there was a wall right inside of the door, but they refused to let me see the inside of the house. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. McGONAGLE: They did admit that the garage was converted, but they didn't let me see inside. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we need to find out whether a violation exists. Anybody like to -- MR. DOINO: Make a motion violation exists. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion that a violation exists. MR. WHITE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. September 27, 2018 Page 45 MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. You have a suggestion for us, Michele? MS. McGONAGLE: Yes, sir. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $59.63 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Number 1, obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy for the unpermitted garage alteration within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Number 2, 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. Anybody from the Board like to take a shot at filling in the blanks? MR. DOINO: I'll try. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. DOINO: Pay the amount of $59.65 -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sixty-three cents. MR. DOINO: -- .63, 90 days, and $150 a day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments? We have a second from the Board? MR. ORTEGA: Second. September 27, 2018 Page 46 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. Any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MS. McGONAGLE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thanks, Michele. MR. BLANCO: Next item on the agenda, it's No. 5 from hearings, Item No. 5C5, Case No. CESD20180003319. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. BLANCO: For the record, Danny Blanco, Code Enforcement. Notice of hearing was sent regular mail and certified on September 14, 2018. Property and courthouse were both posted on September 13, 2018. MR. FORD: Good morning. For the record, Arthur Ford, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20180003319 dealing with a violation of building/land alteration permits, Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.2.6(B)(1)(a). Permit PRBD20170416174 expired November 4th, 2017, for interior and exterior renovations; no contractor involvement. Located at 342 Cromwell Court, Naples, Florida, 34108; Folio September 27, 2018 Page 47 66674378306. Service was given on March 6th, 2018. I would like to present the following evidence: A photo taken by me February 26th, 2018, and five photos taken by me on September 25th, 2018, of the property; a copy of the expired/canceled permit; a copy of the demolition permit and documentation from Honc Demolition that they have not been made by the respondent. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Could we get a motion to accept these exhibits? MR. DOINO: Motion to accept. MR. WHITE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion, and we have a second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. That almost looks like a house. MR. FORD: Or Stonehenge. MS. NICOLA: That's what I was saying. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: On the dates, when were these taken? MR. FORD: The first one you saw was taken February 26th, 2018, when I got the case. I'll explain that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. September 27, 2018 Page 48 MR. FORD: And then the next five were taken two days ago on the 25th. MS. NICOLA: Where is that house located? Where is Cromwell Court? MR. FORD: That's in Bay Colony. MR. LEFEBVRE: Pelican Bay. MR. FORD: Yeah, Pelican Bay Colony. MS. NICOLA: Wow, I'm surprised the neighbors there would put up with that. How many calls have you gotten on that? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Enough. MR. FORD: More than enough. I can't blame them. MR. LEFEBVRE: Any idea how long it's been in this condition? MR. FORD: I have a rough idea that -- well, the original permit, from what I could tell, was abandoned by the contractor presumably for nonpayment. So they were in the process of renovations, and they didn't get very far, it looks like, and the contractor pulled off the permit, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Who -- MR. FORD: -- Building Department notified us. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Who owns the property? MR. FORD: SN SCP, LLC. And the respondent is a Neil Masters. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the property is owned by somebody. I'm not concerned with the contractor. Have you been in touch with the owner? MR. FORD: I have. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the owner says? MR. FORD: Well, I could explain that further on, but basically -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Take your -- whatever -- MR. FORD: I have been in contact with him. He wasn't sure what he was going to do, whether he was going to renovate the September 27, 2018 Page 49 property or whatever. I informed him that I was going to prepare the case for the April 25th hearing. At zero hour he hired Honc Demolition to go and pull a demolition permit. Well, I'll take a shortcut here. So to date, I mean, that's what the letter is from Honc. They haven't been paid. There's civil litigation involved with this respondent, and they require payment up front before they do anything. I mean, they won't even put a barrier around. They're not putting dollar one in until they get a payment. It's looking like he's just not paying the bills, and he's not here. I spoke with his secretary yesterday and offered a possible stip or have him at least come here and explain why it's been this way. Again, we're not expecting he's going to move on this. So we're kind of looking at this from a public-safety standpoint, and we've got to secure this location. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Location. MR. FORD: There's a pool there and, obviously, with the hurricane and damage and downed trees, we need to secure the property, number one, and then maybe further on down the road -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that pool and one of the -- I saw a pool there. What's in the pool? MR. FORD: Stagnant water. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Stagnant water. And -- MR. FORD: No barrier. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- it's not fenced? MR. FORD: There's no barrier. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Without going any further, we get a motion whether this is a violation or not? MR. DOINO: Make a motion -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion. Second. MR. ORTEGA: (Raises hand.) September 27, 2018 Page 50 MR. DOINO: -- that a violation exists. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. We have a second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Herminio? MR. ORTEGA: I believe Mr. Ford has answered the question about the life-safety issue. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. You have a discussion for us? MR. FORD: I have a couple. MS. CURLEY: I have one question, Danny. What's the date? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're not on the list here. MS. CURLEY: What's the -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're not on the list here, Sue. Now you're on the list. Susan? I'll teach you yet. MS. CURLEY: What's the date on the letter that you just removed from the screen? MR. BLANCO: The email was sent to Supervisor Eric Short on September 14th, 2018. MR. FORD: Am I on? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're on. MR. FORD: Recommendation: That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount September 27, 2018 Page 51 of $59.98 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: One, must obtain any required Collier County permits, inspections, and certificate of completion and install a temporary barrier no less than six feet in height around the entire property to block off all access to the property locked and secured for site safety until such time that the demolition of the pool and structure begins within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank will be imposed for each day that the site remains unsecure. Two, obtain all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within blank days of this hearing, or fine of blank per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Three, 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. We have a couple of people who want to speak. I just want to make one comment. On pools that are not protected, those are safety and health, as, I mean, Herminio's going to say in two minutes, and our time frame on that should be really short. MR. FORD: Absolutely. We're requesting ASAP. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I just wanted to make that comment. Herminio, you're first. MR. ORTEGA: I'm not sure if we could impose a 6-foot-height fence if the minimum for safety is four feet. I just wanted to make that September 27, 2018 Page 52 comment. With regards to time frame, shorter is better. But what is legal? Those are my thoughts. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We can also do a -- they can put a temporary fence up immediately and then a permanent fence thereafter, but it's -- MR. ORTEGA: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- important that it gets taken care of right away. Okay. Mr. Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: For a barrier or for a fence, does a permit -- for something like this, does a permit have to be pulled? MR. FORD: We just -- not -- honestly, I'm not absolutely certain on that for a temporary barrier or whatever. So we put the wording, "any required Collier County building" -- MR. LETOURNEAU: What we would do is go by the discretion of the building official, and if he was okay with the temporary barrier, that would be in compliance for that part of the order right there. We could probably put the language of, you know, building official approval in there and take out the six feet, or whatever you wanted to do at this point. MR. LEFEBVRE: What is the process now that -- permit expired with a contractor. If he wants to reissue that permit with a different contractor, what's the process to do that? How long would that take is what I'm trying to get at. To put up a barrier, I asked how long is the permit. Because if we say seven days but a permit takes two weeks to get, that's not really fair to impose a fine upon an owner. So that's why I'm trying to get a clarification of how long -- does a permit -- is it needed to put up a fence? The demo you probably need a permit, right, a fence barrier? September 27, 2018 Page 53 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: In the past we have required the respondent to put up a temporary fence -- we generally meet on Thursdays -- by Monday. So no permit, but we need a fence up there. That's what's important. So, Sue, you're next. Oh, are you done, Mr. Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: One more question. What's the maximum that we can impose for a fine? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We can impose $1,000 a day unless it's a repeat violation; then it can 5,000 a day. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is that correct? MS. NICOLA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sue? MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm done. MS. CURLEY: Is this in foreclosure? MR. FORD: No, it's not, but there is civil litigation -- from what I gather, the respondent, an overseas investor, is in civil litigation. Something to do with the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Herminio? MR. ORTEGA: Putting a life-safety fence, a 4-foot orange type fence does not require a permit. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Thank you. MR. ORTEGA: I would go along with the fact it passes this through the chief building official. The regular fence, a 6-foot fence or otherwise, that's going to require a permit. MR. LEFEBVRE: Even if it's -- MR. ORTEGA: For construction purposes it will. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. So it would be -- you'd pull a permit for construction, and part of the permit for construction would be a September 27, 2018 Page 54 fence? MR. ORTEGA: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct? Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have two items here, if I may. Number one, protect kids from falling in the pool with a temporary fence around the pool. As far as the property is concerned, that's another fence. I mean, if you can put the fence around the entire property initially, which probably won't happen quickly enough for us, that's a different story. So something has to go around the pool immediately. Yes, Jeff. MR. LETOURNEAU: We highly doubt that the owner's going to put a fence up, honestly. The county is going to do something at one point. So we would suggest a short period of time for -- at least for the fence part, because the county has to get bids, and it's going to take us time to get the fence up also. So we would highly recommend a minimal time on getting the fence up, you know, and then give them plenty of time for the demolition permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Sue, did you have a question? MS. CURLEY: I was sort of along the lines of Jeff, that this -- we can't really wait for this person to do it, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I agree. MS. CURLEY: -- we need to ask for the county's assistance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Gerald? MS. CURLEY: Only because you also have overgrown weeds, and we have Bay Colony. Because this man's not going to get permission from the homeowners association to put up any fence that's going to be, you know, happy. MR. FORD: It's my understanding that with the old permit for the renovations there was a fence up around the entire site, but when September 27, 2018 Page 55 the contractor pulled out, so went the fence. MS. CURLEY: Well, shouldn't the county also be mowing and stuff now if you know that it's -- MR. LETOURNEAU: What are (sic) the weed situation like? MR. FORD: It's pretty bad. MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah, I mean -- yeah, we'll address that also but, you know, we're worried about the pool at this part more than anything. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Correct. MR. FORD: Not to mention the structure. It's -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Right, exactly. We don't know how stable everything is right there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Civil litigation doesn't absolve you of maintaining your problem, number one. Number two, as this is written, I think we're going to have to separate out No. 1 to make it that there's a fence, a barrier, or something acceptable by the county, and give that a very short period of time, and then obtain required building permits would be a longer period of time. So I think that needs to be separated out. So there probably is going to have to be three, four -- four separate items, paragraphs, because you can't lump number one, the fence, and -- MR. FORD: Right, that would be, obviously, a shorter time. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. So that's my -- MR. FORD: Because, I mean -- yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Herminio? MR. ORTEGA: We're using the term "renovation." This is a substantial improvement. It's like building a new house, if that's going to be the direction. MR. FORD: The prior permit was for renovations, interior and exterior. The second one did not -- demolition, because to him, I September 27, 2018 Page 56 guess, that was the easier fix to avoid the hearing back in April. So he pulled -- he hires Honc, they pull the permit. Doesn't pay the bill. So there it sits. So we just want to try and -- I mean, we were trying to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, and it's just, at this point -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is in Bay Colony. The properties there are million-dollar properties. I'm sure that the county will be made whole for whatever work they do, or they won't get a building permit there. Mr. Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: It's irrelevant where this house is. It is imperative that something is put up not immediately but very close to immediately. It didn't matter where it is. A kid could still fall in if it's in the Estates. The neighborhood is irrelevant at this point, and it needs to be fixed, and we need to take -- the county needs to take a strong action to get this fixed. Again, litigation isn't part of what I care about, being on this board. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Sue? MS. CURLEY: Would the county just demo it? MR. LETOURNEAU: I'm sure we'd look into the financial aspects of it. But we're looking more into getting a barrier up right now. I think it would be very taxpayer costly to demolition this property at this point. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have another speaker. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. SHORT: For the record, Supervisor Eric Short with Collier County Code Enforcement. I just want to clarify. You, Ms. Curley, had asked a question about any foreclosure or anything. There was a private investor, so there is a lis pendens on the property. So any demolition efforts or September 27, 2018 Page 57 anything, the county or the taxpayers would not recuperate that cost. If it comes to a time where we do need to do that, I'm sure we can. But in the meantime we want to put up a safety barrier around the property; secure the site. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me see if I can make this somewhat simpler. Why don't we get a motion from the Board to put up a temporary barrier around the pool with a very short time frame, and then we'll go to the next step. So that will take care of the immediate need right away. Would someone like to take a shot at that? MR. LEFEBVRE: Let's do one motion. I think that would be -- correct? MS. NICOLA: I agree. I think it should be one motion. And this doesn't sound all that complicated to me. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do part one -- part one of the motion, anybody like to take a shot at that? MR. ORTEGA: I'll take a shot at it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Go ahead, Herminio. MR. ORTEGA: Operational costs to be paid within 30 days, as listed, the barrier to be installed within seven working days of this hearing, and a fine of $250 a day will be imposed from this day forward. MR. DOINO: Second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you want to -- hold on one second. The barrier that you said, it can be a temporary barrier. MR. ORTEGA: Temporary barrier, correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That's your motion? MR. ORTEGA: That's my motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That's just part one of what we're doing. MR. ORTEGA: Correct. September 27, 2018 Page 58 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have somebody who is going to second that portion of it. Mr. Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, again, I think it should be all one motion because -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We are going to make it one motion. This is just -- where it says one up there, that's one. Now let's go to two. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, hold on. I still have -- MR. WHITE: We're going to have two parts. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Or three or four. MR. LEFEBVRE: I still have a comment. This is the most important issue is health and safety, and we're not really putting that much of an importance on it at $250. If the maximum we can fine is $1,000, I think it's shown by the respondent, his lack of concern, or trying to circumvent and slow up the process by hiring a contractor demo, not paying him, holding -- holding off in April. So he's been aware of this for months, and he's neglected to do any -- to take care of the problem, so I think $250 a day is far in -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So do you want to suggest to the motion maker that he increase the fine? MR. LEFEBVRE: I think it should be 500-plus to make him aware. The other question I have, has the private finance person been contacted at all? MR. FORD: I believe they're overseas. MR. LEFEBVRE: But, I mean, if there's any way to contact them and say, hey, listen, there's monies that are going to be against your property -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That becomes their problem, not our problem. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, I'm just saying, it might be able to -- September 27, 2018 Page 59 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me go back to the motion maker. Are you willing to increase the fine that -- MR. ORTEGA: I am will willing to increase the fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: To? MR. ORTEGA: To $750 a day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And your -- MR. DOINO: I second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You second that portion of it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Now we go to the second thing. The second thing, I'm assuming, would be we need to take care of a fence around the whole place. MR. LEFEBVRE: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Around the whole place, the whole property. MS. CURLEY: That's part of the demolition permit. MR. LETOURNEAU: Oh, that's true. You have to keep the pool. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, you can put the fence up before you demo it. MR. LETOURNEAU: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: Let's be clear on the motion, first motion. Where is the fence going to be? Is it over just the pool, or is it the whole -- is the health-and-safety issue the property? MR. FORD: My recommendation was the property due to the obvious appearance of the structure itself. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Let's clarify that because -- MR. FORD: Because, I mean, you saw broken concrete, downed trees, you know. MR. LETOURNEAU: It does say block off access -- all access to the property, and, yeah -- September 27, 2018 Page 60 MR. LEFEBVRE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So that part one, instead of just being around the pool, is around the whole property; is that correct, motion maker? MR. ORTEGA: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. NICOLA: I have a question. I'm looking at the recommendation. It says, "locked and secured for site safety." I don't know how you do that if you're putting up a temporary fence or if you're putting up that orange fencing. How do you lock and secure it? MR. ORTEGA: You don't. MS. NICOLA: Right. I mean, just legally speaking here, I think that maybe we might want to amend this a little bit. If Herminio is saying four feet, we put in four feet, and we take out lock and secured, and maybe we just leave it as around the entire property to block off all access to the property. I just want to make sure it's clear. You know, you guys right now know that this is in litigation, which means you're going to be dealing with lawyers at some point, and they see that, and they're going to say, well, this is an impossible thing to perform. And when you get into impossibility of performance, that gives them an out. We don't want to give them an out if we can. MR. LETOURNEAU: I have a suggestion just to take out "must obtain" -- let me think about this. Must obtain all -- the building official approval for a temporary barrier around the entire property. So once -- I mean, that's the guy that makes the decision on whether or not this is an adequate fence or not. So take out all the other stuff, I mean, and then leave in "block off all access to the property." MR. ORTEGA: Then Collier County's taking responsibility is what you're saying? MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, we're going to. I highly doubt this September 27, 2018 Page 61 gentleman's going to take care of this situation, and even if he did, he'd still need the building official's approval on a temporary barrier for a safety issue like this. We're not just going to say throw up an orange fence on something like this and it's going to be okay at this point. MR. ORTEGA: That's why I suggested the 4-foot in a two-part motion. MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, I mean, if we just go with the building official's approval, then we can just cover the whole area right there, and he's the man that, you know, makes the decision on fences. MR. ORTEGA: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Can this be done -- how quickly can you get a -- the building official to say, yes, this is the fence you need to put up? MR. LETOURNEAU: We're going to -- we're going to get a -- take bids, and part of the bids is going to -- you're going to need to work with the building official to, you know, figure out what type of fence you're going to put up there. So it's going to be quick. It's going to be very quick. The bidding process is going to be the lengthy part of it. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm not talking about the bidding -- you've got to give him an opportunity to get the fence installed. MR. LETOURNEAU: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: And what I'm trying to get at is, if he comes in tomorrow and says, hey, I want to conform -- I want to take care of this, part one of this -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- because I have seven days, and he walks in goes, well, there's not a determination made by the building official. What I'm trying to get at is, he doesn't know what to put up. MR. LETOURNEAU: I'll personally walk him down there. It will take half an hour, and we'll hash it out. I mean, it's not going to be September 27, 2018 Page 62 anything difficult. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. LETOURNEAU: He's going to give him options, and he's going to have to take whatever one he chooses. MR. LEFEBVRE: But is there any way that you can give this case to the building official and say, tell me what kind of fence needs to be made, so when the guy comes in -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Certainly. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah. We can have that already ready. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So the language that you wanted to add -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Let's say "must obtain the Collier County building official approval for a temporary fence to block off access to the property," take out the "locked and secured for site safety" unless the building -- you know, that might be part of his, you know, recommendation. I don't know. But whatever the building official recommends, that's what we're going to use as compliance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I'm afraid of something happening, especially with the pool. That's what bothers me the most. The pool has water in it. Somebody -- now, how long has it been that way, is one question I have. A while? It doesn't make it any better, but it -- okay. Okay. As long as we can get this done right away. Sue? MS. CURLEY: So are we going to finish -- are we going to go on to No. 2 or -- MR. LEFEBVRE: We have to amend, I think, 1. MS. CURLEY: Well, my only input is, for when you design No. 2 is to make it as fast as possible so fines can start accruing so if, in fact, they try and transfer this property out of these investors' names, at September 27, 2018 Page 63 least there will be fines on record so the next person that takes it is going to be aware that there's fines on record. So we don't want to give a whole lot of time on No. 2. I'd say, like, five days or seven days before fines start hitting it. So when they do do a lien search, they'll see that there's fines on it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, there's going to be fines start to accrue after seven days if the fence is not up. MS. CURLEY: That's my only input for whoever's going to design No. 2. MR. LETOURNEAU: I would say No. 2, you know, to be fair about it, it's going to take -- it's going to take a long time to get certificate of completion/occupancy, especially if the decision is to rebuild it. A demo permit, obviously, is going to -- a month. And the demo permit's already in place, correct? It's just -- MR. FORD: Yes, expires October 22nd. We're just trying to get ahead of the eventual -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. It's -- MR. LETOURNEAU: The hurry part is No. 1, and then No. 2, you know, we've got to be -- you know, up to the Board's discretion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I guess what we're trying to do is to get the owner's attention -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- one way or the other, because $750 a day adds up quickly. That's for the -- for seven days, that's correct. What happens after -- on the eighth day, what fine is going to be imposed from the eighth day until the end of time here? I know that's something we select. MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, I mean, the 750 would be imposed until the county got up the approved barrier, and then that would be in compliance of No. 1 right there. September 27, 2018 Page 64 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Correct. Now, the whole that's -- the rest of it, to do the demo. They have a permit which expires in October. MR. LETOURNEAU: Which is -- the company's not going to do the work because they're in litigation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. So we can see our nose in front of our face that we need to come up with some dollar amount that will be imposed if the structure is not demoed prior to or after October -- what's the date? MR. FORD: 22nd. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: 22nd. A fine of X amount of dollars will be imposed until this thing is done. MR. LETOURNEAU: That's a good way to do it, I believe. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody want to come up with a number there? MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, we have to clarify No. 1, because the motion and what we agreed upon, we voted on, was different than what, ultimately, Jeff, you stated. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. Must obtain a Collier County building official approval and install a temporary barrier around the entire property to block off all access to the property until such time that the demolition of the pool and structure begins within seven days of the hearing, or a fine of $750 a day will be imposed for each day the site remains unsecure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Let me stop you there. So the initial motion needs to be withdrawn, and we'll go with -- we'll put you on the Board here for this. So will you withdraw your initial motion in favor of -- MR. ORTEGA: Heavens, no. No, I have one thought -- MS. NICOLA: Can I make a suggestion? Because some of the comments you made, Jeff, before were that you wanted them to follow September 27, 2018 Page 65 all the recommendations. So I would just suggest including language after "obtain building official's permission" and follow all recommendations of the building official regarding the fence, because there may be some suggestions with respect to the height and things like that, and we just want to make sure, I think, we cover everything. MR. LETOURNEAU: Sounds good. MR. ORTEGA: There is an issue here, though. If Collier County -- the chief building official says, let's put up a 6-foot fence, who does it? Because obviously a permit's going to have to be filed, a contractor's going to have to be hired, and that's going to take time. MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, I mean, I can't say who's going to do it. Whoever wins the bid is going to do it. MR. ORTEGA: Right, but that means it's going to take more than seven days to get something up there for life-safety issues. MR. LETOURNEAU: It's definitely going to take more than seven days. I'm not denying that. (Multiple speakers speaking.) MR. ORTEGA: Right. That's why I made that suggestion at least to put a red flag out there, because it's better than nothing. MR. LETOURNEAU: You talking about putting the -- MR. ORTEGA: Around the pool. MR. LETOURNEAU: The orange -- MR. ORTEGA: Yes. MR. LETOURNEAU: And you're going to have to break up something else and, you know, make it, like -- put a -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I said. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Go back to the first part. Put something around the pool immediately, then you can talk about the rest of it. MR. ORTEGA: Exactly. September 27, 2018 Page 66 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I realize it's been that way for a long time. MR. LETOURNEAU: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And thank goodness nobody's fallen in there. But that's the most likely place that you're going to have a problem with somebody being killed or injured; it's in the pool. The rest of the property, probably less risky. So let's take care of the biggest risk initially, and that shouldn't be a costly item to put up one of the red temporary fences around the pool. Then we talk about what comes next. Do you agree with me, Jeff? MR. LETOURNEAU: I do. Take a shot at it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you agree with me, Herminio? MR. ORTEGA: I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we've got two people; you and me, and Kathy, and I'm sure Ron and Ryan. So we agree to that. They've got to put up a temporary fence around the pool immediately; seven days. And if they don't do it in seven days, it's $750 -- we can put this in writing, $750 for every day thereafter, okay. In addition to that, the wording that you used would be part of the same motion. MR. LETOURNEAU: For a fence around the entire property? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have that language -- MR. LETOURNEAU: You're using the same seven days for both fences, for both barriers? Because you said immediately -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, seven -- I would like to see the fence around the pool Monday, but that's -- let's not be impossible. MR. LETOURNEAU: I will say that when I get back to the office today, we're going to start looking into bids as soon as I get back September 27, 2018 Page 67 there. So we're going to have it -- try to line it up as quickly as we can. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And then as far as the next stage, the next stage is to fence the entire property, and then the third stage is the demo -- the stuff inside the fence. So you probably need three different dates and three different fines. MS. NICOLA: I'm trying to understand why you wouldn't just fence the whole property. I mean, this isn't, like, a five-acre lot. Why not just do the whole thing in No. 1, give them seven days, and be done with it? MR. WHITE: The whole site might take longer to fence than the seven days they could put up a primary fence up around the pool. MS. NICOLA: I mean, how big is this lot? Half -- quarter acre, something like that? MR. FORD: Approximately. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You'd like to speak? I don't see your name on my -- MS. NICOLA: According to the sign, you're supposed to sign up, but... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Ossorio, get sworn in. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. OSSORIO: For the record, Michael Ossorio, director of code. I don't know how we got shifted. This is pretty simple. There should be two orders. One is to secure the site, period. Not just the pool. I don't care about the pool. I care about the whole property. I care about the cinderblock, the concrete block. It's a construction site. It is very similar to what we did over in the hotel out in Port of the Islands. It's very simple. Seven days -- I would say 10 days to secure the site with a 6-foot fence around the entire property to make it secure, period. It doesn't require a building permit. The building official says life-safety issue. September 27, 2018 Page 68 It's a temporary fence. Put the fence up. We'll get a permit later. It's not a big deal. Where there's many out there that they will get some permits for a temporary fence; they're not going to get a building permit for it because it's temporary. Because once they activate the demolition permit, they're going to take the fence down and they're going to start doing some thing. So my thought would be pretty simple: You have 10 days to secure the site with a 6-foot fence, or $750 a day will be imposed. Once that gets imposed, you have 60 days to demolition the building or reactivate a building permit to get a completion within six months. So it's very simple. I don't care about the pool. I want the whole site secure. I think your attorney probably has said it best. I don't want a barrier. I don't want a blue barrier. I don't want a green barrier. I want a 6-foot fence that's going to secure the site for -- because this could take a long time, and the county might have to go ahead and put a burden (sic) and put a demolition and get a demolition contractor in there to do some abatement if we need to, if it was a safety issue or concern if it's in our budget. So, basically, what I'm trying to -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. If it's in your budget? MR. OSSORIO: What I'm trying to say is that I want 10 days, if you could, to get a 6-foot fence to secure the site. After 10 days, it's $750 a day. After that you have 60 days to get a demolition permit to remove the site (sic) or get a building permit to activate and get a CO, whatever, within six months. MR. ORTEGA: I have a question on that one. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Herminio? MR. ORTEGA: With regards to the 4-foot fence or the 6-foot September 27, 2018 Page 69 fence or whatever fence -- MR. OSSORIO: I'm saying to you it's not going to be a 4-foot fence. If I'm going to secure the site, it's going to be a life-safety issues, it's going to be a 6-foot fence. And a 6-foot fence in a residential property you're allowed to have. And it's for life-safety issues. It's going to be a 6-foot fence. I'm just letting you know we're not going to go to the building official and say put a 4-foot fence so somebody can jump over top of it. It's going to be a 6-foot fence. MR. ORTEGA: Okay. With regards to time, then. MR. OSSORIO: I just mentioned to you, they have 10 days. MR. ORTEGA: Okay, no. The question is, if we're going to put a red plastic fence, whatever you want to call it, is that something that has to go out to bid as well? MR. OSSORIO: I'm not here to talk about a plastic fence. We're here to talk about life-safety issues -- is that within 10 days of this hearing, if we do not get a 6-foot fence on this property to secure it for a temporary barrier around this whole structure. It's not about the pool, the building itself, to secure it, the site, we're going to go ahead and go out to bid and do it. That's it. MR. ORTEGA: Okay. MR. OSSORIO: That's it. I don't think we've asked this board to go ahead and put a little tiny blue barrier fence or one of those -- what do you call those, orange things, whatever it might be, or -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah, they're mesh. MR. OSSORIO: Mesh. I mean, that's not going to -- life safety. That doesn't do it for me or it doesn't do it with the building official to make it safe, especially where there's no building permit or expired permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's why Jeff said that he was going to ask the building official what they needed, what kind of fence. MR. OSSORIO: It's pretty simple. What's needed is just the September 27, 2018 Page 70 Board make a decision about life safety and make sure they get a 6-foot fence around this. These homeowners have been suffering -- or not these homeowners. But the community's been suffering for six months, seven months. The pool's been there for a long time. The permit's been activated, reactivated. The contractors want to get paid. There's liens on the property because there's nonpayment, of course. That's not your concern. Your concern is life safety. They have 10 days to get an active building permit, to get it demoed, or 10 days to get a 6-foot fence around this property, or $750 a day will be imposed, and then after that they have 60 days to go ahead and reactivate the permit to get a CO; whatever you guys want to do for that. But we're here because the break -- the communication's broke down with the homeowner, the homeowner really doesn't want to get in compliance. Yes, there's a lis pendens on the property, but the county's basically saying that, in general terms, this is a life-safety issue, and we need to address it. So 4-foot fence is not going to do it. The building official is not going to argue with me about life safety, about a temporary barrier or temporary fence without a building permit. Let's get it up because what's going to happen is is that I'm sure we're going to be sitting with our management team and we're going to be going out to bid, and we're going to get a 6-foot with a locking mechanism on there to make it secure, and then we're going to look for the future about if there's life-safety issues, do we need to take it to the County Attorney to foreclosure on. So that's our options. So I would like to go ahead and get -- if we miss with -- the mesh and the thing and just go right for 10 days, 6-foot fence. It's your order. You can order it. And I would appreciate a 6-foot fence. I don't want a 4-foot fence, and I'm sure the building official's going to say, if it's going to be a long term -- this could be a long-term process -- September 27, 2018 Page 71 4-foot fence is not going to be for me either as well as, so... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think that's what Jeff said, though, when he said it would be up to the building official what type of security fence. MR. OSSORIO: It's really up to this board to make that determination. The building official will go ahead and give you a 4-foot fence, 6-foot fence, 5-foot fence. But I'm telling you as the housing authority that a 6-foot fence is going to do it for me; 4-foot is not going to do it for me. And I don't care about a building permit. It's temporary. You can put it up. They -- contractors put temporary barriers up all the time when they're doing demolition work to make it secure. It doesn't mean they get a building permit. It comes down. It's temporary. And we've secured many properties through this order of the Board through a 6-foot fence, just like we did over in Isle of Capri. We didn't get a building permit for that. That's a huge fence, a 6-foot fence around that property. It's temporary. MR. LETOURNEAU: Also that steel structure on Davis Boulevard, too. MR. OSSORIO: Exactly right. So let's -- hopefully we can get this moving, and Jeff probably can dispense with it pretty quick. But 10 days, 750, 6-foot fence. If not, the county will do it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you for your comments. Mr. Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: I think we beat this horse to death a few times. I think seven days is more appropriate. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You want to make the motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, no. There's a motion that we -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I said -- I asked before -- MR. ORTEGA: Allow me to revise the motion in light of the September 27, 2018 Page 72 new information. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ORTEGA: How's that one? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ORTEGA: Let's do 6-foot fence -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ORTEGA: -- within seven days -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ORTEGA: -- $750 a day -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- perfect. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Continue. MR. ORTEGA: First or second? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And that fence goes around the entire property? MR. ORTEGA: And the fence shall be installed around the perimeter of the property, correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. After -- MR. ORTEGA: With a lock and key. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. NICOLA: So we're adding back the "locked and secured for site safety"? MR. ORTEGA: Yes. MS. NICOLA: Maybe we're just leaving No. 1 the way it was written. After all this, we're going to go right back to No. 1 as written by our official over there and leaving it. MR. ORTEGA: Well, the purpose for all this was to overcome the time element so that we don't go through the typical processes that's going to take one month before we get a fence out there. That's why I suggested the fence -- that fence in the first place. But if we can override that through other means and get a -- as September 27, 2018 Page 73 was stated here earlier, a 6-foot fence without having to go through all the processes, rather immediately, then that's the way to go. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So now they have seven days to put up a 6-foot fence around the perimeter of the property, or there will be $750 fine. The next timing on this is the existing demo permit that expires. They either have to re-up that permit or take the building down within some period of time, or an additional fine. So do you want to -- MR. ORTEGA: I'd love to. So with regards to demolition, I would say within 60 days, and I still maintain the $750 a day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sixty days may be a little short. I think -- MR. ORTEGA: Pursuant to the -- on the eighth day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think he said six months. No, I believe he said -- MR. ORTEGA: Demolition. MR. LETOURNEAU: -- 60 days for the demolition and six months if they want to rebuild it. MR. ORTEGA: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I'm okay with that. Do we have a second that's okay with that? MS. ELROD: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Go ahead. MR. LEFEBVRE: I was just going to say, why don't we just make a motion at the end and just approve everything, but -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That's what -- I thought we are at the end. MS. NICOLA: I thought that was everything. Is there more? MR. LETOURNEAU: I don't know if you mentioned the option of getting a building permit and restoring the structure to a building. MR. ORTEGA: I didn't on purpose. September 27, 2018 Page 74 MR. LETOURNEAU: Oh, okay. All right. MR. WHITE: If we just say they have to demo it, if he wants to rebuild it, he's going to have to come back here and talk to us or -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah. I mean, if he doesn't follow through with the order you give him as far as getting the demo, he'd definitely have to -- if he wanted to rebuild it, then he'd have to come back before the Board and ask for a change to the order or -- MS. NICOLA: Well, that way that it's written right now it says, building permit or demolition permit. What I understood the Board to be doing is to separate out those two things as an "or," get the demolition permit within -- completed within 60 days, or have a Collier County building permit issued and certificate of occupancy completion within six months. So I think that that makes sense. If we write it up that way where the demolition permit expires, then they still have four months to complete it, to complete the property to have a certificate of occupancy which, in all honesty, I don't think they're going to do either. It doesn't sound like it. Either way we write it, it's not going to happen. MR. FORD: What about a permit issued within 60 days for both? Just issued? Because if they're going to rebuild, they're going to have to do it within six months anyway. That's the permitting process. MS. NICOLA: Well, we've already got an existing permit, though. I think that was the reason why the Board was saying let's figure out if they're going to complete that. And the way that we always write up these orders, they say obtain the required Collier County building permit and certificate of completion/occupancy. So the question is, do we want to just make it all one thing, leave it as is, or do we want to make it two separate issues? I mean, in all honesty, I don't think it really matters because -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Right. I think the county -- the county would be comfortable with leaving it as it is, 60 days, whatever fine September 27, 2018 Page 75 you want to put on there. If the gentleman, you know, gets motivated, he can come back in here and ask for more time if he wants to rebuild it. I would leave it at 60 days for the permit and the demolition permit, making it nice and neat at that point. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's fine by me. Is it fine by you, Herminio? MR. ORTEGA: It is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And for the second, are you fine with that? MR. WHITE: Yep. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion that everybody's fine with. We can vote on it. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. CURLEY: (No verbal response.) MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. BLANCO: Mr. Chairman, if I may, just for clarification, so I have the first item on the order is going to be 6-foot fence within seven days, $750 a day, around the whole perimeter of the property locked and secure, correct? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. MR. BLANCO: Item 2, it's 60 days to get a demo permit or building permit with CO within 60 days or $750 per day? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. MR. BLANCO: Okay. Thank you. September 27, 2018 Page 76 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And operational costs. MR. BLANCO: And operational costs -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: 59.98. MR. BLANCO: -- within 30 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: After 30 days, yes. We could have been out of here at 9:30. Okay. MS. NICOLA: Every time we have a few hearings it takes longer. I don't know why. I'm trying to figure that out. We have 20, and we're out of here at 10:30. We have nine, we're 11, 12 o'clock. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we're done with this? MR. FORD: Till next time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Hopefully it will be a motivational tool for the attorneys or the respondent to do something. Danny, you're up. MR. BLANCO: Next item on the agenda, it's Roman Numeral 8 -- I'm sorry -- Roman Numeral 9, report. I believe some of the Board members have some suggestions about the Code Enforcement Board rules and regulations. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I had a couple of questions. Section 5A, members shall notify the Chairman and secretary to the Board and/or designee if they cannot attend the meeting. I'd like to change the "and" to an "or." They can notify the Chairman or the secretary. I think that makes it clearer. Let us know who's coming, who's not coming. That was one portion I wanted to put in. We can discuss at the next meeting. MR. BLANCO: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: On Article 7, Page 4, it's always been my understanding that we send out a notification by certified mail without the return receipt requested. Is that a change now? Because it's in the rules here. MR. BLANCO: The notice of hearing gets sent regular email and September 27, 2018 Page 77 certified. So if the respondent gets the certified package, then we do have the return receipt. So that was added. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So that was added, return receipt? MR. BLANCO: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I just wanted to note that so when we go over it. MS. NICOLA: I have that in my version, which was revised 4/24/14. So that return receipt requested was in the code rules and regulations as of then. So was something changed for this year? Because it's in my copy from then, from four years ago. MR. BLANCO: No. Well, we're still doing it like that. We still send the regular mail and certified. MS. NICOLA: Okay. Because, I mean, the return receipt language was in there from four years ago, so I don't see it as a change. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You can send certified without a return receipt. You can send certified with a return receipt. That was the question that I have. MR. BLANCO: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Because I thought in the past, once you sent it out certified, whether you received that thing that they sign for or not, that was good for notification purposes. MR. BLANCO: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This now -- or I guess in '14 says, not only do you send it out certified, but you should have a copy of the receipt that should be part of the package going forward. MS. NICOLA: No. That's not what it says. It says that you can notify them by either certified mail return receipt requested, hand delivery upon a party, posting on the property and at the courthouse, or in any other manner authorized as provided by the ordinance establishing the Code Enforcement Board. September 27, 2018 Page 78 So the fact that we're doing it more than one way is better, whether you use return receipt or not. We're posting, too, right? MR. BLANCO: Yeah. We're mailing the notice regular mail and certified, and then we're posting the property and the courthouse. MS. NICOLA: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: When you send something out certified, do you get a receipt for it? MR. BLANCO: Sometimes. Depends if they sign for it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's my point. Do they -- do we have to have that back, or is the other notification good enough? MR. BLANCO: No. We -- MS. NICOLA: The notification is good enough, according to Section 3. We only have to do it one way. Danny's telling you he's doing it all four ways. So they're getting noticed four different ways, and the rule requires them only to do it one way. They could post it at the courthouse, according to our rules, and it's sufficient notice. MR. LETOURNEAU: We always post just in case that we don't get a green card back we still have sufficient notice at that point. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Because we have had in the past several people say "I didn't get it." Once you have the green card back and it shows you signed for it, we know you have it. MR. BLANCO: Right. MR. LETOURNEAU: I mean, plus we're posting the property. So, you know, I mean, obviously they're not looking at their property then. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's possible. Okay. Well, we can discuss this at that time. Under -- on Page 6 under hearings, Letter E, if the respondent/alleged violator is not present and is represented by a person other than an attorney, the respondent may submit a notarized letter. This is the old "may" or "must," you know, "shall" or "must" or September 27, 2018 Page 79 whatever. That was a question I have. We can talk about that. We don't have to do it today. Because then it says, "The individual must also testify at the hearing under oath." So, again, "may" and "must." MR. BLANCO: I think -- and I don't know if your attorney -- we do feel more comfortable if -- it's an LLC or it's an individual and that person's representing someone else and -- you know, we do feel more comfortable if we have something in writing authorizing that individual to represent them, you know, at the proceedings. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We generally ask that question, so they're under oath when they say yes. Once we have them under oath saying that they have the permission, then we should be good. MS. NICOLA: Well, and a lot of times we get an email or something that says I'm emailing you as representative so and so. I don't think that's really been a problem. I think it would be a problem if we start requiring people to have a notarized letter saying that they can be here, because a lot of these people come in, you know, they're scared and they don't know what's going on, and they just want to try to get their point across. And, clearly, they've been authorized to be here. So I think the way that we've been doing it has been working, and I think "may" is much better than "shall," because "shall" is going to cause a lot of problems. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Under Letter M -- and maybe we've been doing this all along but don't realize it. It says, "Upon completion of all the evidence, each side may be permitted to make a brief closing argument." I know we've always asked, "Do you have anything else to say?" I guess that would be considered the closing argument. MS. NICOLA: I think so. I mean, if you want to go into formality, you could say, "Do you want to make a closing?" It just depends on how long you guys want to be here. You ask a lawyer to September 27, 2018 Page 80 make a closing argument, and they're going to take you up on that for sure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. On the top of Page 8 it answers the question that you asked earlier. Thousand dollars a day for each and 5,000 for -- there's that. As far as asking for a reduction or abatement, Article 10, the first line, it says, "Motion for reduction or abatement of fines may be in the form of a written request." So you don't have to be here to ask for it as long as you put it in writing. MR. BLANCO: Yeah. And we do get those once in a while where the respondent submits an email or they submit a letter that, for whatever reason, they won't be able to attend the hearing, and we do schedule that case under both as a motion for reduction for fines and then a motion for imposition of fines. Mr. Chairman, if I may go back to the first item that you brought up regarding the -- whether a board member's going to be absent, the reason why we changed that and we wanted to have both the Chairman and the secretary of the Board or designee was because there's paperwork and stuff that our office does for each board member prior to the hearing. So if we know in advance or even, you know, the afternoon before the hearing that, you know, a board member's going to be absent, you know, it takes some of the work -- it's less work for us, because that way, you know, we don't have to make as much copies, and then we get a better idea of who's going to be here or not. So I think that's why, speaking with my supervisor, Ms. Serrano, we decided that it was better to -- if the board members would notify both the Chairman and the secretary of the Board or designee, in this case myself. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Those are the items that I had. I don't think I have any additional items on the rules. Unless somebody else does. September 27, 2018 Page 81 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. Are we almost done? MR. BLANCO: We don't have anymore remaining cases. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We all have the dates for the hearings for 2019 also. MR. BLANCO: Yes. I believe I sent out the schedule for 2019. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think there's only one or maybe two cases (sic) that are going to be heard on a Friday, all the others are on Thursdays, and they're all here. MS. NICOLA: I'm sorry to tell you guys I'm not going to be able to attend any of them next year. It makes me sad. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is not your last one, is it? MS. NICOLA: No. I have a few more. You guys are stuck with me for a few more months. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well -- MR. BLANCO: Yeah, only have two hearings on Friday for next year. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. And no meeting in December. MR. BLANCO: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anything else from anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How did we do our first day of the button pushing here? MR. BLANCO: I think we did pretty good. I'll get feedback from Troy later. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did we do okay? MS. NICOLA: What is the reason for the button pushing thing? I mean, I don't have a button, so I'm happy about that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Then don't push it. MS. NICOLA: I'm not going to. I have a red button under here, September 27, 2018 Page 82 but I'm not sure what that is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think they did it for the commissioners, for the commissioners, who goes first and whatever. MS. NICOLA: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So they put a new little do-dad. Have you seen it? MS. NICOLA: No, I didn't see it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You can come up here for a field trip, and I'll show you how it works. MS. NICOLA: I'm intrigued. MR. BLANCO: Next item on the agenda, sir, it's just Roman Numeral 11. Our next meeting date, it's Friday, October 26th, 2018. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And -- MR. BLANCO: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And if you can get the orders done before Tuesday, that would be great for me. Okay. We're adjourned. ***** September 27, 2018 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :10 a.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD •BERT KA ir-Air AN, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on /0 - 1 E as presented V/ or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC/COURT REPORTER. Page 83