Loading...
CEB Minutes 08/29/2019August 29, 2019 Page 1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, August 29, 2019 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 Vice-Chair: Gerald J. Lefebvre Chloe Bowman Sue Curley Ronald Doino Kathleen Elrod Herminio Ortega ALSO PRESENT: Jed R. Schneck, Attorney to the Board Jeff Letourneau, Manager of Investigations Helen Buchillon, Code Enforcement Elena Gonzalez, Code Enforcement Specialist Code Enforcement Board Nuisance Abatement Board AGENDA Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 August 29, 2019 9:00 AM Robert Kaufman, Chair Gerald Lefebvre, Vice-Chair Kathleen Elrod, Member Ronald Doino, Member Ryan White, Member Sue Curley, Member Herminio Ortega, Member Chloe Bowman, 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 IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. MOTIONS MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE 1. CASE NO: CESD20180010012 OWNER: LONGSHORE LAKE FOUNDATION INC OFFICER: Delicia Pulse 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). Multiple sheds and canopy shades installed on tennis courts and on Collier County Building permits obtained. Permits PRHV20170413388, PRBD20131024857 and PREL20150721866 are all in expired status and need to be completed and issued the Certificates of Completion. FOLIO NO: 56100120009 PROPERTY 11399 Phoenix Way, Naples, FL ADDRESS: MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 2. CASE NO: CELU20180011995 OWNER: Larry A Fieldhouse and Betty J Fieldhouse OFFICER: Michele Mcgonagle VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 1.04.01(A) and 2.02.03. Outdoor storage and display of building materials and equipment. FOLIO NO: 27130040007 PROPERTY 4735 Radio Rd, Naples, FL ADDRESS: B. STIPULATIONS (NON-CONTESTED CASES AND PRESENT AT THE HEARING) C. EMERGENCY CASES D. HEARINGS 1. CASE NO: CEPM20190000805 OWNER: FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION OFFICER: Michael Odom VIOLATIONS: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22 Buildings and Building Regulations, Article VI Property Maintenance Code, Section 22-231(15), and the Florida Building Code 6th Edition (2017) Building, Chapter 4, Sections 454.2.17.1 through 454.2.17.3. Missing required pool enclosure. FOLIO NO: 81216000965 PROPERTY 766 Waterloo Ct, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 2. CASE NO: CEPM20180014849 OWNER: Henry Schulman OFFICER: Stephen Athey VIOLATIONS: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22-228(1). Dwelling destroyed by fire. FOLIO NO: 454760006 PROPERTY 5525 Lee Williams Rd, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 3. CASE NO: CEPM20180010632 OWNER: Julie Cassidy, Edwina C Keisling, Mollie B Nelson and Jessica Macera OFFICER: John Johnson VIOLATIONS: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Article VI Property Maintenance Code, Sections 22-235 and 22-236. A sea wall that is failing and has been designated a dangerous structure by the Collier County Building Official. FOLIO NO: 7178052007 PROPERTY NO SITE ADDRESS ADDRESS: 4. CASE NO: CEPM20180013245 OWNER: Hernan J Castano OFFICER: Stephen Athey VIOLATIONS: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22-231(12)(c). Roof in disrepair. FOLIO NO: 36442120004 PROPERTY 5001 27th Pl SW, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 5. CASE NO: CEPM20180002545 OWNER: PELICAN RIDGE OF NAPLES ASSOCIATION INC OFFICER: Arthur Ford VIOLATIONS: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22-228(1). Required berm along the eastern border of the property has eroded away, allowing stormwater runoff to shed onto neighboring properties and downspouts are directing water onto neighboring properties. FOLIO NO: 67390720004 PROPERTY NO SITE ADDRESS ADDRESS: 6. CASE NO: CESD20180005371 OWNER: F A AND C L OLROYD LIV TRUST OFFICER: Tony Asaro 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 10.02.06(B)(1)(e). Interior remodel without obtaining a Collier County Building permit. FOLIO NO: 25581360008 PROPERTY 507 W Main St, Immokalee, FL ADDRESS: 7. CASE NO: CENA20190008567 OWNER: Amber Dawn McCune OFFICER: Jonathan Musse VIOLATIONS: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 54, Article VI, Section 54-185(a). Weeds that exceeds over 18”. FOLIO NO: 67492880004 PROPERTY 4411 Rose Ave, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 8. CASE NO: CESD20180014960 OWNER: Joshua Thompson OFFICER: Ryan Cathey VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e). Renovations/alterations of the mobile home including, but not limited to, electric, plumbing, roof and exterior work. FOLIO NO: 81623360007 PROPERTY 131 Lime Key Lane, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 9. CASE NO: CESD20190004216 OWNER: Carlos Valdes and Dulce Valdes OFFICER: Daniel Hamilton VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Two chickee hut covered structures built without permits. FOLIO NO: 26081640007 PROPERTY 191 Smallwood Dr, Chokoloskee, FL ADDRESS: 10. CASE NO: CESD20190001769 OWNER: SA EQUITY GROUP LLC OFFICER: Tony Asaro 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 10.02.06(B)(1)(e). Structure(s) on the property without first obtaining Collier County Building Permit(s). FOLIO NO: 63864240001 PROPERTY 114 New Market Rd E, Immokalee, FL ADDRESS: 11. CASE NO: CESD20180010412 OWNER: Juan R Prats and Julieta Prats OFFICER: Ryan Cathey VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e). Repairs to the front lanai without a Collier County permit. FOLIO NO: 81630080008 PROPERTY 201 Indian Key Ln, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 12. CASE NO: CESD20180006259 OWNER: William M Fleischhauer OFFICER: William Marchand VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e). Construction has started on an addition to the rear of the structure before a permit has been issued. FOLIO NO: 54401280006 PROPERTY 143 Round Key Cir, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 13. CASE NO: CEOCC20170019491 OWNER: HERITAGE PROPERTY HOLDINGS LLC OFFICER: Ryan Cathey VIOLATIONS: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 126, Article IV, Section 126-111(b). Storage business being run on site without applicable business tax receipt. FOLIO NO: 763880305 PROPERTY 220 Basik Dr, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 14. CASE NO: CELU20170019885 OWNER: HERITAGE PROPERTY HOLDINGS LLC OFFICER: Ryan Cathey VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 2.02.03 and 1.04.01(A). Outside storage of items including but not limited to: pallets of pavers, several lawn chairs, piles of concrete, wooden structure, boats on trailers, storage containers, uprooted palm trees, dumpster’s and miscellaneous metals and wooden items. FOLIO NO: 761680002 PROPERTY NO SITE ADDRESS 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: CESD20170016916 OWNER: Neysis Rodriguez OFFICER: Maria Rodriguez VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06(B)(1)(e), 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i) and 1.04.01(A). Unpermitted structure on the property and expired pool permit number 930007170. FOLIO NO: 37861480007 PROPERTY 1680 Randall Blvd, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 2. CASE NO: CESD20180005375 OWNER: SA EQUITY GROUP LLC OFFICER: Steven Lopez-Silvero VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Newly installed metal building, with electric on improved occupied commercial property. FOLIO NO: 63864280003 PROPERTY 114 New Market Rd E, Immokalee, FL ADDRESS: 3. CASE NO: CESD20170007136 OWNER: Sandra C Fulton OFFICER: Delicia Pulse VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Permit requirements for Permit PRBD20130204009 have not been completed. FOLIO NO: 25305003127 PROPERTY 1462 Churchill Cir, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 4. CASE NO: CELU20180005848 OWNER: Jeffery Kaulbars and Brenna Nipper OFFICER: Steven Lopez-Silvero VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 1.04.01(A), Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 54, Article VI, Section 54-181 and Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 126, Article IV, Section 126-111(b). Operating a business without first obtaining a Collier County Business Tax Receipt. Brought onto or placed on property without first obtaining Collier County Government approval for such use are the following, but not limited to: Industrial storage container(s), commercial operating equipment, vehicles and commercial vehicles, vegetative/tree debris and/or mulched/woody material brought from offsite location(s), etc. FOLIO NO: 00307920003 PROPERTY NO SITE ADDRESS ADDRESS: 5. CASE NO: CESD20160002295 OWNER: DESTINY CHURCH NAPLES INC OFFICER: Cristina Perez 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 shed, fence and pole barn type structure. Also, unpermitted shipping crates (containers) used for storage. FOLIO NO: 41930720008 PROPERTY 6455 Hidden Oaks Ln, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 6. CASE NO: CESD20140017065 OWNER: DAVIS CROSSINGS VIII LLC OFFICER: Jeff Letourneau VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Permit 2009120450 expired without inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy. FOLIO NO: 34690080008 PROPERTY 8770 Davis Blvd, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 7. CASE NO: CESD20180015758 OWNER: Dolores Del C Morales De Lopez OFFICER: John Fuentes 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). Unpermitted structures consisting of but not limited to: an outdoor kitchen, rear pergola, fence and fire pit/grill. FOLIO NO: 36455520002 PROPERTY 5006 32nd Ave SW, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 8. CASE NO: CESD20180010777 OWNER: PLAZA BAYSHORE CORP OFFICER: John Johnson VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Confirmed the observations made by contractor licensing that interior modifications were made to this structure without obtaining the required building permits, inspections and certificate of completion. FOLIO NO: 71580160004 PROPERTY 2727 Bayshore Dr, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 9. CASE NO: CESD20170013601 OWNER: BOABADILLA FAMILY TRUST OFFICER: Junior Torres VIOLATIONS: Collier Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e). Addition to the south side of the house. Carport addition to the north side of the house. Roof additions to the back or the west of the house. All additions or improvements have been made without Collier County Building Permits. FOLIO NO: 63405120001 PROPERTY 4535 and 4533 Boabadilla St, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 10. CASE NO: CEV20190002393 OWNER: Ernest J Valdastri OFFICER: Thomas Pitura VIOLATIONS: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 130, Article III, Sections 130-95 and 130-96(a), Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 4.05.03(A). Repeat violations of recreational vehicles parked on the front/side of the dwelling and vehicles parked on the grass (Special Magistrate Order in Case No. CEV20140006954 finding prior violations is recorded at OR 5040, PG 2569), and a vehicle and boat trailer with expired tags. FOLIO NO: 49532360004 PROPERTY 30 Creek Cir, Naples, FL ADDRESS: D. MOTION TO RESCIND PREVIOUSLY ISSUED ORDER E. MOTION TO AMEND PREVIOUSLY ISSUED ORDER 1. CASE NO: CELU20180014859 OWNER: Lynda M Mayor OFFICER: Paula Guy VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 1.04.01(A) and 2.02.03. Storage of school bus, tents, unpermitted accessory structures, junk, trash and debris on unimproved vacant parcel zoned Agricultural. FOLIO NO: 304160002 PROPERTY 1276 Dove Tree St, Naples, FL ADDRESS: VII. NEW BUSINESS VIII. CONSENT AGENDA A. REQUEST TO FORWARD CASES TO COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IX. REPORTS X. COMMENTS XI. ADJOURN XII. NUISANCE ABATEMENT BOARD A. HEARINGS XIII. NEXT MEETING DATE-THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 26, 2019 AT 9:00AM XIV.ADJOURN August 29, 2019 Page 2 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, everybody. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement to order. Notice: Respondents may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation, unless additional time is granted by the Board. Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes, unless the time is adjusted by the Chairman. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Robert's Rules of Order and speak one at time so that the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any person who decides to the appeal a decision of the Board will need a record of the proceedings 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. And if that's not a run-on sentence, I don't know what is. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. So to begin with, if anybody has a cell phone, they'd like to turn it off, now would be a good time to do that. And if you'd all stand for The Pledge. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Helen, you want to do the roll call now? MS. BUCHILLON: Yes, sir. Good morning, for the record, Helen Buchillon, Code Enforcement. Robert -- Mr. Robert Kaufman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Here. MS. BUCHILLON: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. BUCHILLON: Ms. Kathleen Elrod? MS. ELROD: Here. MS. BUCHILLON: Mr. Ronald Doino? August 29, 2019 Page 3 MR. DOINO: Here. MS. BUCHILLON: Ms. Sue Curley? MS. CURLEY: Here. MS. BUCHILLON: Mr. Herminio Ortega? MR. ORTEGA: Here. MS. BUCHILLON: Ms. Chloe Bowman? MS. BOWMAN: Here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a full Board today. Am I right; one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Okay. Do we have any changes to the agenda? MS. BUCHILLON: Yes, we do, sir. First, we have two stipulations. No. 9 under hearings, CESD20190004216, Carlos Valdes and Dulce Valdes. Next item, No. 5 under hearings, CEPM20180002545, Pelican Ridge of Naples Association, Inc. Next on the agenda we have withdrawals. Under public hearings, No. 4, CEPM20180013245, Hernan J. Castano, has been withdrawn due to compliance efforts. No. 6 under hearings, CESD20180005371, FA and CL Olroyd Living Trust, has been withdrawn due to compliance efforts. No. 7, CENA20190008567, Amber Dawn McCune, has been withdrawn due to Final Judgment of Foreclosure. No. 11 under hearings, CESD20180010412, Juan R. Prats and Julieta Prats, has been withdrawn due to voluntary compliance. No. 12, CESD20180006259, William M. Fleischhauer, has been withdrawn due to voluntary compliance. No. 13, CEOCC20170019491, Heritage Property Holdings, LLC, has been withdrawn due to voluntary compliance. No. 14, CELU201700019885, Heritage Property Holdings, LLC, has been withdrawn due to voluntary compliance. Under imposition of fines, No. 1, CESD20170016916, Neysis Rodriguez, has been withdrawn due to compliance efforts. August 29, 2019 Page 4 No. 2, CESD20180005375, SA Equity Group, LLC, has been withdrawn due to compliance efforts. No. 8, CESD20140017065, Davis Crossings, LLC, has been withdrawn. It was pulled by the County Attorney. And last one under motions to amend, No.1, CELU20180014859, Linda M. Mayer, has been withdrawn. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Can we get a motion from the Board to accept the modified agenda? MR. DOINO: Motion approved. MR. ORTEGA: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion, second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. BOWMAN: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. I'm sure everybody has read the minutes. Can we get a motion to approve the minutes? MR. DOINO: Motion to approve. MS. CURLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion, second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. BOWMAN: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. August 29, 2019 Page 5 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Which brings us to our first activity. MS. BUCHILLON: Yes. We will start under public hearings for motions. No. 1, it's under motion for continuance, but it's an extension of time, what they're requesting. CESD20180010012, Longshore Lake Foundation, Inc. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. BRACCI: Good morning, Board. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could everybody state their name on the record? MR. BRACCI: My name is Steve Bracci. I'm the attorney for Longshore Lake Foundation, Inc. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. LUSTER: Lisa Luster. General manager of Longshore Lake. MR. COLE: Terry Cole with Hole Montes, civil engineer. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So you don't need to be sworn in, but the other two folks, and the -- I'm saying this, because Janice, this is her first Code Enforcement meeting, and you have the honor of swearing those people in. THE COURT REPORTER: Raise your right hands. (The speakers were duly sworn and answered in the affirmative.) THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. BRACCI: Good morning, again. We are here -- this is on behalf of Longshore Lake Foundation, Inc. The -- we were, as stated, even though it's shown as a continuance, we're requesting an August 29, 2019 Page 6 extension, a 90-day extension without imposition of any daily fines, for additional time to come into compliance. This is a matter that goes back to when we were first before the Board on March 28th, and there was a stipulation with an extension of time for Longshore Lake to obtain necessary permits for some sheds that were on the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me stop you one second. MR. BRACCI: Sure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you mean extension of time, or do you mean a continuance? MR. BRACCI: We would request an extension of time. I think the difference is that there wouldn't be an imposition of fine. The reason is I would like to show to the Board that there really has been nothing but true diligence and there's nothing to indicate otherwise. When you're dealing with a homeowner's association and you have an imposition of fines, you get into problems of title on 565 homes that are out there that are -- and loans on homes, and things of that nature. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me just explain. The continuance means there was a violation and the fines continue to accrue until the case is disposed of. If you go for what you are requesting, that means all the fines prior to today are dismissed and we start anew. So that's why I said, I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, Jeff, this was a continuance the last time? MS. PULSE: No. No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It was a new case, brand new case? MR. BRACCI: I think, Mr. Chair, that the order itself says that the Respondent must abate the violations on or before September 24th or a fine of $150 a day will be imposed, so I don't think the fines are being imposed. August 29, 2019 Page 7 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We haven't gotten to that date. MR. BRACCI: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, that's fine. MR. BRACCI: Yeah. So that's -- we're requesting an extension. We're here about a month early. We're trying to get ahead of it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. BRACCI: So in any event, we appreciate the opportunity that the Board gave back in March for an extension of time. We're just simply trying to get -- you know, time's working against us, in terms of getting through the process. We were here on March 28th. The issue really on the table is the -- some sheds that were on the property that were not -- they were without permits, as well as some canopies near the tennis court, and some other permits that hadn't been closed out for AC and things like that. Since then the permits have been closed out on those open permits. There was a submittal by Mr. Cole in June of 2019 for the sheds and for the canopies. There was an SDP submittal that needed to be made. The county commented back in July. We addressed those concerns, and that SDP was issued, I think August 2nd or 3rd, for those two -- there's two different SDP items. We also added in some additional things just to make sure we had an opportunity to look at everything and put everything in the SDP that the community could identify as potential issues, and bring things into compliance. We -- we are now at a point where the Foundation has retained PBS Contractors. They're submitting permits for these items. We have to get through the review process with the county, and then the sheds, themselves, should be self-actuating, in terms of coming into compliance, but the canopies then would need to be replaced by the contractor. August 29, 2019 Page 8 We're just simply requesting an additional 90 days to get through that process, and to avoid the imposition of fines. Like I said earlier, it can kind of create a bit of chaos when you're dealing with the homeowner's association, and people trying to sell their homes and get refinancings on their homes and things of that nature. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I'm a little confused, because I'm looking in the package and I see a stipulation that was si gned March 28th. MS. PULSE: Their compliance date was September 24th, 2019. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So it really hasn't come yet? MS. PULSE: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But there was a stipulation at that time? MS. PULSE: Yes, and their operational costs have been paid. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Does the county have any objection to an extension? MS. PULSE: We have no -- I can't think -- no objection. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Comments from the Board or motions? MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, I just want to be clear. It wasn't an extension of time that was given. We heard the case, and we gave six months for compliance, so this would be your first request for an extension of time, not back in March when the case was heard. MR. BRACCI: That is 100 percent correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct. I just want to make sure. MR. BRACCI: Yes. Yes. This is the first time we've come before you asking for anything additional, and we did stipulate to the original violations. MR. LEFEBVRE: 90 days from today, are you looking? MR. BRACCI: Well, ideally 90 days from the September, just so that we don't -- we don't want to have to come back again, to your August 29, 2019 Page 9 point, a second time. We think -- we're hopeful we can get through it quicker. It's not completely in our control. We have to wait to get the approval from the county itself for the permits, and then get the work completed. MS. CURLEY: I have a question. Do we have a December meeting? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do we have a December meeting? No. MS. CURLEY: I mean, I think it would be better to extend to the end of the year, I mean, hurricane season. PBS Contracting is a pretty reputable company, and, you know, I remember that the property management took over this after there was a lot of mismanagement. So it's a lot for you to tackle as a new manager. MR. ORTEGA: When do you think the permit will be submitted? MR. BRACCI: I think imminently. I think -- well, I think they have to -- they have to do a little bit. I think within a couple of weeks is what I think. They just have to get it processed and put it in drawings, things of that nature. MR. ORTEGA: I agree with my colleague. I don't think 90 days is going to be enough. You're going to lose at least a month by the time they submit in permitting, and that's if they don't get rejected. MS. CURLEY: So why don't we just extend it to, like, December 31st? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are you making a motion? MS. CURLEY: I would like to make a motion to extend the -- am I extending? Yeah, extending to December 31st, 2019. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ORTEGA: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. August 29, 2019 Page 10 Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. BOWMAN: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. BRACCI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hopefully, we won't see you, and with the hurricane you may not need to get new permits on the building. MR. SMART: Excuse me. I was here as a public speaker. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I haven't -- I have nothing in front of me to show we have any public speakers. Why don't you come forward? MR. SMART: My name is Sam Smart, resident of Longshore Lakes. I have been involved in this. I spoke at the previous hearing, and I wanted to add some comments, and I hope that's still in order. I don't know that the motion has passed or can I be considered or not? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you been sworn, first of all? MR. SMART: No, I have not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you swear him in and we will, certainly, listen to what you have to say. MR. SMART: I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And that will become part of the August 29, 2019 Page 11 record. MR. SMART: Okay. (The speaker was duly sworn and answered in the affirmative.) MR. SMART: Nothing but the truth. THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. MR. SMART: Thank you. On August the 7th of last year, Dee went out and found that a shed had been placed on the Longshore community property, and at that point she started the process of filing this violation. And so this goes back to over one year ago, and I'm going to read a comment here on 8/13 of last year. This is Dee's report, on site and observed a second shed now installed. I observed the smaller shed near the clubhouse, which did not appear new. I took photos. I spoke to Lisa Luster. Now, Lisa is here, she's now the manager of Longshore Lakes. So she spoke to Lisa, and they also talked about some additional sheds. There are about five sheds on the property that weren't permitted. So that's kind of the background. There was -- I guess, an excuse that nobody knew anything about this citation or this problem, and so for six months this went on, and then there was a hearing on, I guess it was March the 24th, and you allowed six months for them to remedy this problem. Okay? It's been five months. We're back a month early. After a year the sheds have not been moved. There's nothing different. There's nothing that has transpired. Reportedly, there might be some requests for permits, but that is -- I mean, I don't know that that's the case. There's no notices of commencement, and I don't know -- you were very liberal in allowing an additional six months for them to permit these sheds. Let me read a submittal three months after your hearing giving them six months. They filed an amended site plan, and, again, three months after you allowed them an extension, there was an amended site plan, and August 29, 2019 Page 12 the description of work I'll read. It says to include addition of two pickle ball courts, sheds, tennis court canopies, sidewalk addition, bocce ball, and decks for weddings. So how diligent have they been in bringing the sheds into compliance? It's become an effort to make changes to the community, and, again, the status of these sheds, and how long they're going to remain in violation of your codes is a question, and so I think -- I'm a little frustrated that, again, you drive by a year after they've been cited for a violation and nothing has changed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, according to the code enforcement officer, there have been changes made. The Board heard all of the arguments on the case in March, March 24th, I believe you said? MR. SMART: Yeah, I believe that's when it was. Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And I remember I signed the order on the 28th -- the stipulation on the 28th, so that's what's in force right now. Can you tell us the progress that's been made? MS. PULSE: Yes, when this all began and I had to discuss with the building official, there were seven voided permits on the history of the property that the building official said needed to be taken care of as well. So they have dealt with all of those voided permits. They have hired the engineer. All the insubstantial change has been approved by now, and now they are ready. They had to go through that before they could get permits. So that is what they have accomplished. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. SMART: So there are no permits, we don't think. These sheds still remain after a year, and, again, I drive by them every day. Let me, if I might, make a recommendation. They have until, I think it's about the 24th of next month, to come into compliance. I would ask that you defer any continuance and allow them to August 29, 2019 Page 13 come back and explain what actually the status is when they were -- they agreed to comply by the date, so I would suggest that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, we've heard the case. The stipulation that was granted goes to September 24th, I believe. MR. SMART: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have ruled already based on a motion from the Board after hearing the testimony. MR. SMART: It might have been improper in that, you know, I was not allowed to speak prior to that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I apologize that you weren't asked to speak. I had no notifications, and my mental telepathic doesn't work well. MR. SMART: I had signed in, so, you know, there's no question I had signed in. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The sheet that I have here for the speaker? MS. BUCHILLON: That's for another speaker. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's what I thought. So do we have anything from this gentleman? MS. PULSE: I received e-mails that he requested to be a speaker, and he was advised to check in when he arrived. MR. SMART: And this young lady on the left here, she should vouch, and she wrote my name down on her list. MS. GONZALEZ: He gave his name. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So what we have here, as Cool Hand Luke said, a failure to communicate from that side of the fence to this side of the fence. The Board was not aware of any speakers on this case. MS. CURLEY: Well, I have a comment, being the one, I proposed the motion. I understand and sympathize with your frustration with the bureaucratic drag. August 29, 2019 Page 14 MR. SMALL: My frustration is with you all as well. MS. CURLEY: I want you to be clear that, you know, the directions and decisions that your homeowner's association is making, is really not anything that we're -- we can, you know, have an opinion on. So, you know, if the -- if your homeowner's association might not be communicating the status of their projects, that's something that you can take up with them, but it really doesn't change the discretion we had to extend the time and place for them. They've hired an attorney. They've gotten an engineer. They've hired a contractor. And to pull a permit for a big development like that is costly. So it's quite physically conservative of them to include other actions in the property. So I understand that you're frustrated that you still see these, but that's hopefully just -- MR. SMART: These sheds are in violation of Collier County codes. You're here to enforce Collier County codes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. I would request that -- this was granted that it could be continued or extended until the end of December. Can we check to see if permits are being pulled prior to that, say, November 1st or so? MS. PULSE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And can we notify this gentleman whether that activity has occurred? MS. PULSE: Yes, sir. MS. CURLEY: I think it's to the benefit of the community and their management firm to be letting their residents and owners and members of their association aware of the timelines. MR. SMART: The members and residents didn't even know about the bocce ball courts and the pickle ball court. MS. CURLEY: Again -- MR. SMART: I know you're getting into -- we're talking about August 29, 2019 Page 15 Collier County codes. So there is things going on in the association, and -- but let's just focus on, you know, having the sheds permitted. MS. CURLEY: I was going to say the same thing to you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Gerald? MR. LEFEBVRE: I just want to make one comment. Sir, you stated that the extension was for six months, and it wasn't, it was actually four months. So it hasn't been a year. MR. SMART: Wait a minute. I'm talking about the previous agreement; that was for six months. This started in August -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I understand when it started, but what I'm trying to get at is, we gave them six months to comply. It wasn't an extension. It was six months to comply. MR. SMART: Yes. Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: They were nice enough to come in front of us a month early and we gave them four more months. So, unfortunately, again, we understand your -- MR. SMART: They were nice enough not to comply, and, I mean, I don't know how you see it any other way? MR. LEFEBVRE: Sir, that's correct, but they're trying to incorporate other items within -- they're trying to take care of previous issues that have been found. MR. SMART: They've not been very diligent about complying with permits. MR. LEFEBVRE: Sir, we understand. MR. SMART: Okay. MS. CURLEY: The issue you have with your community should be managed with your community, and we don't have any say over that. MR. SMART: And I don't understand that comment. This is Collier County Code Enforcement. MR. ORTEGA: Well, maybe we can shed some additional light. August 29, 2019 Page 16 The fact they are here, they came one month prior to the date, they are making an effort, I believe in the interest of the community, not -- that's the association's issue. But as far as the code is concerned, you've highlighted several times they are following code. They are doing what they need to do to comply the code and satisfy the current situation. MR. SMART: They haven't done anything yet. MR. ORTEGA: There's a process. They can't control Collier County. They can't control the building department. They cannot control the planning department. There is a process, but it's being done from what I see. MR. SMART: I appreciate everybody's time. Thank you very much. MS. PULSE: I'm happy to supply a monthly report to Mr. Smart. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I appreciate that. Thank you very much. MR. LEFEBVRE: Have a great day. MS. BUCHILLON: Next item on the agenda -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Excuse me? MS. BUCHILLON: Next item on the agenda -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Wait until they disappear. Do we have any other public speakers that are signed up for today that we need to notify the Board of? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Other than -- MR. LETOURNEAU: No. 5, correct, you have the one for No. 5? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have the one for No. 5, yes. Okay. Next item? MS. BUCHILLON: Next item on the agenda, No. 2, under August 29, 2019 Page 17 motion for extension of time, CELU20180011995, Larry A. Fieldhouse and Betty Fieldhouse. MR. PEREZ: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. Can you state your name on the microphone for us? MR. PEREZ: My name is Carlos Perez, general manager at Designer Showers. MR. FIELDHOUSE: And I'm Larry Fieldhouse. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And the two folks behind you? MR. PINEROS: Juan Pineros, owner of Instant Granite. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We'll get a traffic light there. MS. FIELDHOUSE: I'm Betty Fieldhouse. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So you're all going to testify? MR. PEREZ: Or at least some of us. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So, Janice, if you would? THE COURT REPORTER: Raise your right hands. (The speakers were duly sworn and answered in the affirmative.) THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You want to, since you're taller than I am, can you raise the microphone so we can hear you? There you go. Okay. What have we here? This is a request for an extension of time; is that correct? MS. MCGONAGLE: Yes, sir, and for the record, Investigator Michele McGonagle, Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Now, what is your reason for the extension of time? MR. PEREZ: So we were here six months ago, Larry and I, maybe as you guys remember, requesting an extension for our situation. So my parents -- we were the owners of Instant Granite August 29, 2019 Page 18 before, and we sold the business. So we're still here trying to get the previous issue resolved for the new owners, you know, to maintain that diligence and getting the issue resolved, complying with code. We have granite storage stored on the outside of the building for display that's currently interfering with some parking spaces, and we had hired an engineer to, you know, draw up the insubstantial change on the site plan and submit it to the county for, you know, processing and approval. So we gave them the deposit -- or paid them in full for the job to get it done. We wanted to get it out of the way, and, you know, what we got back was nowhere sufficient enough to what we needed. It was something, you know, kind of just drawn up, you know... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What you got back from whom? MR. PEREZ: From our engineer that we hired. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The engineer. MR. PEREZ: And so what we're trying to do is, we've already given him, you know, some money, so we're trying to get something out of him to be able to comply with code. Since then about six months have passed. It's been, you know, a long process of getting him to, you know, get the job done for us, and, you know, I was giving him time at first. Once we had that extension to get it done, I told him we have the extension, you know, let's get it done. I'd like to get it done sooner. They were nice enough to give us six months instead of three months, which is what we were originally requesting, which was appreciated. I think it's pretty embarrassing that, you know, I have to come and explain why it's taking so long. So, you know, I do apologize for the delay on it, but currently we have -- he did come out about a month ago, and said, okay, let's get it done. What we need is a survey of the, you know, area to be able to August 29, 2019 Page 19 then draw up the new site plan with the insubstantial changes, and since then we have done that. We've given a deposit for the survey to be done, and I think we have a finish date of -- MR. FIELDHOUSE: September 6. MR. PEREZ: -- September 6. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you're looking for an extension of time or continuance? MS. MCGONAGLE: It's an extension of time, and just to clarify, when they were here in February was not an extension of time; that was the first time in front of the Board, and they signed a stipulation agreement for six months. At that time the discussion was that the Board did not think that that would be enough time, but wanted them to come back with an update. Mr. Fieldhouse was very proactive. He called me at the beginning of the month, explained what was going on, and said they were going to need more time and requested to come in front of you and ask for an extension of time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And what amount of time are you requesting? MR. PEREZ: You know, I don't -- I want to get it done, you know, as soon as that -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. MR. PEREZ: I would say another three to six months, you know... MS. MCGONAGLE: Their site plan has not been approved yet so... MR. ORTEGA: Has it been submitted? MS. MCGONAGLE: They can't submit it until they got the survey, which that's to be September 6th. MR. PEREZ: Once we submit the survey, the engineer has it, he can do his work, which will be submitted to the county and approved, August 29, 2019 Page 20 then we can move forward with resolving this and doing the work. MS. CURLEY: How did this complaint come about? Is the parking offending neighboring businesses? MS. MCGONAGLE: No, it's actually about the display of the granite, because this business is located right along Radio Road just west of Livingston, so it came about because of the display of the granite slabs out front, and after investigating found that they also are storing the granite in behind the building in some of the parking spaces. MS. CURLEY: So has it been mitigated temporarily or is it still six months later the granite is still -- MS. MCGONAGLE: The granite is still there because they have no place to put it. MS. CURLEY: And out front is it allowed also or no? MS. MCGONAGLE: I don't work for the planning department, so depending on what the site plan says, it's not in the right-of-way, so it's really going to depend on the planning department. MR. PEREZ: We met with various people in the county to talk about it to see what we could do, and they all agreed to it being an insubstantial change on the site plan, and that's what we've been trying to do. Like I said things have been out of my control. Our engineer supposedly was out of the country for a few months, and that's why it's taking so long. It isn't offending any neighboring businesses, because the neighboring business is us as a whole, but, yeah, as soon as that survey is finished and the engineer gets it, hopefully, you know, he gets it done fast. I will definitely be pressuring him and going to his office every day. MS. CURLEY: Here is some good advice for you: Hope is not a strategy. MR. PEREZ: Agreed. August 29, 2019 Page 21 MS. CURLEY: Okay? It's unfortunate that he didn't come here today, because it would be an exposé to see somebody who could reiterated what you're saying, that, yes, I took five months off and wasn't providing very good customer service. It's hard for us to know that's what happened or that's not what happened. MR. PEREZ: Right. I understand. MS. CURLEY: It is your job to babysit your vendor and I probably would've hired a new one after I didn't get a call back five months ago. MR. PEREZ: Yeah, I agree, you know. I agree. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we are at a point now where you are requesting an additional three to six months, and it will be the Board's decision whether they want to grant that. Does anybody want to make a motion to do it or not do it? MR. ORTEGA: Before we make a motion, just so everybody is clear where they stand as far as time is concerned, the process that they're about to encounter is, A, a survey. Has that been ordered? MR. PEREZ: Yes. MR. ORTEGA: So the engineer has a survey? MR. LEFEBVRE: By the 6th of September. MR. ORTEGA: A survey or a site plan? MR. PEREZ: The survey. We were notified it will be completed by the 6th of September. MR. ORTEGA: The survey, okay. So at that time that survey is going to be issued to the engineer. He's going to start the work? MS. CURLEY: Maybe. MR. PEREZ: Well, he's -- he knows everything that needs to be done, we've already discussed it. He said he needed exact measurement of the whole property to be able to be accurate in his change of the site plan. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What's the engineer going to do? August 29, 2019 Page 22 MR. ORTEGA: The engineer is going to modify -- he's going to look at the site, look at the conditions, look at what they're proposing, embed it into plan as an insubstantial change. Now, there's a paperwork process and then there's actually maybe modifying the site, especially if you're going through a change of use, and I don't know if that's the case, obviously. MS. CURLEY: What's the name of the engineer that you are hired? MR. PEREZ: His name is Alfonso Poncava (phonetic) from Echo Group. I agree with what you said, you know, we should have, you know, bit the bullet and hired somebody new. MS. CURLEY: If he's an associate, maybe you could contact somebody higher up in the company. MR. PEREZ: Yeah, and, you know, like you said, hope is not a good strategy, but at the same time my dad is the one who -- I'm kind of representing my dad. To be honest, he didn't want to go look for someone new and give them more money, because he wanted to get something out of him. He gave him already some money, $1,500, $1,600 or something. He was being a little stubborn in that he wanted to get something out of what he paid him, you know, just instead of some drawing he drew up in 15 minutes but, you know... MS. CURLEY: I can appreciate you're very young, and can I appreciate that you're learning a lot. MR. PEREZ: Thank you. MS. CURLEY: Somebody told me that hope wasn't a strategy and it was a little bit of a shocker, so I thought I'd pass that on to you. MR. PEREZ: I appreciate that, and thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody want to -- are you done, Herminio? MR. LEFEBVRE: He wasn't finished. August 29, 2019 Page 23 MR. ORTEGA: No, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ORTEGA: The 90 days is certainly not going to be enough. We know the fact that what they submit, unless they want it back, is going to get rejected. They're going to look at the process again. It's going to go back. The engineer is going to fix it and resubmit it, and you got planning time again. Again, not to mention if there's issue with the building, and if there is issues with the building without the change of use, again, that's a different animal, and I'm not sure the engineer is aware of that. So, again, do we allow the 90 days and have him come back, or do we allow him six months so he doesn't come back and then there's no guarantee? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Or allow nothing. MR. ORTEGA: Or allow nothing. MR. PEREZ: If I can say one more thing? As far as the change of use, we've already -- before we did what we tried to do there, we looked into that, you know, obviously, to avoid a bigger issue, and there is no necessary change of use. It is an industrial building and area. MR. ORTEGA: Well, change of use has nothing to do with the industrial. It's just that the preexisting business was business, and let's say, for example, you're mercantile, according to the Florida Buildin g Code, that is a change of use, but I said my comments so... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, do you want to make a motion? MR. ORTEGA: I'll make a motion to grant them 90 days with the stipulation that they come back in 90 days and see where they're at. I don't believe they're going to be ready in 90 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: 90 days to what? August 29, 2019 Page 24 MR. ORTEGA: 90 days to complete the process. MR. LEFEBVRE: 90 day what, extension or stipulation? MR. ORTEGA: Extension. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have a -- MS. CURLEY: May I make a comment to that? I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hold on. I want to know before we discuss it, has it been seconded? MS. ELROD: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Second. Go ahead, Sue. MS. CURLEY: Well, I think if you can amend it to include in 90 days they should have a letter from their engineer, or some sort of evidence to bring with them or something to hold their feet to the fire. MR. PEREZ: Absolutely. MR. ORTEGA: Hopefully, it will be submitted by then. MR. PEREZ: You know, I'm going to tell him once he gets that survey you have a week, please, to get it done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Gerald? MR. LEFEBVRE: No. I'm all set. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So I don't think that was added to the motion. Okay. Okay. We have a motion to grant a 90 days extension. Any comment on that motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. BOWMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MS. CURLEY: Aye. August 29, 2019 Page 25 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have one aye. Okay. That's passed. Okay. You have 90 days. MR. PEREZ: Thank you. We'll bring back a letter from the engineer as well, and, hopefully, maybe, he can come as well. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. FIELDHOUSE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. MCGONAGLE: To clarify, sir, there is no hearing in December. Do you want them to come back for the November hearing? It wouldn't be quite 90 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think that's appropriate. Okay? And you get all the notifications in the mail. Okay? MS. MCGONAGLE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MR. PEREZ: Thanks. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're now up to the stipulations? MS. BUCHILLON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. 9? MS. BUCHILLON: No. 9, CESD20190004216, Carlos Valdes and Dulce Valdes. MS. VALDES: Good morning. MR. HAMILTON: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. Can you state your name for the record, please? MS. VALDES: Dulce Valdes. MR. HAMILTON: For the record, Daniel Hamilton, Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You want to read the stipulation into the record for us? We can't possibly see this. MR. HAMILTON: I didn't know if you swore us in first? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You want to make it bigger? Kathy, August 29, 2019 Page 26 can you read it from where you are? MS. ELROD: Yes, sir, I can. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Oh, much better. MS. ELROD: Now I can take my glasses off. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Has everybody been sworn in? THE COURT REPORTER: No. MR. HAMILTON: No. (The speakers were duly sworn and answered in the affirmative.) THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. MR. HAMILTON: All right. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the Respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $59.63 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate all violations by: Must obtain all required Collier County permits or demolition permits, inspections and certificates of completion/occupancy to permit or remove the chickee huts within 180 days or a fine of $100 will be imposed for each day the violation continues. No. 3, also the Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request that the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. No. 4, 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. What's the length of time on this? MR. HAMILTON: 180 days, six months. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Six months. Okay. Ma'am, do you August 29, 2019 Page 27 intend on removing the chickee huts or pulling a permit on them? MS. VALDES: Since the last time we met, the small island of Chokoloskee has gathered 688 signatures for me to try to keep the Chickees. It's a point where everybody meets. They have their coffee. The bus stops in front, the kids are off. It's just a place on the island. Due to that, I was actually trying to get a permit in Everglades City where I live to transfer the chickees to my property, and I have to go through permit, which I'm in the process of doing that as a backup plan anyways. So with those signatures in mind, I decided to see what I could do, and I went to see Marcus Berman. He is with Collier County Government Growth Management Department. With that, I've been told that I can purchase 25 feet in front of the cafe allowing for me to be able to request some permits at that point. We're in the process of that. I hired Craig Woodward, an attorney out of Marco Island who also resides in Everglades City. He knows a lot about this. And we are -- we -- it's time sensitive. It actually has to be put in by the end of the month in order to b e able to be accepted or not accepted, because Collier County is going to do away with being able to purchase any easements anymore. I'm actually working with all the people in front of the cafe. I'm sending them letters. The attorney is gathering letters from LCEC. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, we're not hearing the whole case. MS. VALDES: No, I understand that. I just wanted to give you an idea of what I have to go through in order to be able to hold the chickees. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's probably why 180 days, six months, is being asked for on the stipulation. MS. VALDES: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you think the 180 days is sufficient time to get this done? August 29, 2019 Page 28 MS. VALDES: I wanted to throw something in there, too. So I have a small cafe. We open October 15th through April 15th. We're open seven days a week. I work every single day there. That means that it would expire in March and I don't -- my husband and I, we do all the work all the time, so I don't know if we're going to have enough time if we can't get this ap proved to transfer the tikis to Everglades City, that's going to take -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me just tell you where the Board is. MS. VALDES: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You put a -- you signed a stipulation that you agreed to take care of this situation in six months. MS. VALDES: Yes, I did. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's what we have before us. MS. VALDES: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Then we approve that or we don't approve that. MS. VALDES: I understand. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay? After five and a half months, for instance -- MS. VALDES: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- it's not done and you need more time -- MS. VALDES: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- you have the ability to come back before the Board, let us know what progress has been made, and request additional time. MS. VALDES: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So that's where we are right now. We're only going to vote to accept the stipulation or not. MS. VALDES: Perfect. August 29, 2019 Page 29 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the county? MR. HAMILTON: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Can we get a motion from the Board? MS. ELROD: Motion to accept the stipulation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The stipulation, easy for you to say. Okay. Do we have a second? I'll second it. Okay. We have a motion and a second. MS. CURLEY: So how many days does it say? I can't read it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: 180, six months. Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. BOWMAN: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. So you have six months. If you can't get it done in six months, come back. MS. VALDES: I understand. Thank you so much. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Your petition, by the way, probably would have more power if you took it to the county commissioners rather than this Board. Okay? MS. VALDES: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Just a little help from Heloise. MS. VALDES: If I take this to them? MS. CURLEY: The petition. August 29, 2019 Page 30 MS. VALDES: Thank you so much. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Which brings us to the next stipulation. MS. BUCHILLON: No. 5. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a public speaker on file, if I'm not mistaken? MS. BUCHILLON: Yes, we do. MR. LETOURNEAU: I believe the speaker walked out temporarily. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'll stall until she comes back. We sent an emissary. Colleen is going to catch them. Okay. Why don't you swear everybody in to begin with? THE COURT REPORTER: Raise your right hands. (The speakers were duly sworn and answered in the affirmative.) THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One more swearing in, the public speaker. You're going to be speaking on this? MS. KNAPP: I'm sorry. I took a bathroom break. Are we at No. 5? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. We want to swear you in as well so we get all the sworn-in's done at the same time. Janice? (The speaker was duly sworn and answered in the affirmative.) THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You can sit down. You're going to read the stipulation for us to begin with? MR. FORD: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. FORD: For the record, Arthur Ford, Collier County Code Enforcement. It's 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. August 29, 2019 Page 31 Abate all violations by: Must reconstruct the berm per site plan and direct downspouts to prevent water from shedding on to neighboring properties within 90 days of this hearing, or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. The Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigators to perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. If this 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. So to begin with, we'll do it in this order. We'll let you folks speak first, then the public speaker, and we can go from there. Could you tell us your position with the Pelican Ridge Association? MS. GIFT: My name's Patricia Gift, and I'm the president of the association. MS. MORALES: My name is Carmen Morales, and I am the property manager for the association, Gulf Coast. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So you have read the stipulation, any comments on it? Do you have any problem meeting those deadlines? MS. GIFT: No, we actually have contracted with Crawford Landscaping to complete the berm. They started on Monday of this week, and should be completed by tomorrow, weather permitting. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All right. And young lady? Dona, Dona with one N. MS. KNAPP: Dona with one N. I am the complainer. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. KNAPP: Actually over many years, and it's been a year and August 29, 2019 Page 32 a half since this violation and I've been waiting all that time, and my problem is my backyard has been turned into a quagmire. I've lost all of my mature trees, and it's left dips and valleys that now I suppose I have to pay for, because the community behind me have not managed, for the 30 years I've lived on that property, they haven't managed the berm at the back or the drainage at all, and so this has been going on, actually, for a very long time, more than this violation. I'm just hoping that what they're doing now is going to take care of the problem. I doubt it, because it doesn't look, to me, as if they're doing enough. For instance, on top of the berm there's supposed to be a swale. Well, I've noticed yesterday that grass has been put down on that swale. That swale is supposed to take the water off the patios that come on to the -- that adjoin on to my back property along to -- let's see, north and south there's a couple of drains. Those drains were just last February, or at least one of them, cleaned out. I didn't know there was actually one to the south of me, but I don't know if these drains -- because I stood out there in a rainstorm the other day, and the one drain that they cleaned out last February, it was about an inch coming up over the berm onto my property, and it's really, really wet back there. Needless to say, it makes hurricane cleanup impossible. We cannot get back to clean up everything. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What development do you live in? MS. KNAPP: I live in Pine Ridge Estates. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. KNAPP: And this property that I'm talking about was built, oh, I should say 11 years after my house was built, and no consideration. I understand it may be property, you know, codes have changed, and we have to build higher, but there should be some kind of a consideration for the neighbors that are already there. August 29, 2019 Page 33 I pay a lot of property taxes to live where I live. And my neighbors are flooded out, too, some came from Kansas a couple years ago, and their back yard is like a lake. They put a French drain, that's not helping. I had to put in last year -- I had to put in, in the dry season, a drain field, of which told me t hat if my drain field gets flooded out again, of course, it's not going to work. Our whole community is on septic tanks, so there's a big health concern there when we flood out. I can't use the majority of my backyard. I can't let my dog out. The water is disgusting and smelly and it's a health hazard. I can't mow my back yard. I mow what I can, but the rest is just, you sink right down into this mud. So I have my doubts of what is being done is going to alleviate the problem, because I think they are doing the least they need to do just to make it compliable (sic) with code. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Let me ask a couple of questions. Art, are you familiar with what they're doing there? MR. FORD: Not entirely. I picked up the case about a month ago, so I'm kind of reading through as well. Basically, it's my understanding they have to come into compliance of the most recent site development plan, as far as building the berm up, and everything that that entails, as well as the downspouts. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, even if they build up a berm, or put up a cinder block wall, if the water is going on to this young lady's property, that's a code violation; am I correct? One second. MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. A lot of this is happening in Collier County now, due to the fact that some of the older subdivisions were built a lot lower back in the day than the newer ones, due to FEMA regulations, all sorts of other things. Code at this point can make Pelican Ridge, I bel ieve, put back August 29, 2019 Page 34 the berm into the place that it was permitted at the -- on the site development plan. If the flooding continues, the county engineer can go out there and make a determination of whether or not it's a county matter or a civil matter. At that point it might be a civil matter, and then it's going to have to be settled in court, or the county attorney might say, no, you guys have to do more to stop your water from going on to this property, and it might be above and beyond what they're doing now. At this point all we can make them do is go back to their permitted condition and see where we're at at that point. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, when they put a berm in, I'm assuming it's inspected? MR. LETOURNEAU: It will be inspected, yes. After they get done, we're going to request they call us up, and we're going to have somebody from the county engineer's office go down there and give the A-okay or not. If he says no, then they're going to have to comply with what he tells them to do. MS. CURLEY: So is there a permit put in for the landscape? MR. LETOURNEAU: No, at this point they're going to have follow what they have on their site -- already approved site development plan that I don't know why it isn't in the same condition as it was when they did it, but, obviously, it isn't and they're going to have go rebuild it like it was supposed to be on the original site development plan. MR. ORTEGA: Are we assuming that there was already a berm? Are we calling this restoration? Are we adding? MS. KNAPP: I have photos -- excuse me. I have photos of what it used to look like. MS. CURLEY: Really? MS. KNAPP: And what it looks like now is an absolute jungle and mess, because over the years with the property managers it hasn't August 29, 2019 Page 35 been maintained. Even those drains, I thought the drain were bubble-up's. I didn't realize it went somewhere to a lake on Pelican Ridge's property. MS. GIFT: They go to a retention pond. MS. KNAPP: Right. I had no idea because the water just used to gush over the side of this berm right onto my property, right actually very close to a Florida Power and Light box that's now sitting half under water. MS. BOWMAN: Is this the only property that this affects, or are there other neighboring properties it's actually running into as well? MS. KNAPP: Actually, yes, to the north of me. The people that came, oh, I think they have been in the neighborhood for about three years now, they have terrible, terrible problems. They built a French drain, that's not working. They had to actually redo their whole septic system. They were really annoyed about it because they have to build it up higher, because we're all on septic tanks. And as I stated, I just put a new septic tank in not too long ago -- not the tank, I'm sorry, the drain field part of it, which I'm told by Earthworks, if it keeps getting flooded over like this, of course, it won't be able to drain. So it's a big problem. It's a health hazard. I think more needs to be done than this berm with a swale on top and grass there. I think they also need to clean out the underbrush and maybe build that berm a little higher, and put a better swale in, and perhaps their drains are inefficient, too, for coping with all of this. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We can't solve that here. Art's going to go back out here when this thing is resolved. The 90 days that's in the stipulation, if they're just putting up a berm -- MR. FORD: And redirecting these downspouts. MS. CURLEY: So I got a question. This violation first came about February 15th, '18; right? August 29, 2019 Page 36 MR. FORD: Correct. I'm the third investigator on it. MS. CURLEY: Right, so I'm not interested in the stipulation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So you are -- MS. CURLEY: I don't want this to go forward, no. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You want to hear the case? MS. CURLEY: I want to hear the case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: This lady has come here. She's disgusted. She's got photographs. I want to see what's going on. This stipulation is easy and it pushes the case along. There's landscapers there doing things that we don't know if they're even looking at the site plan. We just don't know. This is largely, to me, very, very much serious, to be flooded. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. GIFT: Can I say -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. GIFT: So we've been working with Jack McKenna from Code Enforcement on this. He's -- MR. LETOURNEAU: He's the engineer, not Code Enforcement. MS. GIFT: I'm sorry, engineer, and he's given -- he's pulled our original plans and required us to restore everything up and to our original plans. The problem is, as Mr. Letourneau has mentioned, her property sits three feet below our property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's -- that's beside the point. MS. CURLEY: So? So? MS. GIFT: So we have dug out all our drains. We've had different companies come and clean out all the drains and verified that all of our wastewater, or roof water, is going into our retention pond, and we have completely built up the berm back to the original plan from 1987. August 29, 2019 Page 37 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the engineer been out there? MS. GIFT: Which engineer? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The one you just mentioned. MS. GIFT: Jack McKenna, numerous times. He has not been there since we started work on Monday, and the work should be done on Friday. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And this case started in February during the middle of the dry season. MS. BOWMAN: And it's quite convenient you'll have it finished tomorrow. MS. GIFT: No, the problem was, is we have a number of things going on in the development. First of all, we have a new property management, which took a while to get us the lawn care. We're in the middle of a roofing ligation that's taken a lot of the time of the homeowner's association board, in addition to this, and we also have another citation from Code Enforcement on a wall that didn't have a permit, all within the same timeline. So since February of this year, I've been spending a lot of time trying to get everything back up to where it should be. We had a very negligent board previously, and things just got a little out of hand, but we have been diligently working with Jack McKenna since I was made aware of it. I took over the board in February. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Sue, did you want to make a motion on this? MS. CURLEY: I make a motion to deny the stipulation. Is that -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Deny accepting the stipulation? MS. CURLEY: Deny accepting the stipulation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have a second? MS. BOWMAN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. Any discussion August 29, 2019 Page 38 on the motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: I think they're trying to move forward with what the site development plan states and restore it to that. MS. CURLEY: We don't know that. We haven't heard the case. MR. LEFEBVRE: Hold on. Hold on a second; that's the first step. As been stated by the county is that has to -- the berm has to be restored, which it is being restored. Then the county engineer will go out and determine if that's sufficient. If it isn't then there will be other items that have to be put on it, stipulations to fix it, to correct the problem. MS. CURLEY: Okay. So -- MR. LEFEBVRE: So hearing the case isn't going to change it. This is the process we have to go through. MR. LETOURNEAU: Would shortening the time on the stipulation if they're in agreement -- no? I agree with Mr. Lefebvre that hearing the case at this point -- MS. CURLEY: It might -- I want to see the pictures. It might impact us if we see this woman's quagmire in the backyard. I mean, we've basically heard half the case, bits and pieces of it now. We have a case that's just been passed along, passed along. It's like the one that got away. So what if we have a hurricane on Monday? (A court reporter interruption was had. The proceedings continued as follows:) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One person at a time. MS. CURLEY: So that's all I'm saying, is we can let this just slip under the rug because this is a case that's been passed along, or we can actually hear the woman that got up this morning, got dressed, and came here to speak on behalf of the flood water that Pelican -- whatever is giving her. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Ridge. Okay. We have a motion, we have a second to the motion. Any other discussion on the motion? August 29, 2019 Page 39 MR. ORTEGA: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I'm ready. MR. ORTEGA: When -- assuming that they restore this berm, that doesn't mean the problem is going to go away. If you back up, Dona, if you back -- if that property, the development backs up to your back of the house, am I right? MS. KNAPP: Yes. MR. ORTEGA: Typically, if I recall, those lots pitch towards the back, I think, if I recall. If that's the case, the berm is not going to take away the problem. Again, that becomes a design county, civil issue. MS. BOWMAN: They still didn't give the deadline for the landscaping company to get this completed before the deadline, which is today, and it's really convenient that they're a year and a half into this, and they're going to get it done tomorrow. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: In addition, to me, this is a problem that has been notified a year and a half ago. We have a new president that took over six months ago. You know, good neighborly would be to find a way to keep your own water, not just bring it up to the plan, now we're finding out, and I'm sure the landscaping company told them, isn't going to work. Keep your water that drains off to you. Keep it. But to bring it to the bare minimum standards and have it still not work, have it break -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I think we're getting too deep into whether we're going to accept the stipulation or not. So I'd like to vote on whether we accept it or not. So all those in favor of the motion that Sue made to deny accepting the stipulation say aye. MS. BOWMAN: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. August 29, 2019 Page 40 MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. Opposed? MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Opposed. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. By a show of hands who are opposed? One, two, three; one, two, three, four. We're going to hear the case. Okay. One of the things you might find interesting, if you have a drain there, and you have a berm there and the berm isn't sufficient to take care of the water, the drains should be; that's an engineering type deal. We're going to hear the case, so I don't know if we want to schedule that today, or if you want to put that off? MR. LETOURNEAU: Are you asking me if we want to have the hearing today? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, because if somebody needs time to prepare for it... MR. LETOURNEAU: The county would ask that we hear it next month, if possible. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Okay. I have no problem with that. Does anybody on the board have a problem with hearing it next month? MR. LEFEBVRE: Usually when a stipulation is denied, we hear it that day. MR. LETOURNEAU: We can hear it, but I would ask that you allow us to move this case to the end of the hearing so we can get it prepared, which is fine also. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. The county -- everyone should be ready to proceed with the case. MR. LETOURNEAU: I agree. MR. LEFEBVRE: When it's on the agenda, the stipulation is August 29, 2019 Page 41 usually a secondary thing. So I think that I have been on this board a long time, and I don't remember ever pushing a hearing to the next month. MS. CURLEY: Let's hear the hearing in a little bit and then if need be, we can extend it to the next hearing, for the woman that's here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me ask, are you folks amenable to present your case at the end of our agenda? MS. KNAPP: You mean at the end of the day or -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Excuse me? MS. KNAPP: Do you mean by the end of the day, sir? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, we generally get done -- the last case is probably around noon. MS. KNAPP: Sure. This is very important to me, and I appreciate your time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, and from the Respondent? MS. GIFT: I wasn't ready to present a case. I can try to get ahold of our attorney to see if he can put something together. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So it's up to the Board whether you want to hear it today or next month. MR. LEFEBVRE: Would it be out of line to try to get the feel for the Board of what you are looking for, and maybe there can be a stipulated agreement based on what you -- MS. CURLEY: I want to see the pictures. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All right. Yes, it would be out of line to hear the case. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I wonder if we should vote on whether we hear the case today, or push it to next month? MR. LEFEBVRE: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We can vote on that with the Board. August 29, 2019 Page 42 MR. LEFEBVRE: We've never done that in the history of seven years. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We will set a precedent. MR. LETOURNEAU: I would say she does have a point that the attorney, I mean, if we want to get the attorney, I would like to have everybody involved properly. MS. CURLEY: And a year and a half ago the attorney was where? MR. LETOURNEAU: I understand. MS. GIFT: I wasn't on the board a year and a half ago. MS. CURLEY: This has been swept under the rug. This is not a priority. There's a lot of other things, but it's impacting somebody. When we have cases and we say who is the complainant, no one, it's not bothering anybody, we handle it a little bit differently. This is offending people's home, other people. We have a hurricane coming. This is classic. MS. KNAPP: It's going to be awful for me. I can tell you. It's already pretty bad. MR. LETOURNEAU: I'm up here already getting ready if he has to, you know -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't know whether it would be out of line asking to hear the case either today or the next hearing date next month. I understand from the Respondent they want more time to get their attorney or whatnot. MS. KNAPP: I'm fine with today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you're fine with today, so we have another difference. MS. CURLEY: They're welcome to come back with their attorney next month. MS. BOWMAN: We'd have to continue. MS. CURLEY: I want to know if a violation exists or not. I August 29, 2019 Page 43 want to be able to speak on behalf of this. I don't want to go to a fourth code manager. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We voted on hearing the case; that's done. MS. KNAPP: There is a violation, because they've been putting the storm water -- not only runs off the patios, but the guttering, they actually had a long pipe coming out under that from -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Ma'am, we're going to hear the case, so everybody has a chance to speak -- MS. KNAPP: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- and provide information. MS. KNAPP: Very good. MS. BOWMAN: So if there is anything else that you need to prepare, as well, to hear it at the end of the rest of these, you should prepare that as well. They're going to prepare with their attorney if they can possibly get their attorney here. MS. GIFT: We are not going to be able to get the attorney. MS. BOWMAN: I'm saying she has the right to prepare anything. MR. LETOURNEAU: We would like the county engineer to be here, too, because he's the ultimate decision of this, but, I mean, the county is ready to hear it if you guys are ready. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is the county engineer available today or you don't know? MR. LETOURNEAU: No, not today. I'm saying if you guys decide to postpone it. There's all sorts of factors here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What I'm looking at is to resolve the problem. MR. LETOURNEAU: I understand. I think the stip would have resolved the problem, to be honest with you. I don't understand what a hearing is going to do on top of a stipulation, unless we're going to August 29, 2019 Page 44 give less time on the stip, which they're agreeable to. MR. LEFEBVRE: That's fine. MS. CURLEY: The only thing -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Somebody is going to be hearing their voice, I guess, and it's going to be the same outcome as it would in the stipulation, let's be honest. MR. ORTEGA: What's going to happen, and the only way to resolve this really, is to have the engineer here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I agree. MR. ORTEGA: You can see all the pictures you want, it's not going to mean anything. It's going to say, yes, her property is being violated. I get it. We need the engineer. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And, ultimately, the engineer is the one who is going to approve the fix, if you will? MR. LETOURNEAU: The engineer or somebody from that department is going to go down there and inspect that when it's all said and done, and they're going to say the county's responsibility is done at this point, or they're going to say, no, you guys gotta do more. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. For that reason I think we should postpone it until the next meeting. MR. ORTEGA: I agree. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You want to vote on it as a board? MS. CURLEY: I'll go to whatever Herminio's opinion is. MR. ORTEGA: Without the engineer's insight we're -- we're making a vote in the blind. MR. LEFEBVRE: If we do -- if we do extend it to next month, the berm should be completed and the engineer can go out and inspect it, and it's not usual protocol, what we do, but I think there will be certain things done -- MR. ORTEGA: Right. August 29, 2019 Page 45 MR. LEFEBVRE: -- that it may be corrected or may be determined something else needs to be done. So I think in this particular case that extending it until the next meeting would probably be the prudent decision, and to have the engineer here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: And have your attorney here. MR. LETOURNEAU: And I would say to the Respondents that's good advice by Mr. Lefebvre, to have ev erything done by the time we get around here the next month and the engineer signing off on it. MS. CURLEY: Excuse me. Does that include storm water and all -- they're not just going to inspect the berm? You're going to inspect -- she's speaking about gutters that are directing wrong ways, with extenders on it and all sorts of other things that aren't inclusive of the original complaint. MR. ORTEGA: That all falls under the auspices of drainage. MR. LETOURNEAU: It does, and the engineer does this, like, five times a week we ask him to go out to these sites and say, is there a code violation, is there a county responsibility for the drainage on these particular properties? Sometimes he says yes, that they need to mitigate their water, and, you know, get it contained on site, or get it to the storm drains, and to not subject your neighboring properties to flooding. Sometimes it's a civil matter where, you know, they take care of their original site development plan. They do, in the county engineer's eyes, all they can to mitigate it, and there's still some issues left. At that point it becomes a civil matter between the property owners. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we're going to hear this next month? MR. LETOURNEAU: We will hear this next month, and I'll August 29, 2019 Page 46 make sure someone from the county engineer's office is here. I hope they have their attorney available and ready to go at that point. MR. ORTEGA: And photographs, please. MR. LETOURNEAU: We've got tons of photographs. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you very much. MS. KNAPP: I can have my photos printed out instead of you looking at my telephone. MS. BOWMAN: That gives you plenty of time to prepare as well. MS. CURLEY: And you can communicate some of your information to Helen. Can she submit her photos to you in advance? MS. BUCHILLON: Yes. MS. GIFT: We can, too. MR. LEFEBVRE: The drainage issues, not just the berm, are the other issues being addressed? Can you just, please, step aside? Just a quick question, the other issues, the drainage, the downspouts, whatever, are they being redirected, too? MS. GIFT: Yes, we just had complete new roofs put on, and we've added new drains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes is a good enough answer. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay, that's all I wanted to know. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you very much. We are going to move on. Janice, how are your fingers feeling? THE COURT REPORTER: Fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Still attached to your hand? THE COURT REPORTER: Right. MS. ELROD: Do we make a motion to extend? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They schedule it. MR. LEFEBVRE: The county could withdraw it at that point. (A court reporter interruption was had. The proceedings August 29, 2019 Page 47 continued as follows:) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Dona's last name was Knapp, K-N-A-P-P. Helen, what's next on the agenda? We'll hear one more case and take a break. MS. BUCHILLON: Okay. Under hearings, No. 1, CEPM20190000805, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sue, take it off. MR. WAGNER: Good morning. MS. CURLEY: Morning. MR. WAGNER: I'm here on behalf of Mark Joseph Realty, the assigned broker representing Freddie Mac on this -- on this particular property. (A court reporter interruption was had. The proceedings continued as follows:) MR. WAGNER: My name is Cody Wagner. MR. ODOM: Michael Odom, Collier County Code Enforcement. (A court reporter interruption was had. The proceedings continued as follows:) MR. ODOM: O-D-O-M. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. (The speakers were duly sworn and answered in the affirmative.) THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This is a case without a pool barrier, if I'm not mistaken? MR. ODOM: That's correct, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't you present your case? MR. ODOM: For the record, Michael Odom, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. August 29, 2019 Page 48 CEPM20190000805, dealing with a violation of Florida Building Code, 6th Edition, 2017, Chapter 4, Sections 454.2.17.1 through 45 -- correction, 454.2.17.3. Violation description, missing required pool enclosure located at 766 Waterloo Court, Naples, Florida 34120, Folio 81216000965. Service was given on February 8th, 2019. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Five photos taken by me, and an aerial obtained via property appraiser website. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Has the Respondent seen the photos? MR. ODOM: Yes, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you have any objection? MR. WAGNER: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have quick question for Jeff. Is this Respondent sufficient to hear our case as he represents the bank? Do you have any letter authorizing you, et cetera? MR. WAGNER: We've got just a basic assignment e-mail they send down to us when we kind of take over, not eligible to necessarily sign on their behalf, but just kind of -- we're the ones who look after it. MS. CURLEY: Do you have Power of Attorney for them? MR. WAGNER: What's that? MS. CURLEY: Do you have Power of Attorney? MR. WAGNER: No, ma'am. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What do you think, Jed? MR. SCHNECK: Looking through, is there anything in the case file documenting this gentleman's authority to represent? MR. ODOM: No, sir, not in terms of authority. I think he's here as more of an advocate, not an official person, for sure. I've been in communication with Cody throughout this process via telephone, but August 29, 2019 Page 49 there's no -- as far as I know, there's zero authorization, in terms of representing the owner Freddie Mac. MR. WAGNER: No, I'm just here to find out what we need to relay back to them to get done, to kind of explain where we are on the process. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you can't make a commitment on their behalf? MR. WAGNER: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. You can show the photos. They've been -- MR. ODOM: Okay. I'll start with the aerial. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you make the photos as big as possible for us older folks? I know once it gets up there -- MR. ODOM: Okay. Thank you. That's the 2019 aerial, and the arrow is pointing to where the pool enclosure used to be. MS. CURLEY: Is that a house, the blue thing, or is that a roof? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Make it one shot bigger. MR. ODOM: It's a tarp. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you go to the box, as Gerald says, and make it the whole screen. Okay. So what I see is a house on either side of this property? MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And what am I looking at there that's yellow; the area that's not protected? MR. ODOM: The aerial is just -- they come up as yellow. I sometimes take it out. I left it on. It's just a designation. It doesn't mean anything, but that's where the pool enclosure used to be before Hurricane Irma. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So there was an enclosure? MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It was permitted and approved and August 29, 2019 Page 50 then Irma took it? MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. MR. ORTEGA: How old is that picture? MR. ODOM: That picture is from sometime this year, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: January probably. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: There you go. MR. LETOURNEAU: Helen is doing it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, Helen. Let's take a look at the next picture to see if that's a better size. MR. ODOM: Really? Oh. Sorry. Yeah. I put all these photos in here, didn't have an issue. MS. CURLEY: Do you have them printed? We can put them on the overview? It's a lot easier. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is the pool temporarily protected? MR. ODOM: Yes, the photos from -- let me just tell you about them and I'll put them up. January 23rd was the first few photos and shows the pool unprotected, uncovered with a temporary barrier in place already. In the next pictures you'll see in line, the third picture is -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's much better. MR. ODOM: Okay. So since January they've covered it with a rhino liner; that temporary barrier is in place, still in place. This picture is, I believe, either from May 3rd or yesterday, I took the same photo, and it's in the same exact condition. In terms of the origin of this case, it came in as a complaint from this gated community, the neighbor, as well as the association. Since making contact with the local broker, they have, you know, covered the pool correctly, put the barrier in place, and communication has been great moving forward, but there's been no action since that. There has been no permits pulled for the pool barrier, so that's August 29, 2019 Page 51 why we're here. The county feels like this is taking too long. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That picture there is before it was covered? MR. ODOM: That's correct, sir, that's January 23rd. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is there any smell coming from the pool now? MR. ODOM: No. MS. CURLEY: So the county, you require them to re-cage it or fence it or some permanent barrier? MR. ODOM: Yes, ma'am, that's the issue, that's the only issue left is to pull the permits. MS. CURLEY: Or some barrier, some permanent barrier. MR. ODOM: Correct. MS. CURLEY: The rhino liner on top of it is only allowed as a temporary fix. MR. ODOM: It is, but to be in compliance they need to have the pool barrier. MS. CURLEY: Fair enough. MR. ODOM: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you have more pictures, or that's it? MR. ODOM: That's it, sir. The first one you saw was the last one so... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: Okay. So I'll make a motion a violation exists. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second that a violation exists. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. August 29, 2019 Page 52 MS. BOWMAN: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. I have one question before we go forward. This needs -- the banks typically, for your edification, won't do anything until they have possession of the property. So my question is does the bank have possession of the property? MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Since June 18, 2018. MR. ODOM: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So there's no reason why they haven't fixed it? MR. ODOM: I'm sure there is a reason, but I don't want to speculate. It's banked owned, not in any type of foreclosure proceedings. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Fine. Okay. Do you have a suggestion for us? MR. ODOM: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The Code Enforcement Board orders the Respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $60.40 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days. Abate all violations by: No. 1, obtaining all required Collier County building permits, inspection and certificates of completion/occupancy for the placement of an approved permitted pool barrier within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank per August 29, 2019 Page 53 day will be imposed until the violation is abated. No. 2, the Respondent must notify the Code Enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct the final inspection to confirm abatement. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation in 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. Herminio, I have a question for you. Typically how long will the permitting take to get a permit for an enclosure? MR. ORTEGA: Seven to ten days, but you need to consider first they have to apply -- before they apply for the permit, they have to provide a design by an engineer. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. MR. ORTEGA: And submit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Total time? MR. ORTEGA: Best case scenario, 30 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. They need 30 days for that, and then they have to contract with someone to put it in? MR. ORTEGA: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So typically this permitted barrier could be done within 60 or 90 days in your opinion? MR. ORTEGA: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I just wanted to put that out there before anybody -- MS. CURLEY: Yeah. So the only reaction we're going to get is if there is a clock ticking on the time for them, obviously, because they've had a year and a half to, you know, cover it and do all these things. They haven't done anything. They assigned this case to this August 29, 2019 Page 54 local Realtor who doesn't have any power to do anything. MR. LEFEBVRE: I have some questions. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: First of all, is there a wood structure over this? They put 2x8 or two by something and cover it. Is that covered now? MR. ODOM: No, it's a rhino liner like a trampoline. MR. LEFEBVRE: Not like the wood structure? MR. ODOM: No, not like when the county abates it. No, sir, not like that. MS. CURLEY: And to the neighbors it's hideous? MR. ODOM: The one good point is the complainant is not happy, they live next door, but they're not -- they're not as upset as they were in the beginning. There's at least communication with the broker. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is the rhino liner, is that a protective barrier for kids? MR. ODOM: Correct me if I'm wrong -- MR. LETOURNEAU: No, the liner there -- there was two violations in the beginning. One was the green pool, one was the no barrier. The rhino liner alleviated the green pool issue. What we have left here is they don't have a safety barrier. Yes, it is a safety issue at this point because the rhino liner is not an approved barrier. We don't know if somebody could fall in there or not at this point. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. That was my question. Is that designed so if a kid walks on the liner it will hold its weight? That's what I want to know. MS. CURLEY: It will until it dry rots, and then kids jump on them like trampolines and fall through. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It will until it happens. Murphy's August 29, 2019 Page 55 Law. Okay. You want to fill in the blanks, Gerald? MR. LEFEBVRE: Hold on a second. This property is listed; correct? MR. WAGNER: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is it under contract? MR. WAGNER: Currently under contract, yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: To close when? MR. WAGNER: Well, technical closing date right now is September 22nd. MR. LEFEBVRE: I want to know when it's going to close. MR. WAGNER: Right now they're in the process -- it's an in between because they're in the process of replacing the roof, and the bank will not complete any repairs after it's sold. So they've already contracted to replace the roof. Permits are being pulled. As soon as the roof is done, then the property will close. MS. CURLEY: What kind of roof, is it metal? MR. WAGNER: It's a tile roof. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That's all beside the point. How much time -- how much time do you want to give them to come into compliance? MR. LEFEBVRE: It makes it a big factor because if we impose a fine after seven days, you said -- when is it closing? MR. WAGNER: It's supposed to close September 22nd. It will be -- it will be getting extended as we can see now. MS. CURLEY: Has the roof been torn off yet? MR. WAGNER: They have not. Right now the general contractor has been contracted to do the roof for six months. They have issues getting materials, the barrel tiles, that's the story that we've been given. They are now in the process where they have secured the materials and they just sent out a third request to the HOA for final August 29, 2019 Page 56 architectural documents to actually go through and get the permit that the county has requested. MS. CURLEY: So it will be done, like, in December? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I harken back to what Herminio said. They should have this completed in 90 days, or they should start to have a fine that starts accruing. Anybody disagree with what I just said? MS. CURLEY: Make your motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'll let you make a motion. I have no problem making a motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: I kind of have a problem with 90 days when there's really very little to stop a kid -- and Waterways has a lot of kids in the neighborhood. To wait 90 days to me is just -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm trying to be realistic. Are you going to get it done? Are they going to be able to pull permits and get a permanent solution within seven days? MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, you know, this bank has owned this since June 12th of 2018. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand that. That's not my question. My question is if you went with a seven or 14 days or 30 days, would they be able to do this? MR. LEFEBVRE: 90 days I think is too long. I just don't -- there needs to be some -- this needs to be taken care of. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I couldn't agree with you more. You want to fill in the blanks? This is in essence to hold the bank's feet to the fire. We need this taken care of. It's a safety hazard. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MS. CURLEY: They can get a payoff letter from us, from the county, when they're ready to close in January. MR. LEFEBVRE: 45 days or $250 a day fine, and the operational costs I can't really see. August 29, 2019 Page 57 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: $60.40 paid within 30 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's your motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: That's my motion. MS. CURLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. Do we have any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. BOWMAN: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. You will bring that information back to the bank. They need to start doing something. If it comes back before us after that, you can assume that the fines will be dramatically higher. MR. WAGNER: Absolutely. MS. CURLEY: Good luck. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. Janice, we're going to take a ten-minute break. (A recess was had from 10:32 a.m. until 10:46 a.m., and the proceedings continued as follows:) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board back to order. Next case? MS. BUCHILLON: Next case under public hearings, No. 3, August 29, 2019 Page 58 CEPM20180010632, Julie Cassidy Edwina C. Keisling, Mollie B. Nelson and Jessica Macera. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: John, is the Respondent here? MR. JOHNSON: Should I do this first? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You can tell me. I trust that you're not going to lie to me in these hearings. MR. JOHNSON: We actually have in this case, we have persons of interest. It's a very unique case, but there are representatives of those respondents/person of interest here. They were all registered to speak if they need to; however, I don't believe they will need to. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: And I believe we have an attorney, Ms. Passidomo, that's going to want to talk also. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, why don't you swear in John? (The speakers were duly sworn and answered in the affirmative.) THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You want to present your case? MR. JOHNSON: Please. Good morning. For the record, John Johnson, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CEPM20180010632, dealing with a violation of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Article VI, Property Maintenance Code, Sections 22-235 and 22-236, specifically a seawall located at -- I'm sorry -- a seawall is failing, and it's been designated a dangerous structure by the Collier County building official. The seawall is located at the north end of the canal waterway bounded by the south end of Mangrove Street, Naples, Florida 34112, and there is no parcel ID or street address associated with this land that contains the failing seawall. August 29, 2019 Page 59 Members of the Code Enforcement Board, this case is going to be unique. The parcel of land in question has a legal description, but it has no parcel ID, no street address. It's not part of any easement, and it's not part of any right-of-way. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Does it have an owner? MR. JOHNSON: Just bear -- if you bear with me one second. From the beginning Code Enforcement has engaged the County Attorney's Office for their expertise and guidance in this investigation, and in preparing this case for this hearing. With that in mind, I would like to make a request. If possible, I ask that you, please, hold your questions until I have presented the case in its entirely. You can certainly interrupt me at any time, but I believe it is in everyone's best interest, due to the unique nature of this case, that you let me present. It's not that complex. It's just different. So with that in mind, if there's no objections, I will begin. Members of the Board okay? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You got it. MR. DOINO: Go for it. MS. CURLEY: I'm excited. MR. JOHNSON: Service was given -- can I get the screen on, please? Service was given on February 13th, 2019. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: One aerial photo from Google Maps. I'm using this to show you where the location of this wall is. Okay. This is in the Bayshore area. It is off Haldeman Creek, and, of course, that red arrow points up to it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't want to interrupt you. MR. JOHNSON: No, please. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a procedure to accept or not accept this into evidence, whether the Respondent want to -- MR. JOHNSON: All members have seen these photos. There's August 29, 2019 Page 60 nothing in here that's not public record. They've all seen the photos of the seawall we're going to talk about, and to my knowledge, there's no objections to me showing these. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Then the Board will vote to accept them. MR. LETOURNEAU: Specify all your evidence and then wait for the Board to either accept or not accept. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. I'm going to be giving this Google Maps aerial. I'm going to do an aerial from the Collier County Property Appraiser. I'm going to do seven dated photos. I'm going to do a dangerous building determination. I'm going to do a title search showing chain of title, and that's it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Can we get a motion from the Board to accept? MR. DOINO: Motion to accept photos. MS. ELROD: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. BOWMAN: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Continue. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. Is everybody familiar now with where this wall is in Collier County? Okay. If you zoom in on the seawall, the failing seawall, you can see it here (indicating ), and you August 29, 2019 Page 61 can see some of the land areas, some of the -- you can see these are persons of interests, Port Nell Villas, Julie Cassidy, Naples Land Yacht Harbor, these are areas surrounding this failing seawall. Okay. Next are the seven dated photos that I've taken of this wall. Okay. We'll just kind of go through these. The wall itself, it's my understanding from the county engineer, that the steel rod ballasts that hold these walls in place over a period of time will rust and fail, and, therefore, the wall is subject to hydraulic pressure in and out, and, eventually, it will crack and break, and you can see it there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can I ask when the photos were taken? MR. JOHNSON: Yes. The date is on the photo. This one is 8/23/2018. I'm sorry. Can you see it up in the corner? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. I understand. I can't see it from here. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. I'm sorry. Yeah, these are all dated same date, and this one was dated 7/10/2019. Can I continue? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yep. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. So those are the seven photos. Next, I have a dangerous building determination from the building official. I know you can't read this, but this is the format of a dangerous building determination done by Mr. Walsh, and he has declared that this is, in fact, a dangerous building and -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Infrastructure. MR. JOHNSON: Yeah, in the subject line, declaration of dangerous building/condition is what it says, but it's a dangerous structure, okay. That was done on January 6th, 2019. Now, as noted earlier, this parcel of land that contains this seawall has no county parcel ID. So the County Attorney's Office contracted for a title search to try to determine ownership. The title search, 93 pages in length, and it is attached to the case, August 29, 2019 Page 62 revealed that this area of Bayshore was owned by a Ms. Nellie Whitehurst, prior to it being platted in 1947. The chain of title -- what I'm showing here is a couple of pages from that title search. The chain of title begins in May 4th, 1947, and in this report it concludes -- it concludes on August 3rd, 2012 with Probate No. 2012-2755 for Nellie Whitehurst, deceased on July 2nd, 2012. The results of this search is that there's no ownership of this parcel contained in the seawall. However, we did -- the attorney's office did identify four parties of possible interest, and they are the heirs of the original parcel owner, Nellie Whitehurst, Julie Cassidy, property owner. You can see her name up there on the picture, and Port Nell Villas. Okay. So these were the -- these were the -- as a courtesy, Code Enforcement contacted these parties of possible interest to explain the details of this case, and our findings of no ownership. We also informed them that our processes require we send a formal notice to each party giving them the opportunity to respond with any interest in this parcel. To-date all four parties have declined any ownership interest, although, there is some interest. As such, I am here today to request a finding of fact that a violation of the property maintenance code does exist, and that this violation includes a dangerous structure. In addition, I will be requesting that in lieu of any private ownership, the county would be given the right to abate this dangerous structure violation, per the recommendation that I will present. Now, before presenting that recommendation, I stop for questions or -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We will vote on whether or not there is a violation. Any questions, comments from the Board? MR. LEFEBVRE: No. MR. LETOURNEAU: I believe Ms. Passidomo would like to August 29, 2019 Page 63 speak at this point. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. PASSIDOMO: Thank you. Francesca Passidomo for the record, 4001 Tamiami Trail North. I represent Mollie Nelson. We just want to state for the record, I think we're in agreement with the county here, that there is no violation, and the county has failed to meet its burden to properly identify any violator. In order for there to be a violation, there has to be a duty, correct; so under the code, there's certain maintenance obligations on property owners. The county has clearly failed to meet its burden to show property ownership. It acknowledges that fact in its -- excuse me. It acknowledges that fact in its presentation, and in its final recommendation that you'll see here. I know that the county has been very careful in using the term "Respondent." We are in agreement with that caution. If any personal liability were to attach to my client we would, and are, objecting. So I just want to make that clear in the record, and if you have any questions for me, I'm happy to answer those. We're happy also to perform any title search that you may need, but from our perspective, my client specifically is not a violator, and should in no way be included in this recommendation, or called the respondent. That's all I have for you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: To make things clearer to me, I want to know if the property, as described by Walsh, is in violation, is a dangerous structure? He is the person who determines whether it's a dangerous structure, not any of the owners. It's the property. MR. JOHNSON: Correct. I showed that document. I can go back to it if you want. We have that document that states, and it's signed by Mr. Jonathan Walsh, that this is a dangerous structure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Now, so, I'll ask you, do you think that that is sufficient for the property to be found as a dangerous August 29, 2019 Page 64 structure? I'm not going into ownership. MS. PASSIDOMO: Correct. I don't think I can argue with the building official's determination that the structure itself is dangerous, but I -- I still am hesitant to answer your question in the affirmative that the property is in violation. Without ownership of the property I'm not sure -- I'm not sure how -- how that gets us any closer to an answer? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I can agree with you as far as ownership on who has to take care of a problem, but a problem, obviously, to me exists. MS. PASSIDOMO: I don't dispute that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And I think that's what I'm going to ask the Board to vote on, whether a violation exists. MS. CURLEY: I have two questions. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MS. CURLEY: First of all, Ms. Passidomo is not here to provide free legal service to us and determine whether the county is making the right decision or not. She's representing Mollie Nelson; right? MS. PASSIDOMO: That's correct. MS. CURLEY: And so my other question is is the 63 page report from American Government Services, the specific title report, has it been shared with Ms. Passidomo? MR. JOHNSON: I believe I did send that, didn't I? MS. PASSIDOMO: Yes. I don't object to any of the materials. MS. CURLEY: I said did you have a chance to review that? MS. PASSIDOMO: I did. MS. CURLEY: And in the capacity as the attorney for one of the Respondents, you saw that, based on reviewing that that your client is still not a property owner there? MS. PASSIDOMO: Yes. And I don't want to make any determinations on the record now, but I feel at this time that my client August 29, 2019 Page 65 is not even a party of interest, from my review of the chain of title. MR. ORTEGA: I think there's a question here. Maybe I'm not following, maybe I am. Mollie, your client, she's not the owner, so why are the -- why is she included in this? MS. CURLEY: That's an opinion. MS. PASSIDOMO: That's why I'm here today to object to the extent that they were -- I know that the county was trying -- we spoke about this. The county was doing what it could to meet due process requirements under Florida statutes; that being said, naming my client as a Respondent when the title is so clearly not vested in them, has created an enormous amount of fear and concern on attachment of personal liability, potential disclosures, if and when they need to conduct business personally, that they need to discuss that there's a threatened violation against them. You can see why this has actually created some significant damage on my client without the county having ever conclusively determined ownership. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has this person been assigned as a responsible party, as a Respondent? MR. JOHNSON: Yes. They were identified as a Respondent in lieu of -- this was more of a courtesy responding, if you will, because when the County Attorney's Office did this title search, they looked for anyone who could still be relatedly involved to the ownership of this land. As a courtesy, in fact before we sent any notice, Mr. Letourneau and myself contacted all these people and let them know that this is what we're doing, this is what's required to do from our attorney's office, but that we did not find any ownership interest, and I believe Ms. Passidomo is trying to make sure and nail that down, and we don't disagree with what she's saying. August 29, 2019 Page 66 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So there is no liability then? MR. JOHNSON: There is no liability because there's no ownership; that's the way we see it. MR. LETOURNEAU: Mr. Kaufman, can I summarize a little bit maybe? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. LETOURNEAU: I'm real close to agreeing with Ms. Passidomo on everything. I will say that I will disagree on one thing. There is a violation. I believe there are no violators, though, that's the thing. We were asked by the Collier County Attorney's Office to run that title search. They ran it. They told us, you know, our whole thing with Code Enforcement is all about service. We want to make sure that everybody that could possibly be interested in th is piece of land is noticed that we're going to do something about it. In hindsight we probably shouldn't have sent out official notices of violation. We probably should have sent out something a little bit softer and more courteous and not called them respondents. We should have just said people of interest. The way we want this to play out today, if you guys do this, is if you find a violation, he's going to have a recommendation that doesn't hold anybody responsible. We're not going to have any time. We just want the blessing of the Board to go out there and fix this thing. We are probably going to put a lien on that particular piece of property, and I see it playing out that nothing gets done -- we'll have the engineer out there to look at it, take care of it the best way the county can take care it, put a lien on that property and then foreclose on the property and it will be county property at that point. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sold on the courthouse steps? MR. LETOURNEAU: That's -- that's what I see at this point. If you guys find a violation, we will be more than willing to sit down August 29, 2019 Page 67 with everybody interested and talk about the fixing of this thing. The engineer is going to give us a recommendation and we're going to look at all the options. Obviously, we're going to look at taxpayer's money because we want it as safe as it can be with a little amount of money spent. So if anybody wants to go above and beyond that, they can certainly come to the table and negotiate. I'm talking about the neighbors right here, you know, I don't know what they want. The county is going to put in what we want, as long as it's safe, and that's where we're at. We just want you guys to find a violation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So let me go back to ten minutes ago when I said let's vote on whether or not a violation exists. MS. CURLEY: I'll make a motion a violation exists. MR. DOINO: Second. MR. LEFEBVRE: Before we vote on it, are we going to have a discussion? MS. CURLEY: No, too late. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hold on. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. Notice is important, correct, and if there is no one noticed, can you still bring a case? MS. PASSIDOMO: That's my point. MR. SCHNECK: Correct. In this situation, yes, notice is required, and if -- what I would recommend, if the county does not object, is instead of naming these folks as the respondents, have a general respondent unknown or something to that effect; that's often what happens in civil court cases when they cannot find an owner or responsible party for a piece of property in foreclosure. They do notice by publication in a newspaper and say all unknown parties, and that takes care of everyone, so there's not -- if August 29, 2019 Page 68 the county agrees, and they don't intend to hold these parties listed here responsible, then maybe have a generic rent in the title and within the order. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let's find out whether a violation exists or not by voting on it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Another question, 2012 this lady passed away? MS. CURLEY: Gerald, this is way outside our ballpark. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Well -- MS. CURLEY: The county should hire a real property probate trust attorney to draw this out and find the owner. This is complex real estate. MR. LEFEBVRE: With a will or something. MS. CURLEY: This is completely out of our jurisdiction. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let's vote on whether a violation exists. Walsh says a violation exists. I don't think there is anybody on the Board that's going to argue with him, so let me call the vote. All those to favor that a violation exists say aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. BOWMAN: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Now, do you have a suggestion for us? MR. JOHNSON: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are you going to tell us? August 29, 2019 Page 69 MR. JOHNSON: Yes, I am. The recommendation is as follows: Whereas, the parcel in question is not owned and/or titled to any known entity, including the parties of interest, and, whereas, no entity has taken any action to obtain ownership rights of this parcel, and, whereas, the county has designated the seawall to be a dangerous building, the Code Enforcement Board orders the following: 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, including but not limited to the court costs of this hearing, shall be assessed to these parcels, and attached as a lien obtained by the levy of a writ of attachment. In other words, we don't really have a parcel ID to attach, but we can do this writ of attachment. We've had that cleared by the attorney's office; that's our recommendation. MS. CURLEY: Did your attorney write this? MR. JOHNSON: The county attorney, they approved it. MS. CURLEY: So the first sentence, whereas, the parcel in question is not owned or titled, why don't you just have ownership to be determined, because you're going to determine it at some point. All property is owned by someone. MR. JOHNSON: Right now since that is not true, I don't know if that's going to be true down the road, and it should not, to me in my opinion, this should not affect this recommendation. MS. CURLEY: You're not a lawyer. You can't make a legal argument. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But a lawyer did write this. MR. LETOURNEAU: Shall we put in at this time, would that be fine? MS. CURLEY: Or knowingly, parcel in question is not knowingly owned. What if it's owned by one these other four people August 29, 2019 Page 70 and you set this up? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We've already said we don't own it. All of us declare we don't own it. MR. JOHNSON: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You haven't been sworn, et cetera. Let me ask, what size property is this? MR. JOHNSON: The property is approximately 10 feet wide by the length of the wall which is approximately 50 feet. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's a little strip. MR. JOHNSON: Exactly. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You can't build anything on it? MR. JOHNSON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand why nobody wants it. Okay. So I have no problem with the language that the county attorney wrote, unless somebody else here does? MS. CURLEY: I like box No. 1, too, what the county attorney wrote. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: The county attorney didn't write the sentence above it. MS. ELROD: Parties with possible interest with the names, can we have the name removed and just leave it as parties of possible interest? MS. CURLEY: Or unknown. MS. ELROD: Because that's their problem, that their names are on it. MR. LETOURNEAU: I'm totally in agreement with the Board Attorney that it should be whatever he stated earlier. Eliminate anybody's name in there and have unknown or whatever. MR. SCHNECK: Yeah, that would be my recommendation to remove parties of possible interest as listed here, remove them August 29, 2019 Page 71 completely from the order, from the title, from any content, and have it generic unknown parties as the named respondent. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That seems by a nod, everybody agree with that? MS. ELROD: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Can you incorporate that language into this, and we can vote on it? MR. LETOURNEAU: Well -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Ultimately, Jed is going to be the one to write the agreement anyhow. MR. LETOURNEAU: So what was that -- how would you go about it? MR. JOHNSON: Perhaps we can do it pursuant to his review and acceptance with that language. We'll modify that top and keep the order No. 1, as it's stated. You all seem comfortable with No. 1; that's the actual order. And, you know, it's -- in a way I'm glad this is happening now, because if we had done -- if we had notified no one, no one would have known what was going on here, so these parties of interest were involved in knowing what we were doing all the way along. I know -- I believe they appreciated that's what it would take, so, you know, but right now pursuant to attorney review, I would say accept the recommendation. You can probably do that. MR. LETOURNEAU: As far as the parties of interest? MR. JOHNSON: Yeah, at the top. MR. ORTEGA: I have a question. Can we put the photo back up? MR. JOHNSON: Sure, which? MR. ORTEGA: The one that shows the bordering properties, that one. So assuming that where the seawall is failing up, okay, to the north, you're saying there's a ten feet stretch there; right? August 29, 2019 Page 72 MR. JOHNSON: Correct, it's actually -- MR. LETOURNEAU: There's actually two parcels there. MR. JOHNSON: The seawall parcel is this rectangular parcel right here (indicating). MR. ORTEGA: Okay. MR. JOHNSON: There's another parcel up here that's still -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Same situation. MR. JOHNSON: -- the same situation. MR. ORTEGA: So if the seawall fails, the property is going to suffer. Obviously, you're going to have erosion, but these seawalls, the way they're built, obviously, without seeing, but the way that they're built they have what they call head walls, which you -- I don't know if you called it before, the head walls are actually chunks of concrete, a slab, and they're usually 15 foot into the property and they're tied with a rebar to basically hold it. What's happening, because, obviously it's conventional steel, and it's going to rust because it's salt, but that head wall, if that parcel is ten feet, and there's a sub-service investigation may prove that the head walls are into that property, adjacent property, so at that point -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's for other people to determine. MR. ORTEGA: Understand. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I'd like to know who owns the property behind that strip. MR. JOHNSON: No one, the same situation. This one right here (indicating) no one. This is the same situation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: How about to the right? There's a narrow -- MR. JOHNSON: This here is owned by Julie Cassidy who owns this property up here (indicating). Julie owns this. MR. LETOURNEAU: At one point we thought she was going to want to buy it, but she backed out, or she maybe wanted to quitclaim August 29, 2019 Page 73 deed over to herself, or whatever she needed to do, but I think the cost of the seawall might have been a determining factor. MS. CURLEY: Can we move on? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, we're going to vote on the suggestion that was made by Jed. He will put the language together, remove the names. MR. SCHNECK: Yes, and at this point you found the violation. So all you would need is the abatement action, and that overhead, if you put the overhead up again with the recommended action, I would recommend to just adopt Paragraph No. 1 -- MS. PASSIDOMO: Uh-huh. MR. SCHNECK: -- in your order, and put the findings of facts with the violation into law and the order as it is. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Somebody want to make that motion? MR. ORTEGA: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ORTEGA: To accept the stipulation as stated. MS. CURLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. BOWMAN: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? August 29, 2019 Page 74 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you, gentlemen. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. MS. PASSIDOMO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't know why you don't want a piece of property that you can't build anything on? MS. CURLEY: Swamp land in Florida. MS. ELROD: Hey, I live there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Next? MS. BUCHILLON: Next item on the agenda under public hearings, No. 8, CESD20180014960, Joshua Thompson. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Janice, you want to swear everybody in? THE COURT REPORTER: Sure. Raise your right hands. (The speakers were duly sworn and answered in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You want to present your case? MR. CATHEY: Yes. Good morning. For the record, Investigator Ryan Cathey, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to No. CESD20180014960, dealing with a violation of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41 as amended, Section 10.02.06(b)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(b)(1)(e), renovations/alterations of a mobile home, including, but not limited to, electric, plumbing, roof and exterior work, located at 131 Lime Key Lane, Naples, Florida 34114, Folio 81623360007. Service was personally served on December 7th, 2018. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: 11 photographs taken by Contractor Licensing Investigator Joseph Nourse dated October 31st, 2018, two images from Google Maps dated November of 2007 and May of 2016, two photographs from the August 29, 2019 Page 75 property appraiser, one from 2018, and one from 2019, four photographs taken by myself from August 28th, 2019, and one e-mail from the building official Jonathan Walsh. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Have you seen these? MR. THOMPSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any objection to them? (A court reporter interruption was had. The proceedings continued as follows:) MR. THOMPSON: Josh Thompson. I don't think we need to get that far. We were here just a few months back, and everyone determined that -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have to follow the process. MR. THOMPSON: Okay. I don't mind if you guys want to see them, that's fine with me. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We need a motion for the Board to accept the photos. MR. DOINO: Motion to accept. MS. ELROD: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. BOWMAN: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. CATHEY: These first photos were the initial ones taken by Contractor Licensing Investigator Joseph Nourse showing the work August 29, 2019 Page 76 being done. The next photos were my recent site visit yesterday showing the property in the same condition, and just as a little reference point, this is a Google street image from November of 2007, the front of t he property, and 2016, and then from the property appraiser, this is the aerial of 2018, which you can see the extent of the damage on the exterior there, and then from 2019 there is some repair work there. Lastly, just as a little bit of a clarification, I did receive -- I sent an e-mail to Jonathan Walsh, the building official, just to clarify that the state was in violation, and if the work needed permitting, and his response was, yes, that a permit was required; the extent of the work being above 50 percent and new FEMA regulations. So, again, this case originated as contractor licensing. Investigator Nourse arrived on the property on October 31st of 2018 and observed the renovations/alterations as seen in the photographs. Investigator Nourse then met with Senior Planning Examiner Robert Moore, who confirmed that the work being done would need permitting and engineering. The case was then transferred to me on September 25th, 2018. I met with the owner and personally served the notice of violation on December 7th, 2018. The case was originally scheduled for hearing in February and withdrawn. I've spoken with the owner and advised him to meet with Renald Paul or to set up a meeting with the building official for further clarification on why the permit was ne eded. As of today, no permit has been applied for and the violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. THOMPSON: How you doing? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How you doing? MR. THOMPSON: I met with Renald several times and the last time we were here, I think Mr. Jeff is the one that told everybody that Ryan needs to get his superior and Jeff and Renald and Mr. Walsh in August 29, 2019 Page 77 the same room and everybody on the same page, because I'm not, personally, in violation because it's under DMV's rule. As long as it's attached to your four walls, it's DVM's regulations. Carport, I know we need a permit for, air-conditioning, plumbing, shed, I know that. We're not to that point yet. I have no problem or issue with that. I told Renald I have no issue with pulling a permit, if he wants one, that's perfectly fine with me. I don't care. I've done a lot of mobile homes in my life, and he insists that I have to have an engineer. There's not an engineer in the world who's going to touch a mobile home. It's just not going to happen. It could blow away this weekend. So it's just one of those things where it's not going to happen. Ryan put that burden on me to make the meeting and I told him I'm not doing it. I'm not in violation that I feel. He was told to make the meeting last time and it never happened, so that's where we stand. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Unfortunately for you, it's not you to determine the -- whether a violation exists. MR. THOMPSON: I agree, that's why we were here last time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's the county and the Board. MR. THOMPSON: That's why we were here last time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can I ask Jeff, you had no meeting? MR. CATHEY: No, sir. MR. LETOURNEAU: No, I did not. No. MR. CATHEY: I have spoken with the Respondent on several occasions and provided him with Renald Paul's contact information, as well as the main number for the building department and suggest he contact them. I would be happy to attend, but it's the owner who is responsible for the property so... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Did -- did Walsh have any comments on whether this is a mobile home, if you'll -- MR. CATHEY: I met with Jonathan Walsh earlier in the case, August 29, 2019 Page 78 showed him all the pictures. He reviews them with contractor's licensing before they come to us anyway, and he confirmed there was a violation. I got that e-mail yesterday, just because I wanted to have something in writing to present to you. He confirmed based on the condition of the home there is a permit and engineering required so... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Jeff? MR. LETOURNEAU: Have you been in touch with Renald? MR. THOMPSON: Yes, sir. MR. LETOURNEAU: And what has he said to you? MR. THOMPSON: Hire an engineer. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. MR. THOMPSON: I called an engineer and he said, "What do they want engineered? There's nothing to engineer. You're changing drywall. You are changing kitchen cabinets. You're putting a roof on a mobile home. What needs to be engineered?" MR. LETOURNEAU: So what do you want from the county at this time? MR. THOMPSON: You guys tell me. You guys are the ones -- I have been down there, talked to Renald. He will not give me a solution. I've talked to Ryan. He has been very nice, but he can't give me a solution because it's not his job. Last time we were here in front of you guys, everything at the end was he was supposed to set a meeting up and I was supposed to be invited to the meeting so we can all get on the same page. If a permit needs to pulled, I'll put a permit. I don't care. I'm not going to hire an engineer for something that's not even under the county. It is under DMV's regulations. The only regulation under Collier County is if you are over 50 percent of the value of the home, which I'm not, not even close yet. Then you have to get an engineer to give you a flood certificate and then you have to raise the home up out of the floodplain; that's what it states for a mobile home. August 29, 2019 Page 79 MR. LETOURNEAU: I'm not a person in the building department, but I also believe that if there was more than 50 percent damage of a particular structure, and you go to rebuild it, even if it's a mobile home at this point, you need to pull a Collier County building permit, and it will mostly likely have to come up. I believe Mr. Walsh is basing this all on FEMA regulations, as it says in that e-mail. MR. THOMPSON: It states 50 percent of the value, is what it's -- is what I was -- read and been told, and it's been under DMV's regulations since 1979. MR. LETOURNEAU: I mean, I don't know what you want Code to tell you, because we have to abide by the building official's determination, and he's determined you need a permit and Renald said that you need to get engineering drawings done. I can't recommend an engineer legally to you, so I don't know, you know -- MR. THOMPSON: There's none in Collier County or Lee County that will touch it. I've called everyone. MR. LETOURNEAU: Jackie Smith out in Immokalee? MR. THOMPSON: He said -- the one that's in Immokalee, I don't know if it's Jackie Smith or not, he said, "I will come down and do a foundation certificate for you, but I cannot engineer you changing drywall, changing cabinets, doing tile work, any work," because there is no permit needed for mobile homes as long as it's attached to your four walls, and that's what it states. MR. ORTEGA: I have a question. MR. CATHEY: Yes. MR. ORTEGA: And I heard the word "carport." MR. CATHEY: Yes. MR. ORTEGA: And the carport, you have the mobile home as -- I believe it's a mobile home, not a modular home? MR. THOMPSON: Yes, sir. MR. ORTEGA: It's on wheels; right? August 29, 2019 Page 80 MR. THOMPSON: Yes, it's still on the foundation of the wheels, that's why it's considered a mobile home. MR. ORTEGA: So there is a carport? MR. CATHEY: I believe there was. MR. THOMPSON: At one time. MR. ORTEGA: So the work that you're -- you speak about is just isolated to the interior? MR. THOMPSON: Yes, sir. MR. ORTEGA: Well, the reason why Mr. Walsh is recommending a permit or engineer, both by the way, is because you're in a flood zone. MR. THOMPSON: Yes, sir. MR. ORTEGA: Otherwise, you're partially right. Mobile homes fall under the auspices of DOT -- MR. THOMPSON: Yes, sir. MR. ORTEGA: -- Department of Transportation, but in a flood zone it's different. Okay? If the chief building official rendered that position already, that's the one that needs to be followed. It may not be favorable to you, but that's the way things are done. Now, the engineer, what the county is looking for, it's not so much somebody to engineer drywall, but to inspect and to write his rendition of his inspection that it meets Florida Building Code. With regards to no engineer will touch it, I can give you plenty of them. Okay? So they're not going to engineer a mobile home, no. MR. THOMPSON: That's my question. MR. ORTEGA: It's just basically to inspect the work. MR. THOMPSON: Okay. Because Renald could not give me that answer. Renald said, "I have no clue. You have to talk to an engineer." The engineer says, "What do they want engineered?" So I was in the middle of that, going back and forth. MR. ORTEGA: Understood but -- August 29, 2019 Page 81 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Go ahead, finish. MR. ORTEGA: -- there's a process. There is going to be a building permit. The building permit's going to require some type of design, it can be simple, but at least showing what you're doing. Okay? I would definitely follow Mr. Walsh's guidance. MR. THOMPSON: Okay. MR. ORTEGA: And you can stop all this. Okay? MR. THOMPSON: When they say -- you say engineer for inspecting, what needs to be inspected right now, as far as drywall, electrical? MR. ORTEGA: Work, period. MR. THOMPSON: All right. Now, you say that under period, but you have to tell me what. MR. ORTEGA: I don't know what you're doing anyway. MR. THOMPSON: I'm changing everything in the house. MR. ORTEGA: Then there you go. MR. THOMPSON: Flooring, drywall, everything. MR. ORTEGA: There you go. MR. THOMPSON: But county law under DMV -- DMV's law, the county has no rights for a mobile home, to tell you what you can do inside of it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, according to Walsh that's incorrect. Our job right now is to find out, whether based on what Walsh has said, whether a violation exists or not, a nd then we go from there so... MS. CURLEY: Do you think we could pull this case and you all could get a little more organized? MR. THOMPSON: I agree. MR. LETOURNEAU: We pulled it last time. MR. CATHEY: We pulled it in February. I've spoken with the owner and suggested who he needs to contact at the building August 29, 2019 Page 82 department, because I don't work in that section, and nothing's happened since it was pulled back in February. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: There's no need to pull anything. Does a violation exist or not, is the question? MR. SCHNECK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. SCHNECK: I'd like to provide the Board some clarification and guidance. The issue with mobile homes is the building construction standards and alteration standards, they are preempted by federal and state law. However, there is a permitting process that local governments may implement to make sure that those modifications, those installations, are done in accordance with the federal and state standards. So I think that's the issue here. It's not whether, you know, the structural integrity, I believe the county's land development code changes that, it's just having the opportunity to inspect and approve whatever modifications he does to the mobile home, so that's the difference there, if you understand. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Which brings us back to does a violation exist or not? If a violation does not exist, you're not going to have to worry about bringing it back. It's done. MS. CURLEY: Well, I've tried that before. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that a violation does, in fact, exist. MR. ORTEGA: I second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second? Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? August 29, 2019 Page 83 MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. BOWMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MS. CURLEY: I oppose. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. One opposed. Okay. Do you have a suggestion for us? MR. CATHEY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. CATHEY: Recommendation is that the Code Enforcement Board orders the Respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $59.56 incurred in the prosecution of the case within 30 days, and abate all violations by: No. 1, obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspection and certificate of completion/occupancy within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank amount per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. And, 2, the Respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody want to take a shot at filling in the blanks? MS. CURLEY: I'll fill it in. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. August 29, 2019 Page 84 MS. CURLEY: Six months, $50 a day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do we have a second? MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: And operational costs? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: $59.56 within 30 days. Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think $50 is -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- too low? MR. LEFEBVRE: -- too low. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I do, too. This thing has been sitting since February. Nothing has been done since February, and I can't support that motion for $50 and six months more. MS. CURLEY: I don't want to amend it. Do we want to take a vote and see if -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, let's take a vote. All those in favor? MS. CURLEY: Aye. MS. BOWMAN: Aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Ay e. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's it. MS. CURLEY: It's four and three. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me see hands. Who is in favor? MS. CURLEY: (Raised hand.) MS. BOWMAN: (Raised hand.) MS. ELROD: (Raised hand.) MR. DOINO: (Raised hand.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. Opposed? August 29, 2019 Page 85 MR. ORTEGA: (Raised hand.) MR. LEFEBVRE: (Raised hand.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: (Raised hand.) Okay. Four to three, it passes. So the outcome is 180 days you have to resolve the situation. MR. THOMPSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And it's $50 a day after that. MR. THOMPSON: And do I have to get an engineer, or do I just go down and pull permits like I do on every other one I fix? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you check with the code enforcement officer and he'll point you in the right dire ction. MR. THOMPSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay? MR. THOMPSON: Sounds good. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MR. THOMPSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Helen? MS. BUCHILLON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What are we up to? MS. BUCHILLON: Next case is No. 10, CESD20190001769, SA Equity Group, LLC. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you want to swear everybody in, Janice? THE COURT REPORTER: Sure. (The speakers were duly sworn and answered in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, Tony? MR. ASARO: Before I start -- (A court reporter interruption was had. The proceedings continued as follows:) MR. ASARO: Tony Asaro, Collier County Code Enforcement Department, Walid Oqab (phonetic), the manager of the market August 29, 2019 Page 86 would like to say a few words. MR. OQAB: I do? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Surprise. MR. ASARO: About the permitting process, your engineer. MR. OQAB: Okay. So my name is Walid Oqab, I'm the manager of the market. I mean, I'm sure you guys come there before. We bought that market and it had some issues with it, and we're working with the county on fixing all the violations that we have there. The problem we have there is two structures that were built without a permit. We hired an engineer, City Engineering Company, to do the permitting. I know he filed some drawings with the -- with the Collier County permits, but I don't know what's wrong with them. I'm here today to tell you guys that we're doing our best to fix this issue, and we already have someone working on it, and we would like to have a continuance. We need more time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the Board? MR. ORTEGA: Has the permit been applied for? MR. ASARO: No permits have been applied for yet. MR. OQAB: He did submit -- he did go to the Immokalee office, and there was drawings of the structure, and for some reason they said something was missing. I cannot speak for the engineer. I mean, maybe he can come here and speak on this issue because he would know better. I know he did go there, but they rejected the drawings. I'm not sure why. MR. ORTEGA: Okay. You're not -- drawings are not to be rejected unless they're submitted. What he may have done is gone for an opinion. MR. ASARO: Nothing has been submitted yet. I talked to him. He's still working on it. He's still working on the drawings so... August 29, 2019 Page 87 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is there any thought on when this thing could be -- come into compliance? MR. ASARO: I talked to -- well, I talked to AJ, and he's hoping he can get this ready in a couple weeks to submit to the county, and then it's up to the -- once he gets that completed, then I guess it's up to the building department to review it, and it's up to them to -- when they're going to issue the permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is the county interested in withdrawing this for now and bringing it back? MR. ASARO: Well, I'd like to defer that to my investigative manager, Jeff Letourneau. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Pass the buck, is that what this is? MS. CURLEY: Nice one. MR. LETOURNEAU: Where are we at on the permitting process exactly? MR. OQAB: I have four cases that I'm dealing with. Two of them have been dropped. I'm doing my best to get this up to compliance. He said he spoke with AJ from City, and to be honest with you, I'm not sure, but I know it's been a few months he has been working on it. He has been out of the country. This should be taken care of. I promise. Whatever we have there, we will fix it. We just need some time, that's the only help we need. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You want to swear Chris in for me, Janice? (The speaker was duly sworn and answered in the affirmative.) THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. MR. AMBACH: For the record, Chris Ambach, supervisor, Code Enforcement in Immokalee. I've met with Walid. He's really trying to take care of the issues on that property. He has been in constant contact with me. I did meet with him and his engineer the August 29, 2019 Page 88 other day. So I don't have any reason why we wouldn't pull it and give him some time. There are a lot of issues he's working on. MR. LETOURNEAU: We'll withdraw it, but I just want to say that if nothing is moved forward by the next hearing, it's going to be right back in here, because we're looking at February. I don't really see too much done since this case was opened. MS. CURLEY: When does the market open back up? MR. OQAB: We're open right now, but the two structures we're talking about, they're vacant. They're not being used right now and they will remain that way until November. MS. CURLEY: All right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ASARO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's been withdrawn. MR. OQAB: Thank you, Your Honor. Thanks. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that me? I got promoted to Your Honor. Wow. If they only knew. Helen, next? MS. BUCHILLON: Next on the agenda under motion for imposition of fines, No. 3, CESD20170007136, Sandra C. Fulton. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: For some reason in the past you've given us an extra sheet on the ones that -- for the motion of impositions. They seem to be lacking at this meeting. Did you run out of paper or... MS. BUCHILLON: No. I was just told to give you the agenda. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Who told you that? MS. BUCHILLON: A supervisor. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It makes it much more difficult for us. MS. CURLEY: Do we have a copy of it, or is it here? Is it in the case file? MS. BUCHILLON: No. August 29, 2019 Page 89 MS. CURLEY: We don't have anything to look at? We have to have that. MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah, kind of hard to -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. 3? MR. DOINO: Three. MS. CURLEY: That doesn't help us. MS. BUCHILLON: Okay. I gotcha. MR. LETOURNEAU: You don't have a copy? MS. BUCHILLON: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Excuse us for our little internal spat. MR. LEFEBVRE: Sorry. MS. CURLEY: We have to have it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I agree with you, Sue. I think those pages need to be included in our package from month to month. So I would be glad to meet with whoever told you not to provide it. MS. BUCHILLON: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's not even on the viewgraphs here. MS. CURLEY: Make a motion to deny the county funds then. MR. LETOURNEAU: Go ahead, Dee. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Before we go on, Jeff, do you understand what I'm saying? MR. LETOURNEAU: I do. I think that we're -- the department is looking at certain things, paperwork wise and everything, and I'm not sure why the executive summary is not there, but I'll look into it. We are making some changes here. I'm sorry. MR. LEFEBVRE: You might want to explain what we're talking about. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Ordinarily they provide us with at least a page that says this is what happened on this case. MS. FULTON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: These were the fines that were August 29, 2019 Page 90 imposed. MS. FULTON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And they total them all up, and that's generally read into the record before we determine whether we're going to accept the county's imposition to impose the fine or not. MS. FULTON: That's very important to have that. MS. CURLEY: Do you have something we can put up? MS. FULTON: I do not have anything that has the total. MR. LEFEBVRE: Can we put it up? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you have them? MS. BUCHILLON: We don't have that one to put up because it's going to be amended, that's why we don't have a copy. MR. LETOURNEAU: What's going to happen is the county is going to read this into record, and from now on, I'll assure you that we'll have at least one up here to look at. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Appreciate that. MS. CURLEY: What if the Respondent wants to know? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They're going to read it. MS. PULSE: Can we get sworn? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Janice? (The speaker was duly sworn and answered in the affirmative.) THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. MS. PULSE: Okay. For the record, Dee Pulse, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20170007136, past orders on October 27th, 2017, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The Respondent was found in violation of referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See attached order of the Board OR5446, Page 3531 for more information. August 29, 2019 Page 91 On July 26th, 2018, the Respondent's motion for continuance of this case is granted. See attached order of the Board, OR5540, Page 2956 for more information. The violation has been abated as of June 24th, 2019. Fines have accrued at the rate of $150 per day for the period from July 24th, 2018 to June 24th, 2019. That's 336 days, for a total fine amount of $50,400. Previously assessed operational costs of $64.45 has been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing $59.70, total amount $50,400. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you go over the dates again? This was originally July 26th, 2017, was a continuance? MR. LEFEBVRE: No, when the case was heard. MS. PULSE: Previous compliance date was July -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: October 17th (sic), that was when the, I guess, the case was heard at first? MS. PULSE: Yes, October 27th, 2017 you first issued your conclusion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And then on July 26th -- MS. PULSE: On July 26th there was a request for more time, continuance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So the fines are from June 24th? MS. PULSE: From July 24th. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Okay. Okay. MS. PULSE: 336 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I got it. Okay. MS. FULTON: The work has been completed. Chairman and the Board you all have been more than generous and fair in giving me the extra time that I did request. I'm asking today to have those fines waived. Before I got ready to get started on my project, there was an issue with the unit in which it cost me an additional $10,000 that was August 29, 2019 Page 92 going to be added to the cost to finish the project. At that time I felt that I didn't want to get started on something I could not finish. But at this time I'm asking to you, please, consider waiving those imposed fines, or whatever you find is necessary for me to pay to rectify the situation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody want to make a motion on the board, or any questions? MS. CURLEY: I'll make to motion to deny the county's fine of $50,400 including the $59.75. MS. ELROD: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any comments on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. BOWMAN: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. FULTON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. Next? MS. BUCHILLON: Next item on the agenda under imposition of fines, No. 4, CELU20180005848, Jeffery Kaulbars and Brenna Nipper. MS. NIPPER: Morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, Janice, do you want to swear August 29, 2019 Page 93 everybody in? THE COURT REPORTER: Raise your right hand. (The speakers were duly sworn and answered in the affirmative.) THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't you read the good news for us. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Good morning, sir. For the record, Steven Lopez-Silvero, Collier County Code Enforcement. The violation is Collier County Land Development Code 04-41 as amended, Section 1.04.01(a), in Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances Chapter 54, Article VI, Section 126-111(b). The location of -- currently there is no site address in Naples, Florida. The folio is 00307920003. The description of the violation is operating a business without first obtaining a Collier County business tax receipt, brought on to or placed on property without first obtaining Collier County Government approval for such use, are the following, but not limited to, industrial storage containers, commercial operating equipment, vehicles and commercial vehicles, vegetative/tree debris and mulchy/woody material brought from an outside location, et cetera. The past order on June 28th, 2018, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of facts, conclusion of law and order. The Respondent was found in violation of the referenced -- correction. T The Respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the Board OR5531, Page 3081 for more information. The violation has not been abated as of August 29, 2019. Fines have accrued at a rate of $150 per day for the period from October 27th, 2018 to August 29th, 2019, 307 days, for total fine amount of $46,050. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of $59.63 have been paid August 29, 2019 Page 94 and are a pending transaction as of this morning. Operational costs for today's hearing is $59.35, for a total amount of $46,168.98. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The line that we always look at first on these cases is the one that's right in the middle, has not been abated so... MS. NIPPER: Okay. So just to clarify, abated -- (A court reporter interruption was had. The deposition continued as follows:) MS. NIPPER: Oh, I'm sorry. My name is Brenna Nipper. I'm the property owner. So when you're saying abated, are you referring to the property being back in compliance? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. NIPPER: As of today the property is in compliance, so at this point we have removed everything from the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Steven? MR. PEREZ-SILVERO: I haven't verified or conducted a final inspection as of yet, because the restoration or the cleaning up of the property happened yesterday evening or some time yesterday. I will go out and note the final inspection today. MS. CURLEY: Did you bring any pictures? MS. NIPPER: I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you give them to, I guess Helen, to put on the viewgraph? MS. NIPPER: Yes. They're on my phone, so I don't have the actual printouts. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If you give us the pictures, we have to keep them also, so at least we made a phone on the deal. MS. NIPPER: Okay. MS. BOWMAN: Can she send them to you? MS. ELROD: Can she e-mail them to you? MS. CURLEY: Did you call the inspector, let him know that August 29, 2019 Page 95 you had taken care of this by last evening, or was it after -hours? MS. NIPPER: It was after-hours by the time it was fully completed. We were working on it all week. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you just show the pictures to Steven, and we'll take his word for it. MS. NIPPER: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He has been sworn in. We have to take his word for it. MS. NIPPER: All right. This is what we have. This is where our containers were and everything has been removed with the exception of that dumpster right there (indicating). MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Everything has been removed, for the exception of a dumpster because they're clearing the remaining items, any debris on the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So this has been abated? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes, and the dumpster will be removed sometime today, Ms. Nipper? MS. NIPPER: Today. Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: And returned to its native permitted state. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. RAMSEY: My name is Michael Ramsey. I was hired by the property owner to assist in this matter. To give you a little history so you understand what's going on on this property, after Code Enforcement recognized there was a problem here, the property owner hired me to help her understand the issue and what to do to take care of it. So in the process of doing that to abate the property, we initially started out to get an SDP and clear all the litter off the property, as was listed on this document. August 29, 2019 Page 96 In the process we started in to hiring out -- we had got an agreement for four months, I believe, to do the SDP and clear the litter. In my process of trying to get the professionals to do the SDP, they were so busy and so booked up with other business and construction in Collier County, we came back in in March, I believe, and got an extension so I could finish the process. We did finish the process for an SDP, and we were waiting to get confirmation from growth management that the application was complete to proceed forward with review. We got all that done. In the process an opportunity arose for the landowner, somebody wanted to buy the property, which started last month? MS. NIPPER: Uh-huh. MR. RAMSEY: So the strategy changed. So to do that, the property, the new property owner wanted the property absolutely clean. So in the process the owner switched over, and that's the process we're at now, and they are in the process of closing. So what the property owner would like to do at this point is that she would like to request a waiver of the fees. They've already paid the operational costs up to date, and we would request that if the Code Enforcement Officer, Steven, could confirm the quality of the condition of the property, that we would like to see if we could move this process along to facilitate a closing on the property as of next week. MS. NIPPER: That's right, the 6th. MR. RAMSEY: So we're looking for some help here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody like to make a motion here? MR. ORTEGA: Was there a vegetation restoration here on this one? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: No, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: I don't see abating the fine until there's an August 29, 2019 Page 97 inspection done to confirm that it's in compliance, that's -- that's the issue I have, and we have a meeting in a month from now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Steve said that he looked at the pictures and it had been cleared so... MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. There might be something else she hasn't taken a picture of. MS. CURLEY: Steve, Gerald has an issue that you haven't inspected the property. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: And that's what the Respondent was trying to offer, based on maybe there could be some stipulation or another continuance, based on my final inspection today. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. The problem is they're closing next week, so they probably want to have this fine -- MR. PEREZ-SILVERO: That's the predicament. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can we make a motion contingent upon the final inspection to resolve this? I hate to ask you all these hard questions today. MR. SCHNECK: I would not recommend taking that action. The problem you have there is your order, your action, isn't a ctually final. It's subject to further action. So, to me, you would be better inclined to continue it to the next month's hearing, because effectively that's what may happen anyway if -- MR. LETOURNEAU: There's no way to give your blessing with the stipulation saying that this is contingent on them having this abated within -- how long did you say you were going to have this taken care of? MS. NIPPER: Until it's fully abated? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah. MS. NIPPER: The end of the day today. MR. RAMSEY: According to my understanding abatement would be to clear up all the issues listed on the document. The only August 29, 2019 Page 98 thing out there which I might have had a question about is the presence of the dumpster on the property is not considered -- would not be considered illegal, I don't believe. MR. LETOURNEAU: It's an unimproved lot? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes. MR. LETOURNEAU: Probably unpermitted storage of a dumpster on an unimproved property. MS. CURLEY: We can make a motion whether it's to abate or to impose some fines, and then you can get out there and inspect it, and in the next seven days, if we have a repeat offender, that's another case. MR. LETOURNEAU: Let me think about this. MS. CURLEY: I mean, if you want to close this out. MR. LETOURNEAU: I've known Mr. Ramsey for a long time. I believe he's going to get this taken care of. The county has no objection, but you still have your lawyer's opinion on this, you're contingent on something that's going to happen in the future, and, you know -- MR. SCHNECK: Well, that would be the more appropriate route to take, because your order today is final as to this enforcement action and if you -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Doesn't it become final when I sign it? MR. SCHNECK: Well, no, your Board is actually effective today. This is under Florida statutes. Your oral order is effective today, but the written order goes out, and that's -- that ties the appeal process, and the additional legal process that you must go through if they decide to appeal. MR. LETOURNEAU: You know, this is -- a little analogy here, the special magistrate has, you know, waived the fines or whatever with the contingency of them paying the operational costs that day. August 29, 2019 Page 99 This is kind of similar, but, you know -- MS. CURLEY: I make a motion to abate the county's request for $46,050, and also the $59.35. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can we tie in the same language that we used to use for -- MR. LETOURNEAU: For the operational costs, that the remaining dumpster is removed by the end of the day? MS. NIPPER: That's right. MR. LETOURNEAU: I mean, the county has no problem with that, it's just that I think Jed has some qualms about it. MR. SCHNECK: That's my recommendation. The Board, you can take what action you want. I have no problem putting that condition on there with paying the costs by the end of the day, but I'm a little uncomfortable with the actual abatement action because you're -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Understood. MS. CURLEY: What about if we left some money on the table? MR. SCHNECK: That's my final recommendation. MS. ELROD: Let me ask the inspector, are you convinced that it's done? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes, ma'am, based on the Respondent's pictures. MS. ELROD: It's done. The dumpster company wants their dumpster. MR. LETOURNEAU: And I will say if there is, you know, tomorrow or next Tuesday we come back to work and there's something still on there, we're going to open another case up, and it's going to be a repeat offense, and we're going to ask for a civil penalty at that point. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How far away is the property? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: From here a good 30, 40 minute drive. August 29, 2019 Page 100 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you could -- MS. CURLEY: No. Stop. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Whoa. Whoa. I'm chairman. You could drive out there and make a telephone call out there and say it is or it isn't? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: I can. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I just throw that out there. Now, we have a motion. Do we have a second to abate it? MS. BOWMAN: Second. MR. ORTEGA: Even if it's abated, when do you close again? I'm sorry. MS. NIPPER: The 6th. MR. ORTEGA: Next week. The bank mortgage company is going to want to see some type of paperwork that says this is closed out; correct? MS. NIPPER: That's correct. MS. CURLEY: She needs a copy of the signed order. MR. ORTEGA: Will she be able to get that today, tomorrow? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: She can get it as soon as it's put together and given to me. MR. ORTEGA: And that's within how long? MR. SCHNECK: Within ten days of today. MR. ORTEGA: So even if it was voted right now for the abatement -- or the fine abated, there is still no guarantee you're going to get the paperwork you need to close. MR. SCHNECK: When is the closing date again? MS. NIPPER: It is the 6th. MR. SCHNECK: I can make that order a priority, if the Board deems necessary. MS. CURLEY: Let's do that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. August 29, 2019 Page 101 MR. LETOURNEAU: The county is comfortable with this. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: Monday's a holiday. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let's vote on your motion, Sue. All those in favor say aye. MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. BOWMAN: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. LEFEBVRE: Opposed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One opposed. Okay. It passes. So the fines have been abated. Jed is going to go out of his way to get this thing written immediately. I'll go out of my way to sign it, wherever I am, and whenever it is. MS. CURLEY: You'll need a certified copy to take with you for your real estate closing. Make sure you come here. MS. NIPPER: Okay. I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Are we done? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: I believe so. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Have a good day. Keep your head down and -- MR. RAMSEY: One comment. I've been before this Board many times before and work for Code Enforcement and I do thank you for responding to a Respondent trying to do it the right way. It's much appreciated. I think it also helps in the future. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. NIPPER: Thank you very much. MS. CURLEY: Good luck. August 29, 2019 Page 102 MS. NIPPER: Thank you. MS. BUCHILLON: Next item on the agenda is No. 5, CED20160002295, Destiny Church Naples, Inc. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Janice, swear everybody in. (The speakers were duly sworn and answered in the affirmative.) THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Helen, do you have that sheet on this? MS. PEREZ: Board members, before we present the imposition of fines, there was a letter that was submitted to Code Enforcement regarding this property from the Respondent's representative. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that in our package? MS. PEREZ: It was a letter submitted to us Friday afternoon, so you do not have it in your packet, but the author of this letter is also present here, if you would like him to summarize the letter. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you read the letter into the record. Okay. And this letter was received on Friday? MS. PEREZ: On Friday. Dear Board Members, in 2014 Destiny Church Naples purchased the property at 6455 Hidden Oaks Lane. At the time of the purchase, all of the structures, storage trailers, sheds, fenced-in areas that were subsequently found in violation of zoning were on the property. We were unaware that these structures were not permitted, nor in violation until the complaint was filed and the zoning inspector notified us. When we received the notification, we were in the process of applying for a permit to expand our facilities. Since we needed the site plans for these structures permitted, and we were doing the site plan for our expansion, we asked if we could include these structure on that site plan. Our motivation was to save money since we are not a profit organizations and we want the best steward of funds possible. In August 29, 2019 Page 103 order to combine the non-compliant structures into the site plan being developed, we required an extension of the remediation date from the zoning committee. Our expansion request and site plan have been under review and revision with the county for approximately 18 months. We have requested extensions and the process had been continued. We did not anticipate the process would go that long. After months of negotiation we realized that our expansion request would not be approved and we would have to go forward with a different plan. As a result Destiny Church has purchased property in a different location for our future expansion. Along with this we're doing a modest remodel of our current facility to gain more space for children. Since these conditions have changed, we are working to resolve all our outstanding issues. We have removed three structures, the shipping containers used for storage. We are left with one shed on the premise that we want to keep. In our last meeting with the county, we were informed that we would need to have a site plan to get the existing shed permitted. We are working on the site plan now for our remodel and are close to completion. Again, for the purpose of controlling expansion, we would like to include a shed on this site plan. Second page. We anticipate submitting this site plan for review along with the permit for the shed within the next three weeks. Please see the attached letter from TDM Consulting affirming that they have been contracted and are actively working on the SDPA -- which is the site development plan amended application. Destiny Church requests an extension until November 30th, 2019 to completely resolve these issues. We justify the time as follows: Three weeks for application submittal, putting it at September 13th, 2019; 21 days for a Collier County review, putting August 29, 2019 Page 104 that at October 4th, 2019, revision submittals and the permit November 1st, 2019, inspections and approval November 30th, 2019. We thank the Code Enforcement Board for their patience and continued cooperation in this matter, respectively submitted, Gene Wahlberg. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. WAHLBERG: And for the record I am Gene Wahlberg. I'm a trustee on the board of Destiny Church. Our senior pastor who would be here is actually in the Arctic right at the moment doing a crusade. Yeah, this has taken a long time. It's never been our intent to not comply or delay compliance. It's just that when we bought the property, we had a conditional use that we thought gave the right to expand to 25,000 square feet. So as we got this, we had a contract with Phoenix Associates. They did put all of these buildings on that site plan for review. Those buildings were never part of the dispute, just our expansion in general was part of the dispute. It went on and on, and we never got it approved. So once we knew we weren't going to get it approved, and we were going to move, we got rid of all the storage containers, that sort of thing. We have one shed left on the property, which eventually we want to sell the property, and that is a storage unit for mowers and just yard work kinds of things, so we want to keep that there. I have -- I'm anticipating -- I have a commitment from the engineer, civil engineer, that that would be submitted, last week he said, within three weeks. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Let me -- can I assume, without putting the sheet up, that this is not in compliance? MS. PEREZ: Correct. MR. WAHLBERG: It is not. August 29, 2019 Page 105 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If it is not in compliance, the Board can do one of two things: Grant the continuance on this, or they can impose the fine, that's it. So that is the discussion that I think we should be having. MS. CURLEY: If we continue, the fines keep growing and then -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, operational costs have to be paid for today. What am I missing? Nothing. MS. PEREZ: Putting it to the November 30th deadline that they're requesting is approximately 90 days, and not having a hearing in December, I'm not sure if you want to extend that a little further, but their anticipated timeframe on their schedule would be 90 days to get their site plan approved, and their site development plan amendment application. The first thing they would accomplish on that, would be this particular shed that's on the property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody like to make a motion as to whether you want to grant a continuance, or do you want to impose the fine? MR. DOINO: Grant the continuance 90 days. MS. BOWMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have a motion and a second to grant the continuance until the November meeting. MR. LEFEBVRE: All operational costs have been paid? MS. PEREZ: The operational costs have been paid. MR. WAHLBERG: When is the November meeting? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Helen, do you have the date? MS. BUCHILLON: I don't have it here right now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Probably going to be because of Thanksgiving, the last date is just before Thanksgiving. MS. CURLEY: Wait. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think it's the week before also. August 29, 2019 Page 106 MS. PEREZ: November 22nd. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: November 22nd. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? MS. CURLEY: Just to discuss -- are you sure we don't want to extend it to the January meeting? Just saying. Didn't he say their deadline was November 30th? MS. PEREZ: Yes, their anticipated deadline would be November 30th. MR. LETOURNEAU: We have no problem with January. MS. CURLEY: Just shorted them ten days with Thanksgiving. MR. DOINO: That's fine, January. Did you vote? MR. WAHLBERG: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We didn't vote on it yet. So we have that January date? MS. BUCHILLON: I don't have that one. MR. WAHLBERG: Any time in January. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The 23rd of January, whatever it is. Okay. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. BOWMAN: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. WAHLBERG: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. BUCHILLON: Next item on the agenda under imposition August 29, 2019 Page 107 of fines, No. 7, CESD20180015758, Delores Del Carmen Morales De Lopez. This is the contractor that has a letter authorized from the homeowner. (The speakers were duly sworn and answered in the affirmative.) THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Herminio is hiding out. He'll be back in a second. We'll take a 60-second break. Is everybody sworn? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Off the record. (A discussion was held off the record and the proceedings continued as follows:) MR. LETOURNEAU: Here we go. Go back online. MS. PEREZ: Good morning. For the record this is in reference to Case No. CEB -- CESD20180015758. Past orders on May 23rd, 2019 the Code Enforcement Board issued findings of fact, conclusions of law and order. The Respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the Board OR5639, Page 2163 for more information. The violation has been abated as of July 10th, 2019. Fines have accrued at the rate of $250 per day for the p eriod from June 7th, 2019 to July 10th, 2019, 33 days, for a total fine amount of $8,250. Previously assessed operational costs of $59.56 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing of $59.28, total amount of $8,309.28. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Sir? MR. SILVA: My name is Ramon Silva. I'm a builder. I'm a friend to the owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And? MR. SILVA: Yes, we are here to explain why we delayed to build -- to get the permit. As you know to get the permit, we need to August 29, 2019 Page 108 submit the survey. We need to get the blueprints from the architect, and we need to follow all the process from the Collier County. Now we finish everything. My question here is if you can, please, remove the fees from it? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody want to make a motion that it is now in compliance? MS. ELROD: I'll make a motion to deny the county $8,250. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do we have a second? MS. CURLEY: Do we just also want to amend the no payment of $59.29 for operational costs? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MS. ELROD: I'll amend it. MS. CURLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. BOWMAN: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. MR. SILVA: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Next? MS. BUCHILLON: Next case, No. 8, CESD20180010777, Plaza Bayshore Corp. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I thought that was withdrawn? Thank you. August 29, 2019 Page 109 MR. JOHNSON: I think I've already been sworn. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It wears off. (The speakers were duly sworn and answered in the affirmative.) THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you state your name in the microphone for us? MR. BORDA: Javier Borda. (A court reporter interruption was had. The proceedings continued as follows:) MR. BORDA: B-O-R-D-A. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What's your relationship to -- MR. BORDA: I represent the owners. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do we have that on the record? MR. JOHNSON: Javier is the person that I've always dealt with. He's the property manager. That's the -- what is it called, Gulf Gate Plaza? What is it called? MR. BORDA: Plaza Bayshore. MR. JOHNSON: Plaza Bayshore. He is the manager for that. I've dealt with him since the beginning of this case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you want to read through this? MR. JOHNSON: Sure. The violation here is of the Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, amended, Section 10.02.06, Subsection B, Section 1, Paragraph A, location, 2727 Bayshore Drive, Naples, Florida, Folio No. 71580160004. Description is confirm the observations made by contractor licensing that interior modifications were done to this structure without obtaining the required building permits, inspections and certificates of completion. The past order on April 26, 2019, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The Respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to August 29, 2019 Page 110 correct the violation. See the attached order of the Board OR5629, Page 3154 for more info. The violation has not been abated as of August 29th, 2019. Fines and costs to-date -- fines and costs to-date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of $200 per day from the period of June 26, 2019 to August 29th, 2019, 65 days, for a total fine amount of $13,000. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of $59.63 have not been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing $59.35. Total amount, $13,118.98. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The two important things I see on this page are that the violation has not been abated, and because the operational costs have not been paid, our hands are tied. We don't do anything, as far as anything with this, except impose the fine. So is there any reason why the previous fines have not been paid? MR. BORDA: Well, I've been -- since we gone with this issue, we hired a contractor to take care of -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't want to hear anything other than the fines that have not been paid. MR. BORDA: They have not been paid. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: The operational costs? You're saying fines, so I don't know if -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The operational costs have not been paid? MR. BORDA: That money was collected by this contractor. He said he was going to pay it, and take care of it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. But the operational costs -- when the operational costs are not paid -- MS. CURLEY: I understand the rules that we follow. August 29, 2019 Page 111 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: The gentleman just said he gave the money to his contractor. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He could have given it to the tooth fairy. It doesn't matter. MS. CURLEY: If that's his answer, I feel like there's a communication issue with understanding what fines we're talking about. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Operational costs. MS. CURLEY: So there's $59.63 that should have been paid before you arrived today. Are you aware of that? MR. BORDA: Yes, I -- since ten days ago I've been contacting him to see where we are on this. He said everything was ready to be submitted, that he had all the engineer drawings and everything for this, but since then, he had two car accidents, two deaths in the family and all that stuff. So I need to start this from zero, unfortunately. MS. CURLEY: So I make a motion to grant the county's fines of $13,000 and -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: $13,118.98. MS. CURLEY: And the two operational costs for a total of $13,118.98. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and we have a second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. BOWMAN: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. August 29, 2019 Page 112 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. MS. BUCHILLON: Next item on the agenda, No. 9, CESD20170013601, Boabadilla Family Trust. (The speakers were duly sworn and answered in the affirmative.) MS. PEREZ: This is in reference to Case No. CESD20170013601. Past orders on January 26, 2018, Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The Respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the Board 0R5477, Page 2455 for more information. The violation has been abated as of August 2nd, 2019. Fines have accrued at the rate of $200 a day for the period from July 26, 2018 to August 2nd, 2019, 373 days, for a total fine amount of $74,600. Previously assessed operational costs of $59.56 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing is $59.35. Total amount is $74,659.35. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You're before us to request something, I'm sure? MR. ROUND: I want to request we get rid of that fine. (A court reporter interruption was had. The proceedings continued as follows:) MR. ROUND: My name is Benjamin Round. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What's your relationship to the family trust? MR. ROUND: Fiance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Excuse me? MR. ROUND: Fiance to Elizabeth here. August 29, 2019 Page 113 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you have permission -- MS. JOHNSTON: I'm the fiance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- to speak on your behalf? MS. JOHNSTON: Yes. MR. ROUND: I want to request that we subvert the fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're asking for the fine to be abated; right? MR. ROUND: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ROUND: The actual -- I finished tearing everything down back in April, and we were told that somebody was going to come out and take a look at it, and that was the last thing we heard until we got a call saying we need to come to court. MS. CURLEY: I make a motion to abate this $74,600, in addition to the $59.35 operational costs for today. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. BOWMAN: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Okay. MS. JOHNSTON: Thank you. August 29, 2019 Page 114 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It was worth the wait, wasn't it? MS. JOHNSTON: Yes. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Last but not least. MS. BUCHILLON: There is nobody else. We'll just head to the cases that are not here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, the county presents its case, and then we vote on it. MS. BUCHILLON: Right. No. 2 under hearings, CEPM20180014849, Henry Schulman. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hi, Steve. MR. ATHEY: Howdy. Good afternoon. THE COURT REPORTER: Raise your right hand. MR. ATHEY: Good afternoon. (The speaker was duly sworn and answered in the affirmative.) THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Let the record show the Respondent is not present. MS. BUCHILLON: The Respondent was notified certified mail on August 12th, 2019, and the property was posted at the courthouse also on August 7th. MR. ATHEY: Good afternoon. For the record, Stephen Athey, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CEPM20180014849, and it deals with the violation of buildings and building regulations, Property Maintenance Code, General Provisions, Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22-228(1), a dwelling that was destroyed by a fire located at 5525 Lee Williams Road, Naples, Florida 34117, Folio No. 454760006. Service was given on December 11th, 2018, with a compliance date of January 6th, 2019. I'd like now to present case evidence in the following exhibits: One aerial of the property and four photographs taken by myself. August 29, 2019 Page 115 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion for the Board to accept the photos? MS. ELROD: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And second? MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. BOWMAN: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MR. ATHEY: The property is actually located in Picayune Forest, if you're familiar with the area. It's out in the middle of nowhere, that yellow square (indicating), is where the property is and where the house would be, had it not been destroyed. MR. ORTEGA: Is there a way of blowing that up a little bit? Thank you. MR. ATHEY: I'll read through this and then I'll show the other photographs. On December 4th, 2018, I made a site visit to the property responding to a complaint from the building department regarding a dwelling destroyed by fire. I met with the property owner's wife, Greta, who allowed access to the dwelling, or the remains of the dwelling, destroyed by fire in 2017. I observed a concrete slab and four concrete block walls, all that remained of the structure. According to Greta, there were no plans to demo the remaining structure or rebuild. August 29, 2019 Page 116 Through subsequent conversations by phone with Mr. Schulman, the property owner, it was clear he did not have the financial means to demo or rebuild, but alluded that he's soliciting assistance from friends to do one or the other. In the last conversation a couple weeks ago, he remained hopeful to gain assistance. However, to-date the violation remains. This photograph shows the entrance to the property. Behind the truck that you see is where the dwelling, or the remains are. What you can't see in the photographs to the left -- or I'm sorry -- the right of the frame, is a recreational vehicle where the wife and her dogs are staying. You also can't see in the photograph the angry dogs that are really close to me, and at this point the wife, Greta, approached the vehicle, put the dogs away in the trailer, and then she walked back to the remains with me. And this is as we get closer, and that's the final picture she allowed me take before she requested I stop taking photographs for whatever reason. I know you can see that's all that remains. I somehow took that picture on my way out, but you get a sense of what remains on the property; that's all of the photographs. MR. LEFEBVRE: So to be in compliance, if they were to remove the structure, it would include the slab, too; correct? MR. ATHEY: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So from what you understand, they're not going to do anything? MR. ATHEY: I don't believe -- I don't sense defiance from them. I think it's a rock and a hard place, where he's a retired -- he's a disabled veteran, delivers pizzas for a living to make money, doesn't have the means to do either, soliciting assistance from outside contractors, anyone who is willing to help. In fact, a couple months ago this story aired on Wink TV to try August 29, 2019 Page 117 to get some help for the family, but, unfortunately, to -date the violation is there, and there has been no assistance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How big is that whole property? MR. ATHEY: I don't know the answer to that. MS. CURLEY: Acres? MR. LETOURNEAU: Go back to the aerial. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that a five-acre parcel? You don't know? MR. ATHEY: I don't know offhand. MR. LETOURNEAU: Go back to the aerial. MR. LEFEBVRE: Was this the structure that was damaged or destroyed in the Picayune Strand fire that came through a couple years ago? MR. LETOURNEAU: It's five acres. MR. ATHEY: Five acres. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Five acres. The parcel is worth some money. They continue to live on the property? MR. ATHEY: They do. He stays in -- he's living in, just a second, see that blue tent right there (indicating)? He's living in that and Greta and the dogs are living in the trailer, RV. MS. CURLEY: They need some assistance. MR. ATHEY: It's not for lack of trying. It's difficult to communicate, because, No. 1, phone reception where he is is kind of random. I've left voice mails for him to come into the office. I tried to meet him on the property. He's not there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is he elderly? MR. ATHEY: Probably late 50's, early 60's. MS. CURLEY: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: A youngster. MR. ORTEGA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Welcome. August 29, 2019 Page 118 MR. ATHEY: I've yet to meet him in person, simply spoke to him on the phone. The other investigator that was here had a case on the property for the litter, obviously, he had spoken to him and seen him. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is one of those unfortunate cases where we're going to probably find that a violation exists. MS. CURLEY: Can we also defer to, like, health services? Sounds like there might be some struggling. MR. ATHEY: And we've given those suggestions -- MS. CURLEY: Yeah. MR. ATHEY: -- via voice mail. MS. CURLEY: Yeah. MR. ATHEY: And in brief conversations I had with them. MS. CURLEY: Is there sewer and water, electricity. MR. ATHEY: There's electricity, or there was electricity. MS. CURLEY: Well water? MR. ATHEY: Well water -- and well water. MS. CURLEY: How did the complaint come about? MR. ATHEY: Through the building department, that's where we got the complaint, but beyond that I don't know. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Tough case to do anything with. I think first thing, does a violation exist or not? Let's pass that goal. MS. ELROD: A violation does exist. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Motion, second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. BOWMAN: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. August 29, 2019 Page 119 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. What to do with it is the question of the day. Have they referred this to the veterans group in the county, the VFW, the American Legion? MR. ATHEY: The story that was aired on Wink TV was an attempt to gain some attention. I'm not sure what came of it. I've given some suggestions to the property owner. Beyond that I don't know what they've done, if anything. MS. CURLEY: We just need to know the capacity of how they're receiving that information. It might be too much for them. MR. ATHEY: I believe, the sense I get from speaking to the property owners, is that hopefully this will just disappear somehow, or someone will come in and wave a magic wand and make it go away; that's the sense I get from the property owners. MR. ORTEGA: When did the fire occur? MR. ATHEY: I'm sorry? MR. ORTEGA: When did the fire occur? MR. ATHEY: In 2017, sir. MR. ORTEGA: When you said it was aired on Wink TV, they were on Wink TV? MR. ATHEY: This was a couple months ago. The owners -- the owner, Mr. Schulman, was on the story, and they did, like, a piece to try to gain some help for him. MS. CURLEY: Are you sure this burnt down in 2017? I thought it was recently when they were fixing the roof after the hurricane? No? MR. ATHEY: No, it was a couple years ago. MS. ELROD: Picayune burn. August 29, 2019 Page 120 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'd be inclined to give him as much time as possible. The property has got to be worth some money. I'm not familiar with it, I could be, but -- MR. ATHEY: I believe there has been some interest expressed by a neighbor to purchase the property. Mr. Schulman doesn't seem interested in wanting to go anywhere or selling anything. He's quite content. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Just living in a tent out there? That's a little bit -- talk about warm. MR. ATHEY: It is. MS. CURLEY: This is very sad. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have a suggestion for us, Steve? MR. ATHEY: I do, sir. Is this large enough for you? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We can't see it but -- MR. ATHEY: Forgive me while I learn this generation. The recommendation is that the Code Enforcement Board orders the Respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $59.56 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days, and abate all violations by: No. 1, obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and a certificate of completion for repairs or demolition of the structure as outlined in the notice of violation within blank days or a hearing of -- I'm sorry -- within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. No. 2, the Respondent must notify the Code Enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated, in order to conduct the final inspection to confirm abatement. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance, and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the August 29, 2019 Page 121 provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Anybody like to try to fill in the blanks? I'll be glad to do it. MS. CURLEY: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'd like to grant them 365 days, and a $25 a day fine after that. MS. ELROD: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We get a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. MS. ELROD: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Second. Discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. BOWMAN: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. That's the best we can do to make it go away for now. MR. ATHEY: Perfect. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thanks, Steve. Is that the last case? MS. BUCHILLON: No, we have one more case. MS. CURLEY: You're killing me, Helen. MS. BUCHILLON: Under imposition of fines, Case No. 10CEV20190002393, Ernest J. Valdastri. August 29, 2019 Page 122 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let the record show that the Respondent is not present. (The speaker was duly sworn and answered in the affirmative.) THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, you got to spend the last one with us. MR. MUCHA: Good afternoon. For the record Joe Mucha, supervisor Collier County Code Enforcement. This is dealing with Case No. CEV20190002393, dealing with violations of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Section 130-95 and 130-96(a) in the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41 as amended, Section 4.05.05(a). Location is 30 Creek Circle, Naples, Folio No. 49532360004. Description of the violation is repeat violations of recreational vehicles parked on the front side of the dwelling and vehicles parked on the grass. Special Magistrate Order in Case No. CEV20140006954, findings, prior violations is recorded at OR5040, Page 2569, and a vehicle and boat trailer with expired tags. Past orders, on April 26, 2019, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The Respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violations. See attached order of the Board OR5477, Page 2455, for more information. The violation has been abated as of April 24th, 2019. Fines and costs to-date are as follows. No fines accrued. Previously assessed civil penalty of $2,000 has not been paid. Previously assessed operational costs of $59.63 have not been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing $59.28, for a total fine amount of $2,118.91. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody like to make a motion? Hearing none, I'll make a motion to impose the fines. August 29, 2019 Page 123 MS. CURLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. BOWMAN: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thanks, Joe. MR. MUCHA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're done? MS. BUCHILLON: We are done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Let's go fight the hurricane. ***** August 29, 2019 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:45 p.m. C• ! _ NFORCEMENT BOARD ` r %` R V1 BER ` FMAN, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on STt 2L t/ �a(q, as presented 9/ or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY JANICE R. MALINE, NOTARY PUBLIC/COURT REPORTER. Page 124