Loading...
CEB Minutes 01/24/2020January 24, 2020 Page 1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, January 24, 2020 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 Gerald J. Lefebvre Sue Curley Kathleen Elrod Ron Doino Herminio Ortega Chloe Bowman (absent) ALSO PRESENT: Elena Gonzalez, Code Enforcement Specialist Helen Buchillon, Code Enforcement Jeff Letourneau, Manager of Investigations Jed R. Schneck, Attorney to the Board 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 January 24, 2020 9:00 AM Robert Kaufman, Chair Gerald Lefebvre, Vice-Chair Kathleen Elrod, Member Ronald Doino, Member Chloe Bowman, Member Sue Curley, Member Herminio Ortega, Member 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 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME B. STIPULATIONS (NON-CONTESTED CASES AND PRESENT AT THE HEARING) C. EMERGENCY CASES D. HEARINGS 1. CASE NO: CESD20190012462 OWNER: CLC OF NAPLES LLC OFFICER: Virginie Giguere VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Home hauled onto property without first obtaining permits. FOLIO NO: 77413240001 PROPERTY 3415 Cherokee St, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 2. CASE NO: CESD20190007261 OWNER: Esterban C Ramirez, Teresa M Ramirez and Ignacio Ramirez OFFICER: Steven Lopez-Silvero VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Observed an unpermitted single- family dwelling and an unpermitted frame storage shed on improved occupied residential property. FOLIO NO: 00062560009 PROPERTY 5006 Lake Trafford Road, Immokalee, FL ADDRESS: 3. CASE NO: CESD20190005177 OWNER: Jeffrey E Ahlquist and Sandra J Ahlquist OFFICER: Latoya Thompson VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Added 3 sheds/structures and open porch to the property. FOLIO NO: 266827200009 PROPERTY 4082 Guava Dr, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 4. CASE NO: CESD20190000550 OWNER: 12275 COLLIER BLVD LAND TRUST OFFICER: John Fuentes VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). A drop ceiling with electric constructed without first obtaining the authorization of the required permit inspections, and certificate of occupancy as required by the Collier County Building Department. FOLIO NO: 35778600008 PROPERTY 12275 Collier Blvd, Unit 6, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 5. CASE NO: CEOCC20190005207 OWNER: Yunior Rodriguez OFFICER: Paula Guy VIOLATIONS: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 126, Article IV, Section 126-111(b). No business Tax receipt on file for this business/property to conduct this operation. FOLIO NO: 312560005 / 312600004 / 3126400006 PROPERTY NO SITE ADDRESSES ADDRESS: 6. CASE NO: CELU20190004630 OWNER: Yunior Rodriguez OFFICER: Paula Guy VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 1.04.01(A) and 2.02.03. Observed hauling of excavation of materials without a current conditional use agreement. FOLIO NO: 312560005 / 312600004 / 3126400006 PROPERTY NO SITE ADDRESSES ADDRESS: 7. CASE NO: CEPM20190009270 OWNER: Keith G Purdy and Darlene Purdy OFFICER: John Johnson VIOLATIONS: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22-236. I did witness an overhanging roof that is in a complete state of disrepair and is falling. FOLIO NO: 53353080009 PROPERTY 2965 Lunar St, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 8. CASE NO: CESD20180006585 OWNER: Thelma A Haynes OFFICER: Junior Torres VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e). Improvements made without first obtaining any and all required Collier County permits. FOLIO NO: 22770960005 PROPERTY 1061 Michigan Ave, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 9. CASE NO: CESD20190009150 OWNER: Catherine Vidal OFFICER: Paula Guy VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Above ground pool and accessory structure erected with no permits. FOLIO NO: 40985560007 PROPERTY 2880 10th Ave SE, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 10. CASE NO: CEV20190012844 OWNER: Steven J Stilton Est OFFICER: Ryan Cathey VIOLATIONS: Collier County Code of Laws and ordinances, Chapter 130, Article III, Section 130-95. Vehicle parked in the front yard with no license plate. FOLIO NO: 738680006 PROPERTY 120 Andrea Ln, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 11. CASE NO: CELU20190012842 OWNER: Steven J Stilton Est OFFICER: Ryan Cathey VIOLATIONS: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 54, Article VI, Section 54-181 and Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 2.02.03. Litter/prohibited outside storage including, but not limited to, trash, containers, buckets, wood, wheelbarrow, dollys, dilapidated golf cart, ac units, tiles, tires, and other household items in the front, side and rear yard. FOLIO NO: 738680006 PROPERTY 120 Andrea Ln, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 12. CASE NO: CELU20190010955 OWNER: Jeanette Vassallo OFFICER: Paula Guy VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 2.02.03 and Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 54, Article VI, Section 54-181. Observed litter and prohibited outside to storage to include but not limited to vehicles, tents, recreation vehicles and household junk trash and debris on unimproved vacant parcel in Estates zoning. FOLIO NO: 40621920008 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 13. CASE NO: CELU20190004006 OWNER: 2340 DAVIS BLVD LLC OFFICER: Tony Asaro VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 2.02.03. Storing vehicles on improved property. FOLIO NO: 22720760006 PROPERTY 2313 Kirkwood Ave, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 14. CASE NO: CESD20190003646 OWNER: Gary W Stumbo OFFICER: John Johnson VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). A carport was witnessed that was constructed without a permit. FOLIO NO: 50891360006 PROPERTY 2748 Holly Ave, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 15. CASE NO: CESD20190002904 OWNER: Johnny R Mollett OFFICER: Paula Guy VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(e). Removal of vegetation from unimproved parcel with no permits. FOLIO NO: 41508600000 PROPERTY NO SITE ADDRESS ADDRESS: 16. CASE NO: CESD20190004530 OWNER: Penny J Estes and Timothy W Estes OFFICER: Bradley Holmes 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 improvements to an existing structure including, installation of an Air Conditioning System, Improvements to Existing Electrical and the Installation of Plumbing. FOLIO NO: 45967320008 PROPERTY 1735 19th St SW, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 17. CASE NO: CESD20180015180 OWNER: James Clay OFFICER: Thomas Pitura VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1((a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e). Interior remodeling without obtaining the necessary permits. FOLIO NO: 52392400007 PROPERTY 184 Pago Pago Dr W, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 18. CASE NO: CEV20190013753 OWNER: MINDI REVOCABLE TRUST OFFICER: Ryan Cathey VIOLATIONS: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 130, Article III, Section 130-96(a). Recreational trailer in driveway. FOLIO NO: 67494120005 PROPERTY 4107 Mindi Ave, Unit A and B, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 19. CASE NO: CELU20190013752 OWNER: MINDI REVOCABLE TRUST OFFICER: Ryan Cathey VIOLATIONS: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 54, Article VI, Section 54-181 and Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 2.02.03. Litter/prohibited outside storage including, but not limited to, tv, wood, glass, fridges, tires, and other household items. FOLIO NO: 67494120005 PROPERTY 4107 Mindi Ave, Units A and B, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 20. CASE NO: CESD20190002667 OWNER: Maria Lozano, Ymelda Lozano Calderon and Antonio Rico Cabrera OFFICER: Bradley Holmes VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). 2 unpermitted sheds removed without a demolition permit, an unpermitted dog kennel structure and an unpermitted addition on the rear of the house. FOLIO NO: 61736720004 PROPERTY 2230 Della Dr, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 21. CASE NO: CESD20190011752 OWNER: Roseanne Leising Hogle and Charles F Leising OFFICER: Thomas Pitura VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e). New roof for the carport and drywall removal in the interior of the mobile home. No building permits obtained for these alterations. FOLIO NO: 49531440006 PROPERTY 36 Henderson Dr, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 22. CASE NO: CEAU20170016724 OWNER: Tam Thanh and Tammy Nguyen OFFICER: Delicia Pulse VIOLATIONS: Florida Building Code 6th Edition (2017), Chapter 1 Section 105.1 and Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 5.03.02(F)(3). Chain link and wood fence on property and no Collier County Building permit, fencing is dilapidated and not maintained. FOLIO NO: 38396160008 PROPERTY 5175 Green Blvd, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 23. CASE NO: CEPM20190006547 OWNER: Tam Thanh and Tammy Nguyen OFFICER: Delicia Pulse VIOLATIONS: Florida Building Code 6th Edition (2017), Chapter 4, Sections 454.2.17.1 through 454.2.17.3. No barrier around inground pool. FOLIO NO: 38396160008 PROPERTY 5175 Green Blvd, Naples, FL ADDRESS: VI. OLD BUSINESS A. MOTION FOR REDUCTION/ABATEMENT OF FINES/LIENS B. MOTION FOR RE-HEARING C. MOTION FOR IMPOSITION OF FINES/LIENS 1. CASE NO: CEPM20190000168 OWNER: A W BECKER OFFICER: Virginie Giguere VIOLATIONS: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Section 22- 231(12)(c). Roof and fascia damage from Hurricane Irma. FOLIO NO: 31142503081 PROPERTY 9 Topaz Ln, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 2. CASE NO: CESDSD20180009477 OWNER: Raymond H Brown TR OFFICER: Arthur Ford 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). Interior remodel, plumbing, electrical work and removal of interior walls without required permits, Inspections and certificate of completion. FOLIO NO: 23470280000 PROPERTY 9051 Gulf Shore Dr, Unit 301, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 3. 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 6455Hidden Oaks Lane, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 4. CASE NO: CEV20190003764 OWNER: Frances M Smugorzewski Estate OFFICER: John Johnson VIOLATIONS: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Sections 130-95 and 130-96(a). Unlicensed vehicles parked in the grass and a boat without a trailer parked in the front of this residence. FOLIO NO: 50890320005 PROPERTY 2739 Holly Ave, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 5. CASE NO: CESD20180006559 OWNER: Anthony J Baldoni and Dana S Baldoni OFFICER: Delicia Pulse VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Alterations/Improvements made on Property and no Collier County Building permits obtained. FOLIO NO: 51978012988 PROPERTY 14483 Jekyll Island Ct, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 6. CASE NO: CEPM20180014370 OWNER: Milan Jovanovic OFFICER: John Connetta VIOLATIONS: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Sections 22- 231(12)(i) and 22-242. Unsecured vacant dwelling with broken windows and where access can be gained. FOLIO NO: 62414120006 PROPERTY 839 104th Ave N, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 7. CASE NO: CESD20170002774 OWNER: N-A PROPERTIES LLC OFFICER: Delicia Pulse VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and (i). In ground swimming pool on property with no barrier and no permits obtained. FOLIO NO: 38169440007 PROPERTY 5630 Copper Leaf Lane, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 8. CASE NO: CESD20160015129 OWNER: Luis Flores Salceiro OFFICER: Paula Guy VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 3.05.01(B), 10.02.06(B)(1)(E) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(C) and Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article IV, Section 22-108. a) Site work, improvement of property, grading and/or removal of protected vegetation using heavy machinery without a permit which would allow same. b) Alterations of land through placement of fill that removed or otherwise destroyed vegetation without first obtaining approval from the County. c) Damaging native vegetation by the use of heavy machinery to remove Exotic and non-native vegetation. d) Work done in the right-of-way, including a temporary driveway access from everglades Boulevard without first obtaining valid Collier County Permits. FOLIO NO: 41287600004 PROPERTY 2298 Everglades Blvd S, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 9. CASE NO: CESD20190006401 OWNER: Johnson Pharisien OFFICER: John Johnson VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Per J. Walsh Building Determination, the existing rear structure requires a permit. Also, Permit # PRBD20180318305 – for the replacement of a mobile home has expired (Exp. Date 11/20/2018) without final inspections and the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. FOLIO NO: 50890640002 PROPERTY 2617 Holly Ave, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 10. CASE NO: CESD20180008035 OWNER: ESTANCIA US LLC OFFICER: Sherry Patterson VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06(B)(1)(e). Interior construction/alteration at a commercially zoned property without required Collier County permit(s). FOLIO NO: 55850160006 PROPERTY 4701 Bonita Beach Road, Bonita Springs, FL ADDRESS: 11. CASE NO: CEPM20180011817 OWNER: Hazen L Allen and Maria A Allen OFFICER: Bradley Holmes VIOLATIONS: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22-231(12)(c) and Florida Building Code, 6th Edition (2017), Section 454.2.17. Residential swimming barrier requirement. FOLIO NO: 38331640004 PROPERTY 6191 Green Blvd, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 12. CASE NO: CESD20160016422 OWNER: Najeeb Ullah OFFICER: Jonathan Musse VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(A) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(E)(I). Interior remodeling consisting of but not limited to, removing drywall and insulation with plans to replace them with new drywall without first obtaining a valid Collier County Permit. FOLIO NO: 62205720000 PROPERTY 5349 Holland St, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 13. CASE NO: CESD20190003992 OWNER: Adolphe Antoine and Nahomie Plancher OFFICER: William Marchand VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Structure built without a Collier County Building Permit. FOLIO NO: 68843320003 PROPERTY 6031 Hollow Dr, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 14. CASE NO: CESD20180014203 OWNER: Joan E Kittrell 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). A fence and cabana type structure installed without first obtaining Collier County permits. FOLIO NO: 81627240000 PROPERTY 291 Grassy Key Ln, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 15. CASE NO: CEPM20180006143 OWNER: GRUPO MELGAR INC OFFICER: William Marchand VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 5.03.02(F)(3) and Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Sections 22-228(1) and 22- 231(12)(c). Abandoned home and in need of proper maintenance and repairs. The roof is in need of repairs and appears to be leaking in several areas. FOLIO NO: 00427880007 PROPERTY 5500 Cynthia Ln, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 16. CASE NO: CESD20170011136 OWNER: SOMAR 1939 LLC OFFICER: Bradley Holmes VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Two expired building permits for the property (PRBD20111005151) and (20151238615) pertaining the reconstruction of the home from fire damaged. FOLIO NO: 37062200002 PROPERTY 1361 Golden Gate Blvd W, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 17. CASE NO: CESD20180007557 OWNER: Farid Uddin Ullah OFFICER: Thomas Pitura VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e). Exterior lanai walls blocked in where there was screens originally, without first obtaining the required permits. FOLIO NO: 27690008123 PROPERTY 3633 Treasure Cove Ct, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 18. CASE NO: CESD20180000943 OWNER: A D G N P MORTGAGE INC OFFICER: Bradley Holmes VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Guest house was converted into three units. The first unit, the garage and utility room were converted into living with an unpermitted kitchen and bathroom. Second unit, an exterior wall was added in the kitchen and bedroom of the main structure, and the third unit, an unpermitted kitchen and bathroom all constructed without first obtaining the authorization of the required permit(s) and certificate(s) of occupancy as required by the Collier County Building. FOLIO NO: 37162681000 PROPERTY 891 5th St SW, Naples, FL ADDRESS: D. MOTION TO RESCIND PREVIOUSLY ISSUED ORDER E. MOTION TO AMEND PREVIOUSLY ISSUED ORDER VII. NEW BUSINESS VIII. CONSENT AGENDA A. REQUEST TO FORWARD CASES TO COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IX. REPORTS X. COMMENTS XI. ADJOURN XII. NUISANCE ABATEMENT BOARD A. HEARINGS XIII. NEXT MEETING DATE-THURSDAY FEBRUARY 27, 2020 XIV.ADJOURN January 24, 2020 Page 2 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, everybody. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board to order. I'll start out by if you have a cell phone and it's turned on, you might want to turn the volume off on it. 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 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 hope you all understand that. We're going to have a test on that later on. I'd like everybody to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Helen, why don't you call the roll. MS. BUCHILLON: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. BUCHILLON: Mr. Robert Kaufman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Here. MS. BUCHILLON: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. BUCHILLON: Ms. Kathleen Elrod? MS. ELROD: Here. January 24, 2020 Page 3 MS. BUCHILLON: Mr. Ronald Doino? MR. DOINO: Present. MS. BUCHILLON: Ms. Chloe Bowman? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: She's out sick. MS. BUCHILLON: Okay. Mr. Herminio Ortega. MR. ORTEGA: Here. MS. BUCHILLON: And Sue Curley will be here soon. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sue Curley is -- to quote, she was behind some old geezer, so she's going to be a little late. And since I'm here already, it must be another old geezer. Okay. Do we have any changes on the agenda? MS. BUCHILLON: Yes, we do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Before we do that, anybody have any comments or changes on the minutes of the last meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, I'll take a motion to accept the minutes. MR. ORTEGA: I'll make a motion. MS. ELROD: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. ORTEGA: Second. MS. ELROD: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Pick. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) January 24, 2020 Page 4 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. MS. BUCHILLON: Okay. I'm ready. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I'm ready. MS. BUCHILLON: We have seven stipulations to start. First stipulation, No. 2 under hearings, CESD2019000726, Esterban Ramirez, Teresa M. Ramirez, and Ignacio Ramirez. Number 17 under hearings, CESD20180015180, James Clay. Number 21 under hearings, CESD20190011752, Roseanne Leising and Charles Leising. (Sue Curley is now present in the boardroom.) Number 4 under hearings, CESD20190000550, 12275 Collier Boulevard Land Trust. Number 8, CESD20180006585, Thelma A. Haynes. Number 9, CESD20190009150, Catherine Vidal. And, Number 16, CESD20190004530. Those are all the stipulations, but we also have withdrawns. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Those are stipulations, not withdrawn. MS. BUCHILLON: No, just stipulations. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Withdrawns? MS. BUCHILLON: And withdrawn we have, under public hearings, D, hearings, No. 3, CESD20190005177, has been withdrawn due to compliance efforts. Number 5 under hearings, CEOCC20190005207, Junior Rodriguez, has been withdrawn due to compliance efforts. Number 6 under hearings, CELU20190004630, Junior Rodriguez, has been withdrawn, due to the permit has been renewed. Number 12 under hearings, CELU201900010955, Jeanette Vassallo has been withdrawn. It has been abated. Number 13 under hearings, CELU20190004006, 2340 Davis Boulevard LLC, has been withdrawn due to it has been abated. January 24, 2020 Page 5 Number 18 under hearings, CEV20190013753, Mindi Revocable Trust, has been withdrawn due to compliance efforts. Number 19, CELU20190013752, Mindi Revocable Trust, has been withdrawn due to compliance efforts. Under old business, motion for imposition of fines, No. 5, CESD20180006559, Anthony J. Baldoni and Dana S. Valdoni, has been withdrawn due to compliance efforts. Number 6, CEPM20180014370, Milan Jovanovic, has been withdrawn due to compliance efforts. Number 10, CESD2018000835, Estancia US LLC, has been withdrawn due to compliance efforts. Number 11, CEPM20180011817, Jazen L. Allen and Maria L. Allen, has been withdrawn due to foreclosure. Number 12, CESD20160016422, Najeeb Ullah, has been withdrawn. It has been rescheduled for the next hearing. Number 16, CESD20170011136, has been withdrawn. It's also been scheduled for the next hearing. And those are all the withdrawns. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Can we get a motion from the Board to modify the agenda. MR. DOINO: Make a motion. MS. CURLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? January 24, 2020 Page 6 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Let the record show that Sue is now present. I guess she escaped from behind the old geezer; is that correct? MS. CURLEY: No. I was saying that you were the old geezer. You weren't answering your phone. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Grrr. MS. CURLEY: I wasn't following an old geezer. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You may be. Jeff, do you take offense to that? MR. LETOURNEAU: Not really, no. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We'll get you later. Sorry. Okay. We're going to start out with the stips? MS. BUCHILLON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: For the folks that are here in order, et cetera. MS. BUCHILLON: Yes, sir. First item on the agenda under hearings, No. 2, CESD20190007261, Esterban C. Ramirez, Teresa M. Ramirez, and Ignacio Ramirez. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could each one of you state your name on the microphone for the record. IGNACIO RAMIREZ: Ignacio Ramirez. MS. RAMIREZ: Maria Ramirez. AUGUSTINE RAMIREZ: And I'm Augustine Ramirez. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Steven, you want to read the stipulation into the record? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes, sir. Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: For the record, Steven Lopez-Silvero, January 24, 2020 Page 7 Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Pay operational costs in the amount of $59.28 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion and/or occupancy for a single-family dwelling and storage shed within 180 days of this hearing, or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I have a question. I understand the storage shed. Is it the entire residence that's unpermitted? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Looks like you have your work cut out for you. You have six months to get everything done. Is that enough time for you to get everything done that needs to be done? MS. RAMIREZ: Yes. I want to put my son for explain better because I can't speak too much English, and I want to tell him what he wants to say. In this case, I understand what all that he say for the house, and I apologize with everyone but I don't know I need to take permission for all this. January 24, 2020 Page 8 And the reasoning I came to take -- made the house is because I live in the mobile trailer. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Listen to your mother. Get up in front of the microphone and speak. AUGUSTINE RAMIREZ: So, basically, we live in a mobile home, and due to like 2004, 2005, with Hurricane Charley -- THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. AUGUSTINE RAMIREZ: Hurricane Charley and Hurricane Wilma, that mobile home was breaking apart. So -- but that's the reason why they started building the house, because the mobile home wasn't good anymore. And they didn't know they had a permit to start building. And in 2008, that's when they started doing it. And in May 2019, they found -- it was a contractor, Juan Barrera, to make blueprints for this case and, I guess, the house, and he's the one on the case now, which he's behind me. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I wonder if you should have sworn him in. I didn't know he was going to act as an interpreter. But you might want to do that. [Thereupon, AUGUSTINE RAMIREZ, the interpreter, was sworn to truly and correctly translate English into Spanish and Spanish into English.] CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So from what I understand -- correct me if I'm wrong, Steven -- you have a whole house with no building permit. No nothing. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And it's occupied? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's a problem. MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: I agree. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: There's no inspection on plumbing January 24, 2020 Page 9 or electrical, which is a safety and health, okay. You have a -- the contractor here? Okay. Why don't you swear him in. And he's here to testify, I'm assuming? (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. To begin with, can you state your name on the microphone. MR. BARRERA: Juan Barrera. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're a licensed contractor? MR. BARRERA: No, not a licensed contractor. We're preparing the engineering drawings for permitting, and I work with the engineer. So we're just doing the drawings so it can meet the -- MS. ELROD: Blueprints? MR. BARRERA: Yeah, to satisfy the permitting and bring everything up to code. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Now, this situation, you cannot go for a permit by affidavit. You're aware of that? MR. BARRERA: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Did I do that okay, Herminio? MR. ORTEGA: Excellent. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Resident expert. And you're preparing the paperwork to submit to get the permit? MR. BARRERA: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And once that has been submitted, do you have any estimate, or that's not your bailiwick how long it's going to take to get this house permitted? MR. BARRERA: No, I don't have an exact scheduled date or anything like that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Not a particular date. But this case, the stipulation shows six months. So do you feel confident that, from what you know, that this could be done in six months? January 24, 2020 Page 10 MR. BARRERA: Honestly, I think it would take longer. But we could aim for six months and then come back and either have a better, closer idea to what date or an idea for closer to completion or having -- what we're aiming to do is get away from the structure that's there now and construct a new addition and then move forward with that into the new addition. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You are correct. You can -- I mean, we could grant six months. You could come back in five months and say, we've done A, B, C, and D, and we need some time to finish D, E, and F, whatever it is. MR. BARRERA: That's what we would like. If it's -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, at this hearing we're only here to discuss A, B, C. MR. BARRERA: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: In other words, the amount of time that is granted on that. What confuses me on this -- and I'll go back to Steven -- is I don't know if this residence should be occupied. MS. CURLEY: I have a question about No. 2 also. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: Well, the gentleman just spoke about the possibility of doing a new structure and then something after that, but not involving the current structure. So No. 2 just covers the current structure. So it has to be demoed or permitted in six months whether or not he -- whether you build a new structure there is outside of the parameters of this case. So I'm just confused. If you know that you can't get a permit by affidavit, what -- is the blueprints for a new house, or is it for the existing house? MR. BARRERA: It's for the new and updating the existing. So it's updating the existing with updated codes. MS. CURLEY: I understand. MR. BARRERA: Meeting the new codes or whatever codes. January 24, 2020 Page 11 MS. CURLEY: Any code? MR. BARRERA: Yeah. So... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: As far as the inspections are concerned, whatever's being done to the house it has to eventually, according to this stipulation, be done in six months. MS. CURLEY: Well, I just feel like this is setting them up to fail, and then it's going to start accruing a fine at 180 days of $100 a day, and then you're just stuck there. MR. ORTEGA: The layout of this whole infrastructure, I mean, do you have a single-family residence on the property? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: There is. MR. ORTEGA: And you have a trailer on the property? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: Single-wide mobile home was removed and replaced with the current dwelling that's there. MR. ORTEGA: Okay. And then we spoke about an addition? MR. BARRERA: Yes. MR. ORTEGA: How does that come into play? MR. BARRERA: It's a large family, so the addition will accommodate the entire family. It was -- I think the mobile home was torn down or removed due to hurricane damage and damage to the mobile home. So they moved into the -- to a structure that was there, and they turned -- it got turned into a home somehow. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I mean, you mentioned hurricane that goes back almost 10 years ago. MR. LEFEBVRE: No, 16. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sixteen years ago? Oh, excuse me. Charley was 16. That's besides the point. We're here on the stipulation. We're not here to hear the case. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: My concern is granting a stipulation on a house, a structure, that may or may not be safe, because there are January 24, 2020 Page 12 no inspections that have been done on this house, and it's occupied. That's my concern right now, whether we should even have a motion to accept this. I don't know. Jeff, do you have any thoughts on this? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah. For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. I don't know the financial situation of the family. I imagine if we told them that they had to evacuate the house -- and I'm looking at the house right now and, you know, I know looks don't mean everything when it comes to utilities, but it looks pretty good, I've got to say. So making them move out of the house while this thing is getting CO'ed might be too much of a hardship for them. I don't know. I'd like to weigh the factors on that, you know. MR. ORTEGA: So there's no dangling wires, in other words? MR. LETOURNEAU: No. You know, I mean, if -- you don't normally put pictures up there on a stip, but if you guys wanted to take a quick look at it, we could look at it, I guess, if they have no objection. MR. ORTEGA: The house has been there for 16 years. So another six months or eight months -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah, he's talking about -- he was talking about Charley and Wilma, which was 2005. So, yeah, I mean. It hasn't -- it survived Irma, so -- I can't say if the electric's any good or not, but this is the first time I looked at the house, and I was amazed at how nice it looked, to be honest with you. MS. CURLEY: Did they build it themself -- did he build it himself? MR. LOPEZ-SILVERO: They did. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That doesn't matter actually. You can do home building, but you have to have a permit. MS. CURLEY: No, I just wanted to know if somebody else January 24, 2020 Page 13 helped him, because whoever helped him obviously -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to accept the stipulated agreement. MS. ELROD: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I guess if it's okay -- the county feels it's okay at this point, then I can support the motion. MR. LETOURNEAU: I feel that it's withstood the test of time so far. You know, another six months, I feel confident that we'll be okay with this. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. You know that in six months -- before six months if you don't have a CO, you need to come back here and let us know the progress, that a building permit has been pulled, there have been inspections A, B, C or whatever it is, so that the fines don't start to accrue, okay? IGNACIO RAMIREZ: Agree. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you. MS. RAMIREZ: Thank you. MS. BUCHILLON: Next, imposition of fines [sic], No. 17. CESD20180015180, James Clay. We also have a speaker on this. January 24, 2020 Page 14 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have the slip. Okay. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You may want to move that microphone a little bit over and state your name for the record, please. MR. CLAY: James Clay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you're going to read the stipulation into the record? MR. PITURA: I am. Good morning. For the record, Thomas Pitura, Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Pay all operational costs in the amount of $59.28 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Two, abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, certificates of completion/occupancy for the interior demolition and required remodeling and/or remove such structure or improvements including materials from the property within 180 days of this hearing, or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Three, the respondent shall notify the Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; Four, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a public speaker on this. Maybe we should hear the public speaker first, and then we go to the respondent. MR. PITURA: Okay. We have Mike Giovanone. He is a January 24, 2020 Page 15 neighbor. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. I'm sure we can share the mic. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you move that microphone down and state your name? MR. GIOVANONE: My name is Michael Giovanone, and I reside at 180 Pago Pago Drive West, directly next door to the subject property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. GIOVANONE: As I've stated, I've lived next door to this property since 2013, and I know the property well. The former owner of the property, Damon Kronk, and I were neighbors for approximately six years. This house is in deplorable condition. I have forwarded several photos -- set of photos to all the departments in Collier County. And what is going on with this house, the drains are completely collapsed underneath the house, which is why Mr. Kronk had to drill holes through the walls to vent his sinks, his bathroom sinks, his tub, so on and so forth. The main drain under the effluent line does not work. The septic system was literally popping out of the ground after Irma. The house is completely embedded with black mold. I have forwarded several photos of this. It is -- I've heard you, Mr. Chairman, state safety and health comments prior in the first hearing. The safety and health of even the workers that would be near this house would be very, very severe. There's mold. There's rats. There's deplorable conditions throughout this home and the surrounding two homes that Mr. Clay is the absentee landlord on. I invite you to come and take a look at these properties. We are asking that Mr. Clay, myself and the neighbors, be held January 24, 2020 Page 16 to the same rules and regulations that we were held to in renovating our properties and building new. If Mr. Clay is allowed to restore this property under the FEMA regulation, it will detract and it will be a detriment to the values of all of our properties. This house is assessed, the improved structure, at $140,000, divided by 2, plus 20 percent, is $84,000. That's your law; $80,000 less a $30,000-plus roof, chimney extraction, the gutting of this entire home. I invite you to take a look at the photos that all of your departments have had for several months. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me stop you for one second. MR. GIOVANONE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We -- typically, on a stipulation we don't get into the photos, et cetera. MR. GIOVANONE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If the stipulation is not accepted, then it goes a hearing where all of that comes to play. MR. GIOVANONE: Understood. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. GIOVANONE: Thank you, sir. There's been gutting, which the county issued a Stop Work Order on, because that's just the way things are done over there. There's gutting. There's demo. There was a crew in there for a month. You had several dumpsters, labor. You had a new HVAC system installed. Screen porch, windows, and doors. Clear to say that at least one half of this $84,000 has been spent. It's beyond logic that there's any possibility that a 2,000-square-foot home that is latent with mold and completely gutted to the blocks which needs new plumbing, new wiring, new drainage, new septic, can be renovated for 40-or $45,000. It is in a flood plain. I have forwarded photos of one foot of water during Irma, which was five feet above the dock level, flowing January 24, 2020 Page 17 in the back door, out the front door of this home. I'm asking the Board not to set a precedent for absentee landlords to be able to come into neighborhoods where everyone works so hard on their properties to collect rent. Please come over and take a look at all three of these properties, especially 184, the one that we are here today to speak of. They are in deplorable conditions, and for one moment I would just ask, if you do come over and take a look to make believe that you live next door. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Jeff? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah. Mr. Giovanone, is that -- we spoke yesterday on the phone, and I basically laid out -- he laid out his concerns like he did today, and I told him that the Board really was here for two things: To find a violation and to set a correction date. I think that the stuff that he's talking about here -- and I did tell him to call -- if he had concerns, to call Jonathan Walsh and discuss this with the Building and Zoning Department, because you guys aren't really here to direct the property owner how he's going to correct this. That would be up to that -- those departments right there. You're just here to find a violation and set a time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Typically, when you have a stipulation, that is the acknowledgment that it's in violation. MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. And, you know, he does have some valid concerns, and I think that he would well be within his right to call Jonathan Walsh and voice those concerns and make sure that the Building Department is aware of all those issues there so they are able to evaluate the permits that Mr. Clay applies for. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And I want to hear from the respondent, but I think what is being asked of the Board from the public speaker is to not approve a stipulation but to send it down the January 24, 2020 Page 18 road for the county to take a closer look at that. Am I -- MR. GIOVANONE: In speaking with -- and being in contact with Mr. Walsh yesterday, what -- my request is simple. I'm asking that they are not -- the Board protect our residents from -- I don't know how to say this, but estimates of repair that may not be valid, because we all know that game. And this house cannot be repaired for 40,000. It can't be repaired for 140,000. Everyone in this room knows that. And I'm asking the Board to protect the value of all of our homes from an absentee landlord who collects rent. Please come over and take a look. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Let me go to the respondent, and we'll go from there, and then we'll discuss it. MR. GIOVANONE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sir. Mr. Clay? MR. CLAY: Thank you. Let me start out by saying, I didn't want to really talk about what he's talking about. I wanted to talk about the permit that we haven't gotten and should have. The one statement I'll make about what he has said right now is his main objective is to tear the place down. That's his main thing. He's going to tell you about all these things, mold, rats, deplorable. I've heard it all before. Anyway, let me get on to what I want to say. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can I ask one side question? MR. CLAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is the structure occupied? MR. CLAY: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. CLAY: No, it is not. I purchased the structure at a short sale -- not a short sale, but an auction here at the county house on April -- approximately April 12th, 2018. This house had been owned for 10 years by an individual who didn't pay his mortgage, got double mortgages on it, and then finally January 24, 2020 Page 19 the house had to be sold. It was jam-packed. The garage was almost to the ceiling of junk that he had collected. Basically, he was a hoarder. Now, Mr. Giovanone said he's lived there since 2013. So that gave him seven years to live next to this individual. And if it was such a problem then, he should have raised this problem at that time. It is not our intent to have anything that's dilapidated or deplorable, as he's saying. It is our idea to get a permit, get the proper permits, which we know about now, to fix it up. It needs a new kitchen, two new bathrooms, and then decorations on the inside. As far as rats and so forth, I haven't seen any, and there wasn't any indication of them. So we're asking for the 60-day -- or six month, I think it is -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One hundred eighty days, yes. MR. CLAY: Yeah. We're asking for that. And I've had problems. I was relying on a contractor to make the proper permits, and he's been pulling that together, but he is so busy now he's backed out of it. I have a meeting Monday morning at 10:30 with Renald Paul, and we're going to go through that to see how to properly get the permit in and get it in. We do have some quotes as far as what we have to do, and we feel confident we can achieve what has to be done. To say that we're not interested in keeping the place nice, I just put in a new seawall, and the next thing will be the dock will be repaired, and that will be done. So the place has been cleaned up. I have a picture that I took off Google Earth. It's an old picture, but if you look at it, there's a lot of grass, a lot of foliage, trees. Now that's all gone. The grass has been killed off. The trees -- there were two trees that were dead. They've been removed. So how they got from here to there, I don't know. But I respectfully ask that you do approve the permit or the January 24, 2020 Page 20 request. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Stipulation. MR. CLAY: -- the stipulation and that we will abide by that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Shoot. MS. CURLEY: So this case has been opened since 2018. Was it opened before or after April of 2018? MR. PITURA: No. I first inspected the property in December of 2018. MS. CURLEY: Okay. So somebody mentioned a stop work. So there's never been any permits pulled on what's taken place? MR. PITURA: Well, the Stop Work Order is by contractor's licensing. There was a complaint that the contractor was working in it without a license. They had turned it over to us. So that's when I first inspected the property in December. MR. CLAY: Can I interject one other thing here? We purchased the place in 2018, and then there was a lawsuit, and it went to mediation. And that was settled finally in July, around July 30th of 2019. So during that time they put a restriction on doing anything with the building, so we couldn't do anything, and we haven't done anything other than repair windows and some screens since then. I'm frustrated with it. And I feel my hands were tied during that period, and the other things happened. But, anyway, we want to get moving forward on it if we can, so... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Jeff, you wanted to talk? MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, just to get to Sue's question, there's no current permits applied for for this violation. MR. ORTEGA: Well, I have a question that hasn't been brought up. Have you been inside the house? January 24, 2020 Page 21 MR. PITURA: I have. MR. ORTEGA: The mold issue, is that real? MR. PITURA: Okay. If we were to observe the pictures -- I'm not a mold specialist, but I didn't see anything that was striking me that there was a huge problem with mold. Again, I'm not a specialist. I can't answer -- MR. ORTEGA: There's two issues here: The 50-percent rule and substantial improvement. And I would suggest that these people with the building official can establish that off the bat before you -- MR. CLAY: I can -- we have met with Mason, Mr. Mason, Chris Mason on the 50-percent rule, and we are aware of that, and we feel we can meet those. MR. ORTEGA: That's only one. There's another one called substantial improvement. If the scope of the work involves greater than 50 percent of the structure, then that pushes you into substantial improvement. And what that does is if you're in a flood zone, now you have to meet the new criteria, which is BFE plus one. Base flood elevation plus one. As long as you don't have to go there, then the 50-percent rule applies for FEMA, you're right. But I would check that out before going too further into it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me see if I can summarize where we are. For whatever reason, the county has come up with a stipulation that they thought would be in order. MS. CURLEY: I think it's a generous stipulation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well -- and the way to remedy that is to not vote from a board perspective for the stipulation. So we are in a position where the public speaker has laid out a pretty thorough identification. We're not finding -- if we accept the stipulation, that is proof of guilt. Personally, I'm not in favor of finding guilt at this stage until we hear from the Building Department. So I think this is a case that cries January 24, 2020 Page 22 out to be heard, not a stipulation. I agree with you, Sue. Any other comments from the Board? MS. CURLEY: I'll make a motion to reject the stipulation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? I'll second it. MS. CURLEY: Even if there was one -- are we in discussion? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, discussion on the motion. MS. CURLEY: If there is one, I'm being very generous by offering that this has been sitting for a year. He says he's somewhat had his hands tied and went ahead with work that, you know, wasn't -- didn't have a permit anyways. It's been a year and one month. So I think giving somebody another six months is way too generous. I mean, if there's a stipulation, then it would be like -- like 60 days. The meeting with Renald Paul is going to be all illuminating for him. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, my comment on this is, having been through something akin to this, if the septic is no good, that blows -- Herminio, I'm sure you'll agree -- that blows this completely out of the water. To put in a new septic system, if the pipes don't work, the cost of that is going to be prohibitive. But in any case, any other comments from the Board on Sue's motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: We're not here to micromanage what he does, how he does it. What we need to do is come up with something that we could all agree upon. And I think, again, six months is too long. The structure has been like this for way too long. So I think we should go to a hearing. Unfortunately, if the speaker only has one set of pictures, those have to be entered into evidence if we look at them. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. So, Herminio, do you have any comments? January 24, 2020 Page 23 MR. LEFEBVRE: Bring it to a vote. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All those in favor of Sue's motion to deny the stipulation, say aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Those opposed? MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So the stipulation is not accepted. I would suggest that the respondent meets with Renald Paul and go from there and see if he's in a position to take care of this. MR. LEFEBVRE: We're going to hear the case today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's up to the county. Jeff, are we prepared -- MR. LETOURNEAU: We are prepared to hear the case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Are you prepared to present if we hear the case instead of a stipulation today? MR. CLAY: The case? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: In other words, there's a violation. MR. CLAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It came before you met with the county. The county provided a remedy to bring before the Board to see if we would accept the remedy, and the remedy was to grant six months. After six months, $100 fine. That proposal from the county to the Board has been rejected. So now -- MR. CLAY: I understand. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- we can hear the case. Are you prepared to hear the case today? The county is. January 24, 2020 Page 24 MR. CLAY: I'm not sure that I understand what's involved with hearing -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well -- MR. CLAY: -- the case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- at that time, if we hear the case, all the pictures that can be provided, all the pictures that you have and any testimony relative to this case will be heard. MR. CLAY: No, I don't think so from this standpoint. I think everything he has spoken about is kind of hearsay, and there's no evidence. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That would be discussed at the hearing. MR. CLAY: Right. And you're going to have the hearing now? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We can. I'm asking you. MR. CLAY: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're not ready? MR. CLAY: I think this -- if I'm going to have a case of a hearing, I will have a lawyer present. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. CLAY: I would prefer that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Jeff? MR. LETOURNEAU: The county has no objection. We'd just reschedule it for next month if that would be okay for Mr. Clay. MR. CLAY: I have one situation where I will be out of the country next month, unless I can get out of it. MR. LETOURNEAU: Is that the whole month? MR. CLAY: Yes. It's a cruise that we're on and -- MR. ORTEGA: Is there any life-safety issues here? MR. CLAY: No. MR. LETOURNEAU: Not that we know of. MR. PITURA: No. No one's living in the house, and I don't January 24, 2020 Page 25 believe there's any health or safety issues. MR. ORTEGA: Is there a pool involved? MR. PITURA: No. MR. LEFEBVRE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Typically, when a case is in stipulation and is not agreed upon, it goes to hearing that day. The respondent should be aware that it could go to hearing. MS. CURLEY: I agree. MR. LEFEBVRE: I don't think we should make any changes in our procedure. That's how we do it. If it's not agreed upon, it goes to hearing. And I don't see why this is any different. We took the evidence from the speaker and from the investigator to deny this, and not to move forward is saying that there's not enough evidence. So I think we should move forward with the case today. That's what we've done for years. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: I'm not opposed to that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm not opposed to it either. Okay. Well, the only thing I will say is I would prefer to move the case back in our agenda to give the respondent some time to get his thoughts together or whatever. MR. LEFEBVRE: It's heard during -- when -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: During the hearings. MR. LEFEBVRE: During hearings, No. 17. MR. PITURA: Mr. Kaufman, we have a member of the county here, Chris Mason from FEMA, who's to speak on the 50-percent rule for more of an understanding. I don't know his particular schedule. Mr. Mason? MR. LEFEBVRE: I don't think that's relevant. MR. PITURA: Okay. January 24, 2020 Page 26 MR. LEFEBVRE: If there's a violation, there's a violation. How it's corrected or -- via demo or repair. MS. CURLEY: Right. Gerald, if this man's here to support the county and to hear -- during the case, he's just being mindful of this gentleman's schedule. I mean, obviously, he's here now, but he might not be able to be here at 1:00 if No. 17 doesn't get called until 1:00; that's what he's saying. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Chris, are you going to be around? (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have time today? MR. MASON: I have a meeting here at 3:00 this afternoon. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: That's what I was -- MS. CURLEY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we're going to hear this on the hearing schedule when it comes due. Okay? Okay? Okay. MR. CLAY: What does that mean? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right now we're doing stipulations. MR. CLAY: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay? We had a bunch of them. When we're done with the stipulations, we go to the hearings, and the hearings are heard -- first of all, people that are here, we hear those first. So we're going to go in order, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, whatever it is, for hearings. So your case is No. 17, but there are quite a few that were in before yours that are going to be dismissed. So it won't be that long. There's -- let's see -- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 -- seven cases will be heard under hearings, if they're here, ahead of hearing your case, which is on our agenda, No. 17. MR. LETOURNEAU: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. January 24, 2020 Page 27 MR. LETOURNEAU: I would like to question the Board's attorney and get his opinion on -- the gentleman already stated that he would like some legal representation. He -- I just don't want to rush this case and then have a technicality come up or they bring it to the Circuit Court later on and this gets overturned, I would really like the gentleman to have a full representation if he'd like. So, you know, I understand the hurry to get this to, you know, fruition, but I'd like to hear Mr. Schnek's opinion on this, if possible. MR. SCHNEK: Sure. This case was noticed as a public hearing. The stipulation, as I understand it, was negotiated and signed on the 21st; however, within the notice, and as you -- the Board has indicated, it is the policy and -- to go ahead and either approve the stipulation or deny the stipulation and then go forth at that hearing on the merits of the case. Now, that is board policy and that is a discretion of the Board. In this case, I believe it was properly notified for a public hearing on this matter. So if the Board decides to move forward today, I believe you will be on solid legal grounds if there is any challenge; however, given the county's recommendation, the respondent's testimony, I would advise you give deference to the county when they're making that request. But, again, it is the discretion of the Board whether or not to hold a hearing today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Does that answer your question, Jeff? MR. LETOURNEAU: It does. I'm just not -- the county's not comfortable, but we're prepared to hear the case if everything seems aboveboard. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, there are remedies. If the case goes in the direction that is not palatable to the respondent, there are opportunities to appeal it. MR. LETOURNEAU: Fair enough. January 24, 2020 Page 28 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So we're going to hear this case during hearings in its slotted time frame, okay? Okay. You want to talk to Jeff? Jeff, you want to speak to the respondent outside to explain this further? MR. LETOURNEAU: Sure. MR. PITURA: I'm up next. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You are, troublemaker. MS. BUCHILLON: Next stipulation, No. 21, CESD20190011752, Roseanne Leising and Charles Leising. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Could you state your name on the microphone for us. You can pull it down instead of trying to stretch. There you go. MS. LEISING: Roseanne Leising L-e-i-s-i-n-g, Hogle, H-o-g-l-e. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You want to read the stipulation into the record. MR. PITURA: Yes, sir. Good morning. For the record, Thomas Pitura, Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondents shall: One, pay all operational costs in the amount of 59.28 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Two, abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy for removal of the interior drywall of the mobile home and new roof of the carport within 60 days of this hearing, or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Three, respondent must notify the Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator January 24, 2020 Page 29 perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; Four, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation by using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning. MS. LEISING: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So do you think 60 days is enough to take care of everything that needs to be taken care of? MS. LEISING: I'm hoping, with my health. That has been our issue right from the beginning. When my brother and I purchased the property, we immediately -- the mold that was inside -- it was actually more termite damage, so we had paneling -- it's an old -- and we just pulled the paneling out, pulled the wet insulation. And our carport was partially torn off. And this was my mistake. I went according to Irma's rules, not according -- I'm sorry -- Wilma's rules. And my brother and I just repaired what was there. I am a roofer. I'm a janitor. I was a contractor back in Buffalo. So that's kind of simple for me. So -- but we've -- in our community in Henderson Creek Park, we've had a lot of problems with bullies and people that come in and do as they please. Well, we've had a neighbor that has come in, and he's done as he's pleased. Well, I finally turned him into code. Since that day, he has turned me in approximately eight, nine times of my house. Then he went onto this property. The day it was put into my name -- I was making payments to the gentleman. I had taken care of the house for 40 years. I've lived in here, and it's like my life. When my brother passed away, I was full time. And I'm kind of like the queen bitch in the park. Well, I don't tolerate anything, and January 24, 2020 Page 30 he knows that. I don't tolerate anything. I have a son with special needs. I'm a widow of five years. My son is severely disabled, and everyone knows it in the park, and we just have bullies that have come in. They have six properties, and they've gutted theirs and redone it. Well, once this was in my name, he went over there and went on the property, took pictures. Then he turned me in for that. He turned me in for a boat that we just put there, and I had to get permits. And he just breaks all the rules. Since then, he's called the police on me at my house. It's just -- the rules don't apply to him. And, I'm sorry, we have to follow rules. And my other home is -- and I've done a lot of work on my other home, and it's all in compliance with code. This home, whatever we need to do, we'll do accordingly. I mean, that's -- but I've had, like -- just in the last two years, I've had seven heart attacks. So I've been dealing with that and my son, and I am self-employed. So my intention is to get the permits in, whatever needs to be done in the next 60 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The answer to my question is yes? MS. LEISING: Yes. But, no, you need to know the park, because this is ugly, you know. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody from the Board have any comments or would like to make a motion? MR. ORTEGA: I'll make a motion to approve the 60 days. MR. DOINO: 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. January 24, 2020 Page 31 MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Good luck to you. Stop breaking the law, and -- MS. LEISING: I'm a New Yorker. I don't break laws, sorry. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm from New York also. I don't believe you. MS. LEISING: No. Raised Roman Catholic. Trust me. God scares me, and you scare me more. Thank you very much. MS. BUCHILLON: The next stipulation, No. 4, CESD20190000550, 1227 Collier Boulevard Land Trust. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. FUENTES: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. FUENTES: For the record, Code Enforcement Investigator John Fuentes. Unfortunately, the property owner, Jose Nunes, could not attend today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. FUENTES: However, yesterday afternoon I did manage to meet with the property owner in regards to Case No. CESD20190000550, and we came to an agreement with a stipulation which reads as follows: Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: One, pay the operational costs in the amount of $59.28 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; January 24, 2020 Page 32 Abate all violations by obtaining all the required Collier County building permits for the unpermitted drop ceiling or obtain a demolition permit to restore to its original permitted state, request that all related inspections and obtain certificate of completion or occupancy within 60 days of this hearing, or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Three, that the respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of the abatement of violation and request that the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; Four, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, that the county may abate it -- abate the violation by using any method to bring the violation into compliance and use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of the abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think you should be a radio announcer with your voice. MR. FUENTES: Thank you. MS. CURLEY: Or a quarterback. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The party agreed to the time frame? MR. FUENTES: Yes, sir, they did. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: Just one question. Is this commercial property? MR. FUENTES: It is a commercial property. They've had some difficulties with the permit. You know, we try to work with them for the voluntary compliance and education, and they just had a few hiccups on the way. Their permit was denied a few times. They didn't pass their inspections, but they're willing to get a demo permit now and remove the violation, so... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody like to make a January 24, 2020 Page 33 motion? MR. DOINO: Make a motion to accept as written. MS. ELROD: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to approve and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. FUENTES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Or should I say thank you? MS. BUCHILLON: Next stipulation, No. 8, CESD20180006585, Thelma A. Haynes. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. TORRES: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. Let the record show the respondent is not present. And this is your first case in front of Code Enforcement. MR. TORRES: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We'll have a party for you later. Okay. MR. TORRES: Good morning. Investigator Junior Torres, Collier County Code Enforcement. January 24, 2020 Page 34 This is in reference to CESD20180006585. The property owner is in Gainesville due to a medical emergency. She agreed to the stipulation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. TORRES: Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Pay all operational costs in the amount of 59.21 incurred in this prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Two, abate all violations by obtaining all Collier County building permits or demolition permits and request all inspections through certificate of completion/occupancy for the addition made to the property within 60 days of this hearings, or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until all violations are abated; Three, respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 days [sic] of abatement of the violation and request the investigator to perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; Four, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff's Department to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of the abatement be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So it's going to take two months to do it. You don't see that to be a problem? MR. TORRES: She's already had a demo permit. She just left it in rejected status so -- it's been going on since 2018, so -- another investigator had it, so it got to me, and I'm just like, I'm not dealing with it, so... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the Board? Any motion from the Board? MR. DOINO: Make a motion. January 24, 2020 Page 35 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Excuse me? One comment. Hold on one second. MR. ORTEGA: Does she need to get a demo? MR. TORRES: Yeah. She pulled a building permit, but then -- because she added, like, a rear structure to her house and her laundry room. She added, like, a bathroom and a toilet, and then she couldn't have the funds to get it permitted through contractor and all this, so then she pulled a demo permit to get it off, but then she just let the permit sit, so... MR. ORTEGA: Thank you. MR. TORRES: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Now your motion. MR. DOINO: Make a motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: To accept? MR. DOINO: To accept the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? MS. ELROD: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. TORRES: Thank you. MS. BUCHILLON: Next stipulation, No. 9, January 24, 2020 Page 36 CESD20190009150, Catherine Vidal. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. VIDAL: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name on the microphone for us. MS. VIDAL: Catherine Vidal. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Have you been sworn? (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You didn't swear the shorty -- short person. THE COURT REPORTER: I believe him. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You believe him. Okay. Good morning. MS. GUY: Good morning. For the record, Paula Guy, Collier County Code Enforcement. Stipulation agreement. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Pay operational costs in the amount of 59.28 incurred in this prosecution of this case within 30 days; Number 2, to abate all violations, they must obtain all required Collier County building permits or demolition permits and request all inspections through certificate of completion/occupancy for described structure alteration within 60 days of this hearing, or a fine of $150 a day will be imposed until violation is abated; The respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; Number 4, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, January 24, 2020 Page 37 and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you have any problem meeting the date? MS. VIDAL: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. MR. GRINER: We have a meeting with him Monday. THE COURT REPORTER: Your name? MR. GRINER: Oh, Brandon Griner (phonetic). We have a meeting with Renaldo? MS. GUY: Renald Paul. We were able to secure a meeting this morning for him on this Monday. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. It's an above-the-ground pool. It's not a safety problem? MR. GRINER: It has a removable ladder. It's grounded. I don't think that's the term anymore, though. There's another term. MR. ORTEGA: It is. MR. GRINER: Bonded. So it's up to code. It has of the hurricane pad. It's up to code. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We're looking out for him. Okay. Any comments or motions from the Board? MS. ELROD: Motion to accept. MS. CURLEY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second to accept. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. January 24, 2020 Page 38 MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Good luck. MS. GUY: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Enjoy your pool. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. It's a little chilly this time of the year, but... MS. BUCHILLON: Ready? We're going to start off first item on the agenda under public hearings under hearings, No. 7. MR. LEFEBVRE: One more stipulation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sixteen was withdrawn. MS. BUCHILLON: I'm sorry. We have one more stipulation. Number 16 under public hearings, CESD20190004530, Penny J. Estes and Timothy W. Estes. Did I say it right? MS. ESTES: That's good. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name on the microphone for us, please. MS. ESTES: Penny Estes. MR. ESTES: Timothy Estes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. HOLMES: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. HOLMES: All right. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties -- Bradley Holmes, Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: One, pay operational costs in the amount of $59.28 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; January 24, 2020 Page 39 Two, abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, certificate of occupancy and completion for the unpermitted air conditioning system, improvements to the existing electrical, and unpermitted plumbing within 90 days of this hearing or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Three, the respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; Four, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of the abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I have one question for you. You had a contractor do this, didn't you? MR. ESTES: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You didn't do this yourself? MR. ESTES: I had someone help. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Which is the -- I don't know if you need a license if you're doing it on your own stuff. MR. ORTEGA: Is this a condo or a house? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is this a house or a condo? THE HUSBAND: It's a detached garage. MR. ORTEGA: On a single-family property? MR. ESTES: On a single-family property. MR. HOLMES: Yes. MR. ORTEGA: He can perform the work himself as long as -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ORTEGA: -- the name on that deed or the name on the appraiser's is yours and not an LLC, trust, or a corporation. If not, January 24, 2020 Page 40 then you need a contractor. MS. ESTES: It's ours. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, it looks like it's in their name. MR. ORTEGA: You're good. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Ninety days to get this done. Any problems doing that? MR. ESTES: I'm confident we can comply with the agreement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any questions or motions from the Board? MR. DOINO: Make a motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: To? MR. DOINO: Accept it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second to accept the stipulation as written. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you very much. MR. ESTES: Thank you. MS. BUCHILLON: Okay. I'm sorry for that. We're back under hearings, No. 7, CEPM20190009270, Keith G. Purdy and Darlene Purdy. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. January 24, 2020 Page 41 MR. PURDY: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name on the microphone for us. MR. PURDY: Keith Purdy. MS. PURDY: Darlene Purdy. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. What a coincidence. They had the same last name. Okay. John? MR. JOHNSON: Good morning. For the record, John Johnson, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CEPM20190009270 dealing with violation of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22-236, specifically an overhanging roof that is in a complete state of disrepair and is failing, has been deemed to be a dangerous structure by the county Building Department. The structure is located at 2965 Lunar Street, Naples, Florida, 34112; Folio No. 53353080009. Service was given on October 8th, 2019. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen the exhibits? MR. JOHNSON: They have. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any objection to those? MR. PURDY: No, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Could we get a motion from the board to accept? MR. DOINO: Motion to accept. MR. ORTEGA: Second. January 24, 2020 Page 42 MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. JOHNSON: The property information and the aerial shows this is an improved property in the Bayshore area. I have five photos taken by me on July 31st, 2019, and then the last photo I took yesterday. And you can see it's an overhanging roof structure. And if you scroll through, you'll see there's some damage. There's some structural issues, if you will. And also in my evidence I have a copy of the dangerous structure building determination from Mr. Walsh. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ORTEGA: Did he suggest wearing hardhats? MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. MR. LETOURNEAU: This was yesterday's picture, John? MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir; at the end, yes. Do you want to see the dangerous building structure determination or -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, we believe you. MR. JOHNSON: As you have seen, this roof extension, slash, carport area is in major disrepair. On September 26th, 2019, the building official identified five dangerous structural conditions that must be remedied, and to date there has been no permitting activities. And these conditions and the January 24, 2020 Page 43 violation still exist. And I'll also add for the Board, there are other issues at this property that they have resolved, but this one is remaining. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you've had conversations with the respondents? MR. JOHNSON: Yes, I have. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And they said? MR. JOHNSON: Well, I'll let them tell you. They have a plan, and I thought they might present that to you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Okay. You're done. Okay. Good morning. MR. PURDY: Good morning. MS. PURDY: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you have a plan. MR. PURDY: Yes. Our goal is to sell the property. We've been talking to some developers who have been buying in the area. And the place would be tore down if they bought it, because it's a double lot, and they're building a lot of new homes in there. And that's our plan. We'd like six months to get it on the market and talk to some developers and get it sold. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So so far you haven't listed it with anybody? MR. PURDY: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are you trying to sell it yourself or with a -- MR. PURDY: That's what we're going to try first, yes. There's a couple developers that have been buying pretty heavy in the area. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And how much time do you think you need to do that? MR. PURDY: We would like at least six months to do that. We are living in the home. The home itself is decent. The carport has January 24, 2020 Page 44 gotten bad. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The carport's indecent. Okay. The first thing we need to do is find out if a violation exists. MR. ORTEGA: Make a motion that a violation does exist. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. 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. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. Now we go to your suggestion for us. MR. JOHNSON: Suggestion. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $59.21 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: One, obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy for the overhanging roof/carport within X number of days of this hearing, or a fine of X dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Number 2, the respondent must modify the Code Enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. January 24, 2020 Page 45 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. Any discussion from the Board? MS. CURLEY: I just have a discussion. So you said you had a plan, but you did not share that with us. MR. PURDY: Well, we're going to -- MS. PURDY: Demolish it. MR. PURDY: Have it demolished either ourselves or sell it to a developer that will, and we will stipulate to him that it has to be demolished. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that the roof or the whole house? MR. PURDY: The whole house. It sits on both lots, and the property has actually become more valuable than the home itself, the two lots. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Kathy, you have a comment? MS. ELROD: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No? Any comments from Herminio? MR. ORTEGA: I do have an issue with the carport. You've seen it? MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. MR. ORTEGA: It doesn't seem like it's safe to walk under, or is it? MR. JOHNSON: That's a great question. It survived Irma. I hate to use that as a benchmark, but there is wood rot. There is structural -- they're aware of -- they're very much aware of it. And, January 24, 2020 Page 46 of course, the building official determined it to be unsafe. MR. ORTEGA: So having that determination, shouldn't that be cordoned off? Just a thought. MR. JOHNSON: If that's something the Board can order. I don't know. We don't have the power to order that, right? MR. LETOURNEAU: The Board could order that if they so deem. MS. CURLEY: I guess what I thought with your plan -- I understand what you're hoping to do, but I thought maybe the plan would be, like, back -- would back into the six-month request. Like, you're going to move out in two months, and -- you know, not that I want to plan your life, but at least actually have a plan. Having an idea to list it and sell it or demo, that's a lot of -- I don't see a schedule of things that back -- that reimburse the six-month request. MS. PURDY: Actually, it started when two vehicles need to be moved. And we sold a place to move back into this place to clean it up, which we complied with everything that was asked of us. And the part of the building that is gone is a little -- it's in the back part of that carport. So we need to live there. We have no other place to live right now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: My question is this: There's three realtors on this board right now. You could list this thing to sell it. It would probably take you no more than 15 minutes depending upon where you are. But you've come to the Board and say you need six months. I mean, had you said we listed the property, and when it sells, it sells or whatever. And then the other concern that I have is -- and we've come across this many times -- is you're selling something to somebody who is inheriting your violation. So I don't -- they're told to do a search on that. And if you're going to sell it to -- you don't know who it's going to get sold to. If it's sold to somebody that's building in the January 24, 2020 Page 47 area, I would think they're well aware of it. But right now you have a structure that's in violation, and it needs to be addressed. And I think six months is too far. MS. CURLEY: Well -- and then even if we do 30 days with $100 fine after 30 days, then that lessens the -- I mean, that's part of the transaction for you, so. I think maybe some -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I think we're here to have an issue or violation abated, not just pass it off to somebody else, number one. MR. ORTEGA: Agreed. MR. LEFEBVRE: Number two is they're going to list this for sale in the condition it's in, unsafe. Someone can walk in there, something can happen. So you're bringing more people on the property in a dangerous situation that they're aware of, and I'm not really comfortable with that. So I think six months is way too long. Something needs to be done. Tear down the carport in the meantime, whatever the case is, but I think it needs to be remedied in a much shorter time frame than six months. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How about that yellow tape that they wrap around -- you know what I'm talking about? -- to keep people out? MS. CURLEY: Do we just want to add a No. 3 to it? MR. LEFEBVRE: I don't think that -- just take care of the problem in whatever way in the period of time. Whatever way they do it, they do it. MS. CURLEY: All right. Well, I'll fill in the blank. Give them 60 days or $250 a day. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion that grants 60 days to resolve the problem, and $250 a day after that time. Discussion on the motion? January 24, 2020 Page 48 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'd like to say one thing to the respondents. If after 50 days you haven't sold the place, that's one thing. But if you've listed it and you've notified the people that you're selling it to that there's a violation and you come back and ask for additional time, that's a possibility. The way it is right now, and the -- I know that the county does inspections. What do they charge, $50 or something to do a code -- MR. LETOURNEAU: We don't do those anymore. Are you talking about the code enforcement, the property maintenance? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. MR. LETOURNEAU: No. We got out of that business. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's a good business. That's too bad. MR. LETOURNEAU: No, it's not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So that's the concern, that you're selling a violated property to somebody else who now, you're gone, they have the violation, and they'll come before the Board and ask the clock to start again, and that's just not going to happen. So we have the motion on the floor, $60, $250 -- 60 days, $250 fine. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. LEFEBVRE: $250 a day. January 24, 2020 Page 49 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: A day, yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just want to be clear. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you, John. We're going to take a break now for Ms. Fingers, and we'll be back in, I don't know, 10 minutes. (A brief recess was had from 10:26 a.m. to 10:39 a.m.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board back to order. Our next case is? MS. BUCHILLON: Number 14, CESD20190003646, Gary W. Stumbo. MS. ELROD: Did we miss 10? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Nobody's here. MS. BUCHILLON: Yeah, they're here. MR. SAUNDERS: Good morning, Board. Good morning, Board. I'm sorry. Mr. Stumbo is in the restroom. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He must be tired, okay. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Could you state your name on the microphone for us. MR. STUMBO: Gary Wayne Stumbo, S-t-u-m-b-o. MR. SAUNDERS: Gregory Saunders. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, John. MR. JOHNSON: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. JOHNSON: For the record, John Johnson, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20190003646 dealing with a violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as January 24, 2020 Page 50 amended, Section 10.02.06, subsection (b)(1)(a). Specifically, a carport has been constructed without the required Collier County permitting. This structure is located at 2748 Holly Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34112; Folio No. 50891360006. Service was given on May 13th, 2019. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen the exhibits? MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir, they have. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any objection to these pictures? MR. SAUNDERS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Board, could I get a motion to accept the exhibits. MR. ORTEGA: I'll make a motion to accept the exhibits as shown. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. January 24, 2020 Page 51 MR. JOHNSON: Okay. Thank you. The property information is shown there, and the aerial on the next slide, sir, shows that this is in the Holly Avenue area of Bayshore up at the end. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you zoom in on some of these pictures for an old geezer. Thank you. MR. JOHNSON: Two photos taken by me on July 19th, 2019. This is the carport structure. And then the last photo was taken by me yesterday. MR. LETOURNEAU: This one right here? MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. This carport was built without the required Collier County permitting. The building official determined that permitting is required. To date, there has been no permitting activity to get this carport approved or removed, but I need to amend that statement because they actually have begun that process, although no permit number has been obtained or issued yet. So they've started that process. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is this a carport that's built with the pipe frames and they throw tarps over the top? MR. JOHNSON: Well, there are steel pipe frames. This carport, I believe -- and Greg will tell you, I think it was built in the '60s. It's survived every hurricane that's come through. It's fairly rugged. So -- but it is -- MS. CURLEY: Just -- stand still on the pictures. MR. LETOURNEAU: Sorry. I apologize. MS. CURLEY: I'm getting dizzy. MR. JOHNSON: So, yeah. I believe those are steel poles, Gary? Those are steel poles. MR. SAUNDERS: That's correct. MR. JOHNSON: Yeah. So -- and it's just not permitted. There January 24, 2020 Page 52 is a question that it may be in the right-of-way. That's still to be determined through the permitting process if the front edge of that is actually in the right-of-way. So we don't know the answer to that yet. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that the road that I'm seeing at the bottom of this picture? MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. That's Holly Avenue. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And the distance between that road and that structure is? MR. JOHNSON: What's that distance? MR. SAUNDERS: If I may, 27 feet from the crown of the road, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And the code says it should be? MR. SAUNDERS: Sir, that's what's happening right now is that's why I'm in and submitted for permit. The issue is, it was done in the '60s, so I'm trying to retrieve the plot plan to see what the actual plot plan then was for setback. Once I achieve that, then we'll know if it's in the easement or if it's set back properly. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Excellent. Okay. MR. JOHNSON: And there's a little issue about that road being repositioned over the years or something. So that's what -- I'm going to let the permitting process handle that part of it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ORTEGA: By the way, thank you for the photos. They're always very helpful. MR. JOHNSON: You are most welcome. MS. CURLEY: I have a question. Just -- is the -- are the poles past the fence? MR. SAUNDERS: No, ma'am. No. They set back. They set back about 12 feet. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. January 24, 2020 Page 53 MR. SAUNDERS: I truly be -- but I don't have proof of that yet. But I truly believe that's not going to be an issue. I believe it is set back far enough. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So the county's finished. Your turn. MR. SAUNDERS: Okay. What I'd like to say is, like Mr. Johnson said, it's lived through all these hurricanes. So what I'm trying to do is I am in the process of permitting, once I get through the hurdle of finding the plot plan or Gary will have to pay for another survey so that we can get the proper setbacks and know exactly what we're dealing with. The other thing that I'm diligently working on is the ODBs. And what that means is, the material that he used for this structure, for this carport, I have to verify that it's all still up to today's codes and can be. If not, it will have to be demoed, but that's what I'm currently working on. MR. ORTEGA: When was this done, the work? When was that work done? MR. SAUNDERS: 1962, I believe. MR. ORTEGA: That photo? MR. SAUNDERS: Yes, sir. MR. JOHNSON: No, the photo wasn't taken then. The structure was -- MR. SAUNDERS: The carport that's at hand, the violation was done in about 1962. MR. ORTEGA: And you're looking to find some type of Florida product approval? MR. SAUNDERS: No. What I'm -- well, as far as -- yes, on the material that he used back then. MR. ORTEGA: Back in the '60s? MR. SAUNDERS: Back in the '60s. January 24, 2020 Page 54 MR. ORTEGA: You're not going to find it. MS. CURLEY: So that's the original roof and truss and -- MR. SAUNDERS: Originally it was a flat roof, and then he reframed it at a later date with the material that you see today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This gentleman here is the one who did it? MR. SAUNDERS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'd like you to build a house for me. We'll talk after. MR. JOHNSON: If I could clarify. Mr. Stumbo is the owner, and Mr. Saunders, actually -- and the Board may remember him. He's going to come up again in this hearing. He's working on that property across the street, and he has just volunteered to help Mr. Stumbo get through this. So that's the kind of relationship there. MR. ORTEGA: Just to clarify something. The flat roof back in the '60s, the gable roof is current? That was -- MR. SAUNDERS: It was -- Gary, how many years ago did you change it from a flat roof to the gable? MR. STUMBO: About '68. MR. SAUNDERS: About '68 it was changed to that. So that structure that we're looking at here current. MR. STUMBO: But it does have roofing material that required -- it passed then. It happened to have a permit. I was a roofer so I had the materials to build it. MR. SAUNDERS: The material was left over on one of his jobs when he was actually currently -- or was actually a roofer. MR. ORTEGA: Have you met with the building official on this at all? MR. SAUNDERS: I actually -- yes, I did, about three days ago, and the hurdles that I'm taking care of right now is I have to dig and figure out exactly how deep the footers are that the columns are in, January 24, 2020 Page 55 then I have to do them to specs for -- I've already gave him all the dimensions, but that's what I'm working on, and then I have to check the ODBs as far as the material. And there's two ways of doing that. There's the Miami-Dade, and then there's the one here for Collier County. But my main thing is -- first is I'm chasing down a plot plan so that I'll know the actual setbacks. If -- I'm going to the courthouse. I've already been all through Horseshoe at the county, and they can't find anything. The latest permit that was pulled is in 1965. But Gary borrowed money against the family dwelling after that, and it was financed by the bank. So I'm pretty confident that there's going to be a plot plan and a survey that was done per the bank's regulations to loan him the money. So that's my next avenue of attack to find that plot plan. MR. ORTEGA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could I ask how this case came about? MR. JOHNSON: This case was part of a bigger project that we did up on Holly, as we call it a sweep, to try to help the people up in Holly come up to Code Enforcement standards with nuisance abatement, litter, trash, garbage, unpermitted structures. We actually did a whole sweep up there, and Holly has improved quite a bit. I mean, it's been very, very effective. This is one of the last remaining cases. But, you know, there's a concern there. I don't have any health/safety issues there, because this thing is built like a fortress, but the issue of possibly being in the right-of-way where an emergency service vehicle couldn't get by, you know, all those issues. I just want to make sure. And I believe the permitting process will vet that out for us. And they're willing to do the work so -- and I'll -- you know, I'll let you guys decide on the time and so on when I give the recommendation. January 24, 2020 Page 56 MS. CURLEY: So I have a question. So was this like a fishing expedition to go out to find, because it says -- the violation says, carport witness [sic] that was constructed without a permit, but he's saying it was built in 1964. I mean, did you find the original permits from when they built the house? MR. JOHNSON: I could not find any permitting for this structure. MS. CURLEY: So there's lot of houses where the records aren't scanned and aren't available, but you just can't assume that there is a mistake here. So I feel like -- I mean, I don't know if a violation exists. I mean -- MR. JOHNSON: Well -- MS. CURLEY: -- it's worth an investigation for somebody, but I don't feel confident to say a violation exists. If that was an old -- those poles are from 1964, and just because we don't have the luxury of scanned documents now in 2020, I think it's a little fishy -- fishing. MR. LETOURNEAU: Mr. Stumbo built the structure? MR. SAUNDERS: Yes, sir. MR. LETOURNEAU: You can ask him if he pulled a permit. MS. ELROD: Was it required in '62? MR. SAUNDERS: That's the other issue. And also there comes into play back then, there was the grandfather clause. So there's a couple variables here that leaves a little gray area. MS. CURLEY: I mean, we have somebody who's lived there for long time who, you know, might not have the best recall of what he did 60 years ago. MR. SAUNDERS: His father and him basically owned the whole street at one time. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me just ask. If you ask the respondent, did you build -- pull a building permit and he says yes, January 24, 2020 Page 57 how do you know that he didn't if you have no records back then? MR. LETOURNEAU: We can only check what we can, the property card, you know, whatever records we have from our old systems, but they did say that the structure was built in '62. There was a permit pulled in '65. Is that what you stated right there? MR. SAUNDERS: That was the -- that was just brought to my attention when I was doing the research to find this permit. MR. LETOURNEAU: And then the thing was renovated after that in '69, according to Mr. Stumbo's testimony. MR. SAUNDERS: Sixty-eight. MR. LETOURNEAU: So permits were required back then, because he just said there was a '65 permit. Even the remodeling would have required a permit at that point. So we haven't found any permits for this structure. I don't know -- in my opinion, I don't think it meets setbacks, but that's a thing he needs to figure out right here. MS. CURLEY: Then violate him for setback. MR. LEFEBVRE: That's why it was written up in the beginning, because it didn't appear to meet setbacks, and we were out there doing a sweep on all the structures and everything, and we weren't able to find any record of any permits for this structure. MR. SAUNDERS: Board, if I may, when you're traveling down Holly Avenue, coming, traveling west, it could give you the visual and give you the wrong perception of it not meeting the setback, but it has to do with Holly Avenue comes like this (indicating), and then it curves around like this and has a pretty big bend in it. And even Investigator John Johnson here said to me a few weeks ago, he said, when you come from this direction here traveling east, by golly, it doesn't look like it's out in the setback and not meeting the setback. So that gives a little bad view because of the way the road turns. MS. CURLEY: Right. Well, my point is, still, I don't see any new materials on that. I don't see -- you know, I mean, to me, I just January 24, 2020 Page 58 feel like this -- I've stated what -- how I feel. I just feel like this is a little bit of a fishing expedition on behalf of the attempts to work on a neighborhood and do all that. But, I mean, I think it's taxing a citizen to have him have to go back to 1970 and try and recall or find documents that he might or might not have, you know, to prove that -- what you're asking. There's no evidence of anything new here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you searched the microfiche? MR. SAUNDERS: Yes, I have, sir. And the other issue, ma'am, if I may respond to what you just said, is Gary lives on a very limited fixed income, and if I can't retrieve a plot plan that exists so I can require [sic] the actual setbacks back then, then it incurs a lot of costs in survey, as we all know, for us to get a new survey to get the setbacks. MS. CURLEY: So the plats are available in many places from when that neighborhood was originally platted. The survey that you mentioned, unless he did his refinance less than seven years ago, you're not going to have any access to that. And on a refinance, they're typically not going to require a survey. So that's a dead-end for you. MR. SAUNDERS: Right. MS. CURLEY: So you're right, he's looking at a $250 survey to prove that he didn't do anything wrong. MR. SAUNDERS: Exactly. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Kaufman, can I say something here? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. Yes, of course, you can. MR. JOHNSON: I'd like to ask Gary a question, if that's okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. JOHNSON: Gary, did you pull a permit on any of this carport structure at any time? I think you -- did you pull a permit? MR. STUMBO: I'm not really sure about the original flat roof, because I bought it, like I said, in '60 something, and the roof got tore January 24, 2020 Page 59 up in a hurricane, and it got damaged. So I took the flat roof off and put this one up. And at the time I was -- I was working. I had owned half a roofing company, and we took the material, the roofing material came from my company, and I built 2x4s. And everything's -- every one of them is strapped down, and it's steel beams with redwood beams in the center of them on both sides, and I got straps going all the way up to the 2x4s that stick out in the roof. And that was back, like I said, in the '60, '7, '8, somewhere around there. MR. JOHNSON: Right. Good. Thanks, Gary. I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If this goes back to the '60s, it's possible that when they paved the road, they paved the road too far. MR. JOHNSON: And anything can be possible. This is -- I mean, it's really -- I -- MS. CURLEY: I'm going to make a motion that there's -- a violation doesn't exist. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: At least for what they're citing here. MR. ORTEGA: I'll second that. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. January 24, 2020 Page 60 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) MR. SAUNDERS: It's over with. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He told you. MR. SAUNDERS: We don't have to do something. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you very much. We're sorry for the inconvenience. MR. SAUNDERS: Thank you, Board. We really appreciate it, and you have a wonderful day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You, too. MR. SAUNDERS: And I'll see you in a little bit. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Helen? MS. BUCHILLON: Next item on the agenda, No. 17, CESD20180015180, James Clay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Swear them again. It wears off. It doesn't hurt. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a new gentleman up there. MR. CLAY: This is a neighbor of mine who showed up unannounced and had a few words he would like to say, so... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We'll get to that. First we're going to go to the county. And you have some exhibits, et cetera, et cetera? MR. PITURA: I do. Okay. Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. PITURA: For the record, Thomas Pitura, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20180015180 dealing with violations of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e). January 24, 2020 Page 61 Description of violation: Interior remodeling without the -- without obtaining the necessary permits located at 184 Pago Pago Drive West, Naples, Florida, 34113. The folio number is 52392400007. Service was given on January 29th, 2019. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: 12 photos taken by myself January 17th, 2019. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Has the respondent seen those photos? MR. PITURA: Yes. MR. CLAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any objection to those photos? MR. CLAY: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Get a motion from the Board to accept them? MS. ELROD: Motion to accept. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Seconded. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. LETOURNEAU: I believe we have a couple aerials also in there, too, right, Tom? MR. PITURA: Right. January 24, 2020 Page 62 The first aerial is a close-up. This is in the Isles of Capri. It's on Pago Pago Drive. In the yellow you can see that's the house and subject. Here is a larger aerial as you're coming into the Isles of Capri. Just to give you an idea of where we're at. Okay. First of all, I'm going to present the -- this is the front of the house. This is the rear of the house now -- which does not have any bearing. We're talking about the interior, but I want to give you an idea of what the house basically looks like. Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Most of it's down to the studs; is that correct? MR. PITURA: Well, I'm going to show you pictures now. This is going to be of the kitchen. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. PITURA: This is the kitchen looking inside the kitchen, but let me give you a shot going into the kitchen. This is a little bit deeper into the kitchen. Again, I am not a mold specialist in any way. I'm not really seeing any obvious in these pictures. This is looking from the -- as you actually walk in through the front door. When you walk in through the front door is the living room, and that is the kitchen right there. As you can see, this is a bigger, broader picture of the inside of the house. Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The area -- go back to that previous picture. The dark area on that wall on the entrance in looks like it's about 18 inches high. MR. PITURA: Again, I'm not a mold -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, no, no. That discoloration there, did they have -- was there water in the house up to that level? Is that what I'm looking at? MR. PITURA: I do not know if the water level was that high. Mr. Clay, do you want to express on that? MR. CLAY: I can't tell you, because there hasn't been water January 24, 2020 Page 63 since I've owned it. MR. LETOURNEAU: No. I believe there might have been something that went on during Irma. It is on the Isles of Capri, so I think a lot of the properties were flooded at that point. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. PITURA: Okay. The bathrooms. MR. LEFEBVRE: Hold on. MS. CURLEY: Just pay attention to the baseboards that are torn up, and then you can see the darkness in the wood. MR. PITURA: Bathroom. I've got it highlighted, Jeff. This is Bathroom No. 1. This is down to the studs. MS. CURLEY: Is that a concrete wall right there? MR. PITURA: It is. That's from Sheetrock that was removed. That is the ceiling of the bathroom. Go to Bathroom No. 2, Jeff. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. Hold on. MR. PITURA: Go back up. MS. CURLEY: So this demo was done after Irma but -- MR. PITURA: Excuse me -- MS. CURLEY: The demo was done after Irma but by the current owner? MR. PITURA: Right. Okay. I had first inspected the property on December 10th, 2018. There was a complaint for interior remodeling without a permit. I was able to make contact with the owner on several occasions to discuss the violations and how to comply. He advised me that Jim Rose, his contractor, was handling the work. Mr. Rose was given enough time to obtain the required permits but was not able to. As time progressed, Mr. Rose still did not obtain the necessary permits, and Mr. Clay stated that he wants to comply. January 24, 2020 Page 64 They have both been working with Renald Paul and FEMA to abide by the 50-percent rule which has made the process for them a little more difficult. As of today, there are no permits, and both -- of the interior work, and both the owner and contractor need additional time to proceed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you have any witnesses that you want to bring? MR. PITURA: I do. If the Board does not understand the 50-percent rule, we have Chris Mason here from the county who can express a little bit more of what the requirements are going to be for Mr. Clay to be able to fall under -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The Board would appreciate that. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Chris, you want to state your name on the microphone for us. MR. MASON: Yes. My name is Chris Mason. I am the floodplain coordinator here in Collier County. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So you can ask Chris questions or, Chris, you can just tell us what we should know about the question at hand. MR. MASON: Board Member Ortega did allude to the 50-percent rule earlier this morning. So being a member of the NFIP, National Flood Insurance Program, there are certain protocols Collier County has to abide by. One is called the substantial damage or substantial improvement clause, which is also known as the 50-percent rule. So this location is located in a special flood hazard area. At current point, this structure's finished floor is below what we call base flood elevation. So with that being said, that does not currently meet Florida building standards. January 24, 2020 Page 65 So we take the improved value of the structure in this case that was outlined earlier. We add 20 percent to that. That's a metric that FEMA lets us add to to come to sort of a -- what I would call a market value. So we're using at this point the Property Appraiser's improved value plus 20 percent. And this is just specific to the structure. At that point, any work that is done that equals 50 percent or exceeds 50 percent of that improved value plus that 20 percent is considered substantial improvement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And once you have substantial improvement? MR. MASON: Then we would have to come into compliance with the current code, which would require elevation of one foot above base flood elevation. After a cursory look at the property, I believe the actual ground elevation is between about four and a half and five feet. The base flood elevation out there is eight, so he would have to raise that structure to 10, that finished floor being 10 if he was not able to comply with that or get underneath that 50 percent. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So that means that, basically, the deal is over. You're not going to raise the house that amount of -- MR. MASON: It would certainly present some challenges. MR. ORTEGA: Or he can get a private appraisal, though. MR. MASON: That is correct. With the private appraisal, though, the private appraisal has to be of the structure pre-damage. MR. ORTEGA: Right. MR. MASON: So, obviously, they're not going to go out and appraise the structure in the condition it is in right now. It would have to be, at appraisal, almost kind of like forensically going back to what the structure was before any damage that was incurred by Irma or any other storm. January 24, 2020 Page 66 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me back into this a second. What would the maximum amount be allowable so it doesn't fall into that? MR. ORTEGA: Fifty percent of the assessed value of the home minus the land, plus 20 percent. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So if the house was valued at -- MR. ORTEGA: A hundred. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: A hundred. MR. ORTEGA: Fifty thousand plus 20 percent. That would be the maximum allowed money you can spend on the structure. Not the pool or screen enclosure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: On the structure to get it back into compliance. So unless we have an idea of what it is -- we can't go by what the respondent paid for it because that would not be fair. He bought it when it was -- MR. ORTEGA: No. It's the current improved value they go by. MR. MASON: That is correct. And that is what we're using at this point, the metrics we used before coming to this meeting today were the Property Appraiser's improved value plus the 20 percent. As Board Member Ortega stated, it is open to a private appraisal. Again, that private appraisal would be pre-damage. So it's going to go back and try to figure out market or comparable values before August of 2017. MS. ELROD: So you have a dollar amount? MR. MASON: Of the actual -- so, I believe the -- the appraised value was at 140,000, maybe $142,000. When you add that 20 percent, we come up to $168,000 with -- you know, in and around. It's just over $168,000. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the improvements to fix this up would have to be? January 24, 2020 Page 67 MS. CURLEY: Less than 84,000. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Less than 84,000. MR. MASON: It's going to be below 50 percent. It cannot exceed 50 -- it cannot equal or exceed 50 percent per the NFIP regulations. MS. CURLEY: Is there a garage? MR. PITURA: Yes, there is a garage. MS. CURLEY: Two-car? MR. PITURA: Yes, it's a two-car garage. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Does the county have any estimates on what they think it would take to bring this house into compliance? MR. PITURA: That would be for Mr. Clay and his contractor to be able to present to the county as far as, you know, the proper permitting and their costs. Am I correct on this, Chris? MR. MASON: That is correct. MS. CURLEY: I have a question: Did any part of the roof -- is it failed or is it -- MR. PITURA: No. He has a new roof. He got a permit for the roof. So the roof was already done and the seawall. MS. CURLEY: And is that part of the 50 percent? MR. PITURA: That is correct. MS. CURLEY: How much was the roof, sir; do you remember? Standing seam. MR. CLAY: Under 30-. MR. LEFEBVRE: When was the roof put on? MR. PITURA: Just recently, within the year. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, the permit should show the cost. MR. ORTEGA: It will show the cost of construction for the January 24, 2020 Page 68 roof. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is there a -- is there any way that it's allowed that if an improvement's made, let's say -- MR. ORTEGA: Maybe. MS. CURLEY: You mean piecemeal, to do one thing and then wait a year and then do another, wait a year? MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. MASON: No, sir. MS. CURLEY: That's fraud. MR. ORTEGA: Not anymore? MR. LEFEBVRE: Not anymore. MR. MASON: This has to be done under one permit. MR. ORTEGA: So now it's one year, or is it five year? MR. MASON: We do not have a cumulative; however, in a case like this, the actual work has to be done under one permit. It cannot be piecemeal. It cannot have one permit and open another. Once we get -- if he was able to get the structure to a level of being CO'ed, habitable, and then he wanted to go forward and make any improvements from there, then that's a different story. Then they become -- they can close a permit, open a permit for separate. But, however, for the scope of work here, for the damages, it does have to be under one permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Let me see if I can come up with some numbers. The number you have is 84,000; is that correct? How much is the seawall? MR. MASON: The seawall is not factored into this. This is only specific to the -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Structure. MR. MASON: -- structure itself. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the roof is. January 24, 2020 Page 69 MR. MASON: Septic tanks and things like that also do not factor in. MS. CURLEY: Just a point of clarity. So you said that it has to be under one permit. So has he already violated that FEMA if he's put the new roof on there? And how did that roof get a permit approved? MR. MASON: Well, I guess I should take that back. It is -- the current permits that are out there, there were three permits. They're all going to be combined as one as the repair of the damage. MS. CURLEY: I see. Okay. Thank you. That's what I -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the three permits were for the roof? MR. MASON: The roof, A/C change-out, and repairs to the inside of the structures. Two of the permits were approved. The third for the general repairs. The inside of the structure was abandoned. So that has to be reopened with our permitting resolution services. MS. CURLEY: So is anybody able to find out how much the roof cost? You, sir? MR. CLAY: Twenty-seven thousand. MS. CURLEY: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: So with all the permits, the three permits that were submitted, what was the total value, dollar value? MR. MASON: So that was coming up to $69,372, those three permits. MR. LEFEBVRE: Including the -- MR. MASON: Including the abandoned permit that was for $32,000. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is the septic failing? MR. MASON: The septic is not an issue here as far as we talk about the 50-percent rule. January 24, 2020 Page 70 MR. LEFEBVRE: It's outside. MR. MASON: That's not factored in. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: It's carpeting, cabinetry, drywall. MR. MASON: It's whatever it will take to make the structure a habitual structure in order to obtain a CO. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Before we move over to the respondent -- MS. CURLEY: There's $15,000 left for drywall, fixtures, plumbing, kitchen. MR. ORTEGA: I thought that was included. MR. LEFEBVRE: That's all included. MR. MASON: The 32- has not been -- the work has not been executed on that yet. That permit was abandoned. So currently -- that's what we have for numbers right now. I mean, that number could change if he comes back in and we adjust the permit. But that work has not been completed because it's been an abandoned permit. So we take the $32,000 off right now. MS. CURLEY: So we have the 27- for the roof, and what was the other -- second permit? MR. MASON: $9,800. MS. CURLEY: That's it so far. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't we present the whole case on this side, which would include the public speaker and his exhibits, and then we'll move over to the respondent, okay? Has the respondent seen the pictures that you have? MR. GIOVANONE: May I approach? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, sure. But you're going to show him on the -- MR. PITURA: No, we do not have his pictures presented in this case. These are his personal pictures. January 24, 2020 Page 71 MR. LETOURNEAU: I don't believe the respondent has seen these yet, either. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The respondent has to see the pictures, and then we vote whether we want to see the pictures, if we're going to accept them. Then we go from there. So, Helen, why don't you show them to them. MR. LEFEBVRE: And also, that is going to be as evidence. You will not get those pictures back. MR. GIOVANONE: Yes, sir. Understood. MR. LEFEBVRE: I just want to make sure you're aware of that. MS. CURLEY: So 45,2- is our number left in the bucket. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right, but -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Before accepting these pictures, I would definitely -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Recommend? MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, I mean, you got to take under consideration when they were taken, who they were taken by. You know, there's no proof of -- you know, I mean, he's under oath; however -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, we can ask. If the respondent has -- these are -- the pictures we're looking at are pictures that are of that property and not of a different property. If that's the case, that's the case. MS. ELROD: Did he trespass to take them? MS. CURLEY: Seriously. This is not criminal court. MR. GIOVANONE: And you'll see that they overlay Tom's photos as well. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: If I'm not mistaken, the question I asked of Chris was, the total work to take care of the issue, what does that total? January 24, 2020 Page 72 MR. ORTEGA: The three permits. MR. LEFEBVRE: The three permits. And he said 69,000. MS. CURLEY: Assuming that the permit for the interior, which was valued at whatever -- he doesn't know now because they let that permit go. The next bid from a real contractor's going to be, obviously, different. MR. MASON: So currently at play you had about $36,000 in and around that has been utilized thus far towards the project. So we had this other $32,000 permit that was abandoned that has -- that work has not occurred yet. So that's subject to still review from Growth Management's point of view. MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You've seen those pictures. Are those pictures of your property? MR. CLAY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any objection to those pictures being shown? MR. CLAY: Well, I object to him going in without any permission and taking the pictures, but the pictures are of the house. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. GIOVANONE: And I did not enter the home without permission. I spoke to Mr. Clay's contractor, one. I have his cell phone on my phone if you'd like to see it. MR. CLAY: I would object to that. MR. GIOVANONE: And I went in with him. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. CLAY: I would object to that. MR. LETOURNEAU: I would say at this point there's no doubt there's a violation. I mean, I'm just assuming you guys -- any more pictures at this point are -- what are they leading to; your decision on how much time you're going to give him? I mean, really, I think it's January 24, 2020 Page 73 redundant at this point. I don't know if this gentleman was in the house legally at this point. So the county objects also to seeing these pictures. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We don't have to see the pictures. MR. LEFEBVRE: I agree. I mean, I think -- I'm wondering if the -- if the contractor had the authority to give the authority to let him in. So I think -- MR. DOINO: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- we probably should not look. MR. LETOURNEAU: The contractor can't give the authority to a code enforcement investigator, so I doubt he can give it to a neighbor. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't we just -- without the pictures, if you have something to say at this time, say it, and then we'll find out whether a violation exists or not. And then we go to the respondent before we vote on that. MR. GIOVANONE: However, I do urge you to look at the photos of the black mold. It is quite evident, and it's deadly. First I would like to state -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: When we swear you in, it wears off after 10 minutes, so... (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. GIOVANONE: Okay. Thank you for hearing me again. First, I want to state, I'm not -- I don't care if this house is knocked down or not. I'm trying to protect the value of all of our homes. I want that to be, you know, blatantly clear. Peter, who is standing across the room, is one of Mr. Clay's tenants. He's my neighbor. He's not Mr. Clay's neighbor. He's a great guy. He can do a great headstand on a paddleboard on a rough day. He stated that he only -- Mr. Clay this morning stated that he January 24, 2020 Page 74 only did the screen house and the windows. You know, what about the roof and the HVAC? He's well over half -- in any comprehension, well over half the $84,000 allowable FEMA 50/50 rule. He has a completely, completely gutted home; complete. It has rotted headers. It has rotted roof rafters. When they put the roof on, there were dozen of sheets of rotted plywood that you couldn't even -- the roofers couldn't even step on them; they were going through them. I have photos. There's a septic problem. There's a blatant black mold problem. I put the -- through Beau Middlebrook, the brokers on -- the board of brokers on notice for constructive notice that if someone moves in that house and the black mold is not remediated, as Mr. Krunk, the prior owner, who was a resident, by the way -- we all were trying to help Mr. Krunk out. He became ill. He had terrible emphysema, but he lived there until the bank kicked him out. He didn't keep it in disrepair. When Mr. Clay opened that garage door, those -- that was all of the damage that was within the home from Irma. He moved everything into the garage. He was not -- he was not a hoarder. He was a good guy that was down on his luck. I simply want to protect my property from this situation and have Mr. Clay abide by all of the rules and stipulations that -- regulations that all of the neighbors had to do, and there is no way that house can be repaired for 40- or $50,000. You'd have to get that house forensically appraised for 4- or $500,000 to make this equation work. So I thank you for the opportunity. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: I have just one question, please. What is the -- what's the lowdown on the windows? The pictures didn't look like the windows were new. Somebody stated there was new windows. January 24, 2020 Page 75 There wasn't a permit pulled for windows. Are there new windows? Is there a new garage door? Are any of the openings new other than the roof? MR. GIOVANONE: All of those windows -- well, 90 percent of the windows in that structure are vintage 1970 jalousie windows that not one is operable. And I know all of this because Damon and myself were good friends. MS. CURLEY: Yeah. I was just a little confused, because I thought somebody had mentioned that the windows had been replaced. MR. GIOVANONE: There were a few windows that were replaced that were broken by tree limbs. MS. CURLEY: The glass? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We're going to come over to you now. The county's done? The county's done? The county is done. Don't go too far, Chris. MR. CLAY: I mentioned windows. There were three of them that had to be replaced. MS. CURLEY: The glass. MR. CLAY: Glass, yeah. MS. CURLEY: Not the whole window. MR. CLAY: No. MS. CURLEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The way this works, the county presented what they're going to present. We heard from the public. Now it's your turn to testify. And then when you're done, the Board will discuss whether a violation exists or not. MR. CLAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay? So you can present anything you want to present at this time. MR. CLAY: On the violation, what are you referring to? January 24, 2020 Page 76 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well -- MR. CLAY: If you could explain that, and maybe I could talk to that part of it. MR. PITURA: Mr. Clay, by not getting the required permits for the interior remodeling. You went and demoed it and didn't get a permit. So you need to get the permits. MR. CLAY: Right. Okay. Let me be short and brief on that. I was ignorant to it. Yeah, I didn't have a permit. I had some people go in to clean it up, because I take objection to saying that this guy was no hoarder. You can get other people from the neighborhood to probably testify that he was a hoarder. The place was packed -- jampacked full of stuff. But that's neither here nor there. We did not get a -- I did not get a permit, and I apologize for that. And I want to get a permit. When the inspector showed up originally, I told him that we weren't going to do any more work until we got the permit. Now, it's been difficult for me to get the contractor to get everything together and get a permit. I'm asking for -- I'd still like to get the six-month period to get the whole thing done. My experience has been it's difficult to get workers to do things on time as they have indicated they would, but I will ride hurt [sic] on it to make sure it does get done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. But what's before us now is, is there a violation as per what the county has offered or not. MR. CLAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And based on that -- MR. CLAY: I think there is, if I'm reading it right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So I'll look to the Board if anybody has a motion they'd like to make. Kathy? MS. ELROD: I make a motion that a violation exists. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. January 24, 2020 Page 77 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second that a violation exists. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. So this was a fait accompli. We knew there was a problem with the permit. Now, we get down -- back to resolving it. I don't know what you can say or what the county can do as far as how much it costs to do anything in that whole thing. I guess Chris will get involved in that going forward. But do you have a discussion from here? MR. PITURA: I do. The recommendation is that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $59.28 incurred in this prosecution of this case within 30 days, and abate all violations by: One, obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy for the interior demolition and remodeling within X amount of days of this hearing, or a fine of X amount of dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Two, the respondent must identify the code enforcement investigator that -- 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 January 24, 2020 Page 78 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. Thank you. Now, with the Board. MS. CURLEY: I have one question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MS. CURLEY: I think it might be for Jeff or the FEMA gentleman. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Chris. MS. CURLEY: Chris, excuse me. So if -- let's just roll back two years. If this gentleman had actually gone and applied for a permit to demo that, would the FEMA question have come up then, and would that permit to demo have been denied? I sort of feel like there was a -- there was a -- I'm just trying to put the pieces together to -- for this. MR. MASON: Let's go back two years. Any work that was being proposed to any type of remodeling, any alteration to the structure, would still be scrutinized under the 50-percent rule. MS. CURLEY: So I sort of feel like if, you know, if you can -- if you can do this and then, you know -- I don't know, I feel like it's a little calculative in my -- this gentleman owns property. I feel like he should be somewhat aware of what's done. He seems to be blaming other people who are cleaning the house. But I've demoed the interior of a house like -- the way that is, and I know what it takes: Days and machinery and men, and there's a reason why you got a permit or don't get a permit. And I feel like this is to maybe purposefully try and circumvent the rules. So the demolition costs that he have [sic] would also be included in the 84,000? MR. MASON: That is correct. January 24, 2020 Page 79 MS. CURLEY: We've not seen those figures because we don't have a permit. MR. MASON: Right. And going forward, FEMA review staff at Growth Management would review the validity of the numbers that are submitted for job costs. Also included with materials is labor. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So what can happen now going forward is the respondent, Mr. Clay, applies for a building permit, and he's either going to be granted one or not. MR. MASON: That is correct. So the process which he would go through is submit the building permit. Along with that is the 50-percent documentation, which is included, a cost-estimate worksheet, the details, everything that goes into performing this. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's -- MR. MASON: Rehabilitation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- part of the permit? MR. MASON: That's correct, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So I guess that's where we are there. My question also is, this started when the respondent purchased the property. It was in terrible shape, I assume. What has happened from that time, whatever it was, till today? MS. CURLEY: Illegal demo. MR. PITURA: Okay. He had obtained a new permit for the roof. Okay. Then the mechanical. Those were permitted. Then the interior demolition was not -- or any of the interior work, we don't know what was going to happen at that point. That's when I came into play in December 2018. MS. CURLEY: How did the roof and the HVAC not get flagged for FEMA? MR. MASON: Based on the actual cost of those jobs. They did not come in anywhere in the area of the 50 percent, so -- they were January 24, 2020 Page 80 below -- below, well, the paperwork requirement. So they're well below 50 percent, so that was not flagged in that standpoint. MS. CURLEY: Okay. So just the elevation wouldn't have flagged it? MR. MASON: Well, it goes up for review. FEMA staff -- or FEMA reviewers reviewed it, but the total amount for those jobs did not exceed or come close to 50 percent. So they were not required to submit the paperwork. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So, basically, they went in with blindfolds and said, yep, the roof is okay. They left. MS. CURLEY: By doing things piecemeal -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. Well, there was no inspection of the dwelling. MS. CURLEY: Who did the roof inspection? MR. MASON: That I couldn't speak to. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The county. MS. CURLEY: I know. So -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I think we're getting way into this. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Jeff's fault. MS. CURLEY: Yeah. I'll fill in the blanks. THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry? MS. CURLEY: Sixty days, $200. MR. LEFEBVRE: And does that include the operational costs being paid within 30? MS. CURLEY: Yes. MR. ORTEGA: Sixty days to do what now? MS. CURLEY: Get a permit. MR. ORTEGA: Get a permit, okay. MS. CURLEY: Or $200 a day. MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, would you include the inspections and COs along with that also? That's what our recommendation is. January 24, 2020 Page 81 Are you just saying get a permit, and that's going to be enough for this -- MS. CURLEY: Or not. Get a -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Because if he pulls a permit and it never gets inspected or CO'ed, we would have to close the case because you just recommended getting a permit, and we'd be right back where we started at at that point. We need some resolution and make this property brought to a permitted condition, either demolished or fixed up. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Typically, when we do our motions, they are till it's done, CO'ed. MS. CURLEY: I can't see the 1 or 2 on either screen. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I can't see, other than the paper. MS. CURLEY: So there should be -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Hold on. MS. CURLEY: I feel like -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You feel like you're an old geezer. MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah. We always recommend continuation through the certificate of completion. That way the property's left in a permitted condition at that point, because back in the day we just asked for a permit. They'd get the permit issued. We'd close the case out, and lo and behold, 10 years later a new property owner buys it, and we're back in the same situation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. And the original stipulation that failed was for six months, and that was everything done. MR. LETOURNEAU: That's correct. MS. CURLEY: So I still stick to my 60, 250. You know, get a permit or don't get one. If your permit gets denied and it goes through the process, which -- you have one -- you have Option A or B. If Option 1 comes about, this case dies. He's got a demo permit. The house gets demoed. If he gets a permit to fix or rebuild or do January 24, 2020 Page 82 whatever, then come back in and tell us. MR. LETOURNEAU: What's to compel him to get a demo permit once -- say he applies for a building permit, as you want to do, he never follows through, it expires, but he got the permit at some point, we close this case out because he got the permit, what's to compel him to get a demo permit at that point? MS. CURLEY: Maybe the county can do a more detailed recommendation. MR. LETOURNEAU: It is pretty detailed. It says, through inspection and certificate of completion/occupancy for the interior demolition and remodeling within blank days or blank dollars. I don't understand what the qualm is about attaching the inspections and certificate of completion are. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me see if I can help. I'm from the government. I'm here to help. MS. CURLEY: I like my motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. It seems more reasonable to give additional time to get it all the way through a CO. Maybe not six months. Maybe three months or some time frame less than the six months, but it should be, in my way of thinking, till completion so the whole job is done. MS. CURLEY: So we already have 13 months under our belt here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's right. So that -- I don't disagree with your motion of 60 days either. MR. CLAY: Can I interject something here? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The public hearing is closed at this time. This is where we take our chance to argue back and forth of what we're going to do. MR. CLAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Yes, Sue. If you just want January 24, 2020 Page 83 to fill in the blanks there, that is until they get a CO. MS. CURLEY: You can amend that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, if you're just filling in the blanks, it's there. I don't have to amend it. MS. CURLEY: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You put in your numbers and that's -- MS. CURLEY: Yeah. I mean, I feel like this needs to be babysat. If we have 60 days on there and a significant fine and motivation, then we'll either find out whether this is a dead-end or whether this gentleman has a lot of work to do, and then -- and if that's the case, that's the case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Prior to 60 days, he could come back and say, this is what I've done, they've ruled that it's okay or whatever it is, and we could grant more time at that time. MS. CURLEY: Sure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's what you're saying. MS. CURLEY: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So then 1 would -- did I talk you into keeping one? MS. CURLEY: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you want to -- did you second this? MR. LEFEBVRE: No. MR. CLAY: Can I -- back to me. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The public hearing's closed. MR. CLAY: I can't interject anything? Because I think there's a misunderstanding here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All right. Go ahead. MR. CLAY: With the time level, if I could just clarify. MS. CURLEY: No. January 24, 2020 Page 84 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. What -- go ahead. Say what you have to say. MR. CLAY: When the place was purchased, then there was a lawsuit that wasn't settled until July 30th, 2019. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That doesn't -- MR. CLAY: At that time there was a restriction on doing anything. Nothing; we did nothing. So that time should not be included in what Ms. Curley's talking about. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The county found that no building permit was requested regardless of what happened with the lawsuit. They didn't say you can't apply for a building permit. MR. CLAY: That's true. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They just said you couldn't do anything. MS. CURLEY: That doesn't give you permission to not get a permit, and that actually doesn't have anything to do -- MR. CLAY: I guess that's where I'm guilty. My thinking was we're restricted. Our hands are tied. MS. CURLEY: Well -- and maybe that's why we're being a little bit more stringent on you, because you went and demoed an entire house without getting a permit, and that's why you're here. So we're -- the recommendation of the motion is to give you 60 days to complete the task or get a demolition permit, or however you handle it -- it's not our project -- and if not, then there's a $200 fine a day after that until you resolve your issues. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Is that your motion? MS. CURLEY: That is my motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And we have a second from who? Whom? MS. CURLEY: I have no idea it was so long ago. MR. LEFEBVRE: I don't think anyone seconded it. January 24, 2020 Page 85 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I'll second. Okay. Now, any discussion on the motion? And, again, as we do with all cases, we always give the respondent time to come back prior to the end of the time frame and say, show us the progress that's been done, and if they can show progress, we can grant additional time. MS. ELROD: Okay. Did she amend it for a permit expected only or -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. MS. ELROD: -- the CO? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Number 1 on there. MS. CURLEY: It says CO. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Number 1 on that chart says -- MR. LETOURNEAU: To clarify, it's as written on this piece of paper up on the screen? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. MS. CURLEY: I couldn't read it before, Kathleen, so I didn't know what it actually said. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. We have a second on the motion. Any more discussion on the motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: I think 60 days is too short of a time. MS. CURLEY: So do I. MS. ELROD: I agree. MS. CURLEY: So do I. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Would you like to modify? MS. CURLEY: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. What do you think would be the -- MS. CURLEY: Only because, like I said before, it's been 13 months and nothing's happened other than an illegal demo of evidence that would have been used for FEMA. January 24, 2020 Page 86 MR. LEFEBVRE: One hundred twenty days? MR. ORTEGA: And $250 a day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't think you have a problem with that, do you? MS. CURLEY: Well, just make a new motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: We can't. We have a motion on the table. We either vote on it and either approve it or deny it. You can't have a second motion on the table, or we can amend the motion if you want to amend it. MS. CURLEY: Ninety. MR. LEFEBVRE: I mean -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is not an auction. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm not the seconder either. MS. CURLEY: As an advisory board member -- and I've said it, and I'm not going to say it again -- I am displeased that the evidence of all the contents of this house was taken away and then, therefore, given this gentleman maybe a favor of not being able to hide expenses that he occurred [sic] in order to circumvent the rules. MR. LEFEBVRE: I understand -- I understand your position, but I'm not the seconder, so I can't amend the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I'm the seconder. MS. CURLEY: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think 120 days is fair. I don't think it changes much either, by the way, so... MS. CURLEY: That's fine. If you want to amend the motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I amend it to 120 days. Do you agree? MS. CURLEY: Not really, but yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. Okay. I should have been a dentist. Pulling teeth is -- Okay. So we have a motion for 120 days, or did you want to go January 24, 2020 Page 87 with -- MS. CURLEY: Two fifty. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Two fifty a day, okay. So any other discussion on the motion? MS. CURLEY: Well, just -- other than the expenses that are incurred. I mean, how does the county validate them, and how does this person supply him with expenses from things before so it can actually be accounted for? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's the respondent and FEMA and the county. That's not up to us. MS. CURLEY: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MS. ELROD: He did have that other gentleman stand up there the whole time. Did he want to speak? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, Chris. No, I'm sorry. Now, I did ask him. Oh. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'm here. MR. CLAY: I don't think it matters. It's been decided. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, it probably doesn't. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It doesn't matter. I just want to say -- I just want to say I've been living over here for, like, seven years, you know, and Jim Clay is always like -- you know, he's -- and January 24, 2020 Page 88 I speaking up for everybody that lives down there. He's always taken care of us. And he's maybe an absent, but not really absent owner, because he's always doing good things, and he's fixing -- trying to fixing [sic] up the house, trying to fixing up everything. And if you really look at the properties, what we have, I don't really think an older house -- and I told Mike -- makes a difference to any kind of value because if anybody would buy these properties, they would not want the houses anyway, anyway. If it's our house, if it's their house, they probably just knock it down. I was in a situation like this up in New Jersey, I fixed up my house, like, put new roof on, new floors in, everything, and then I sold it because I moved to Florida. And what happened, they bought the house, didn't want the property, it was under water, they knocked it down. I mean, I just think he's a good person, you know, and everybody else thinks so. Everybody else had to work. I'm fortunate I can take off. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. When we come down to the end of this, it's all done. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It was -- instead of being 120 -- it's 120 instead of 180. It's not that much different than the original agreement that the respondent had agreed to. It all depends on getting the permit pulled and getting through FEMA. Once that can be done -- and, again -- I'll say it again: If you need more time, you can always come back before the Board and we can adjust that so you're not paying fines. MR. CLAY: Good. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay? MR. CLAY: Thank you very much for your time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But don't come back and say, I'm January 24, 2020 Page 89 still trying to pull the building permit. You have to show that something is done. Thank you. MR. CLAY: Great. MR. PITURA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, Helen. MS. BUCHILLON: Next item on the agenda, No. 20, CESD20190002667, Maria Lozano, Ymelda Lozano Calderon, and Antonio Rico Cabrera. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name on the microphone for us? You may want to raise it. You guys are tall. MR. SABORA: Jim Sabora (phonetic). MR. RICCIARDELLI: Robert Ricciardelli. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you are principals in the Bradley Holmes -- is this Bradley Holmes? MR. HOLMES: This is Bradley Holmes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, I'm just reading where it says -- MS. ELROD: Twenty. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is 20. MR. LEFEBVRE: You work for an engineering firm. MR. RICCIARDELLI: Yes, sir. And this is the general contractor. And we're here to represent the owners because they're on a cruise. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Bradley Holmes. MR. HOLMES: All right. For the record, Bradley Holmes, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20190002667 dealing with violations of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), for an unpermitted rear addition to the single-family home. Two unpermitted sheds, one with January 24, 2020 Page 90 electrical, and an unpermitted dog shelter structure located at 2230 Della Drive, Naples, Florida, 34117; Folio No. 61736720004. Service was given on April 5th, 2019. I'd like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Two photos taken by myself on March 15th, 2019; five photos taken on March 29th, 2019, by myself; and two photos taken by myself on January 23rd, 2020. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen the photos? MR. HOLMES: These gentlemen, I don't believe, have reviewed the photos, no. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Would you like to see them? MR. RICCIARDELLI: No. MR. SABORA: I don't think it's necessary, no. MS. CURLEY: We're going to see them anyways. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Make a motion to accept the photos. MR. ORTEGA: I'll make a motion to accept the photos as follows. MR. DOINO: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. January 24, 2020 Page 91 One quick question. Do we have any documentation that shows that these gentlemen can represent the respondent? MR. HOLMES: They stated to me that they received a text message. Jim received a text message from the respondent, Maria Lozano, stating that they could show up to represent them. That was their only request. I haven't had very good contact with the property owner since. MR. LETOURNEAU: We have no official notes from them that they can represent. We just said, you know, go up there and see the flavor of the Board and if they're okay with you guys standing up there and doing testimony. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, we can certainly listen to it and go from there. Okay. Pictures. MR. HOLMES: Am I able to run it, or do you have to run it? MR. LETOURNEAU: I'll run it. MR. HOLMES: Okay. Do you want to show the ones that are from the 15th first? MR. LETOURNEAU: Sure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that for the dogs? MR. HOLMES: Just do the rear addition photographs first. Like I said, it will be easier just -- okay. It's from the neighboring property. That's the rear addition, as you can see, which drops below the roof line, everything back. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What's it, about six or seven feet wide by 30 feet long? MR. HOLMES: Roughly, I'd say. That was a rough estimate. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. HOLMES: There's some interior pictures also. That was from yesterday to show that it still existed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could I ask what it was used for January 24, 2020 Page 92 inside? That was a bathroom? A bedroom? MR. HOLMES: There's a couple photos there interior of the rear addition. It's being used currently as basically storage. It's not an occupied room. At least that's what it was on the 29th. MS. CURLEY: There's light switches and electric. MR. HOLMES: Yeah. It's electrified. There's a water heater in one of the little storage closet looking areas. MS. CURLEY: Was this -- was this a neighbor complaint? MR. HOLMES: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. HOLMES: All right. And then the sheds from the 15th, 3/15. This shows the two sheds. The one on the left in white has a -- at the time it was an operable washer. You can see the discharge pipe coming out of the door, so it discharged on the yard, and they ran electric to it somehow. Obviously enough to run a washer, so that's significant electric. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: The dog shelters. MR. HOLMES: Uh-huh. The corrugated steel there was a storage container. You can disregard that, but you can see the structure there. There's a dog kennel. All of these were reviewed by the building official and deemed to need a permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I see a dog there. They're keeping a dog there? MR. HOLMES: They were. I haven't been back to see if the dog's still there, but... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: They're on a cruise. MR. HOLMES: Okay. This is a driveway shot. The -- there's a -- let me see if I can circle with the mouse. There's a blue piece there. That's a hot tub. That was on the right side of the sheds. They January 24, 2020 Page 93 were formerly located there. I'll get more into detail as to why I took that photo. MS. CURLEY: The date on these pictures? MR. HOLMES: They're all dated there. There's from the 15th of May -- or March, excuse me, the 29th of March 2019. Okay. The detailed photos. And the two basics were from yesterday. I'll go ahead with testimony at this point if that's okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Go ahead. MR. HOLMES: Okay. All right. Following site inspections conducted on March 15th, 2019, on March 29th, 2019, two sheds, a dog -- a rear addition, two sheds, and a dog shelter were reviewed with the county building official and deemed to be in violation for lack of permitting. A notice of violation was then served to one of the property owners, Maria Lozano, and options for compliance were clearly explained. Time was then provided -- additional time was provided to the property owner beyond the notice of violation compliance date. There was a second case opened that they had come into compliance on, so -- and then they had also opened up a demolition permit to start taking care of the violations from this case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: When did they open that second one? MR. HOLMES: Pull that up quick. That was entered 5/14/2019 with an expiration date of November 24th. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And? MR. HOLMES: Permit was never issued. There was a corrections letter. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's fine. Thank you. MR. HOLMES: Yep. The two sheds, part of the corrections letter included that it needed to -- because this demolition permit was January 24, 2020 Page 94 for the rear addition. Building Department required to have the sheds added into it. That was part of that corrections letter. Never amended. So the permit had since expired on the 24th of November. Despite efforts -- I had contact made with the contractor and the property owner, Maria, to get this rectified. At that point was when we moved to prepare this for a hearing so -- scheduled for today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What did the respondent say to you when you -- MR. HOLMES: They -- well, I mean, they took my information. I informed them that it needed to be rectified before it expired. They alluded that that was going to be taken care of, but it never got taken care of. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Fine. MR. HOLMES: And that's -- I mean, largely, that's about it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. HOLMES: So we're here now with the two sheds removed prior to any demolition permit that was required. I can say the corrections letter was sent out on May 28th, 2019. So there would have been adequate time before they were removed to have amended it if information was -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The sheds are still there? MR. HOLMES: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The sheds are gone? MR. HOLMES: Despite the requirement of the demolition permit, the sheds were still removed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. But the addition on the back of the house is still -- MR. HOLMES: The addition remains, yep. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Okay. As a courtesy, we will hear these two gentlemen. January 24, 2020 Page 95 MR. SABORA: First of all, I think, first of all, pretty much everything Bradley said I think is right, and I've met him actually there at the house a couple times. The way -- the genesis of this job was, the owner of the house, his -- his friend, now boyfriend, whatever, I do work for them. And he called me and said, can you take care of this? I said, well, I'd have to go take a look at it. So I said, sure. So it's kind of a third party. So the boyfriend called me and said, can you handle this? Because I do a ton of work for him in town. So went out -- it's in an unincorporated area of town. So I think I met you twice. I think I met Bradley twice there. And I think we had a plan to remove -- they would remove the sheds or -- there were other sheds, too. There was a trailer. You know, there was a semitrailer and numerous sheds. But I think the major part of where it needed to be contracted was to demo the portion of the -- MR. RICCIARDELLI: House. MR. SABORA: -- the house. So we put in for a demo permit hoping -- you know, which we do often, hoping that it would -- you know, it would go through, because it's -- you know, it's really a cluster of what's going to have to do it. Obviously you want to do it safely, and, you know -- but I don't know how it's going to come off when it does come off. I mean, again, I've looked at it twice. And so, you know, it's just not on there. You take it off, and it's -- you know, you're going to have to marry something. So it's going to be kind of a difficult situation out there to -- if it can be saved at all. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are you licensed? MR. SABORA: Contractor, correct. I work for -- you know, we both are. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. January 24, 2020 Page 96 MR. SABORA: Okay. So -- and like I say, the owner of this, the house, is, you know -- just is, you know, pretty prominent guy in town. Just did Lenkbar out here by Horseshoe and -- you know, really not the point. But I said, sure, I'll try and take care of it. So it is in an unincorporated. The roads are literally -- I don't know if you've ever been out there. The roads are literally old roof tile that I think the guys bring and dump on all the roads. So when you drive out there, you know, that's the way it is. Maybe not here nor there. But -- so we sent a surveyor. So I think the demo permit said you're going to need a survey, you know, to locate everything that you need. So my surveyor's Dave Bruns. Sent Dave Bruns out there. He said, are you kidding me? And then I said, okay. So then I think we sent Bill McCreedy. Can you just -- I need a survey -- oh, no. We didn't send McCreedy. I think we sent Trejo. And then he said, yeah. So, you know, and the time went on. So everything he's saying is correct. But the property did get cleaned up, you know, from back there. I think the only thing -- I think the property -- some of the sheds did remove [sic]. Not -- the homeowners. I think there's four or five. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're -- I'll cut to the chase on this thing. We're going to vote on the Board whether a violation exists or not. MR. SABORA: Sure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That structure in the back of the house exists without a permit. There's no doubt that it's going to be found in violation. MR. SABORA: Oh, 100 percent. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So let us do that. MR. RICCIARDELLI: We just want to know how much time we have to make it -- January 24, 2020 Page 97 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We'll get to that. Anybody want to make a motion if a violation exists? MR. DOINO: Make a motion a violation exists. MS. ELROD: I'll make a motion -- second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. We have a second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. Now, Bradley Holmes, do you have a suggestion for us? MR. HOLMES: I do; that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $59.28 in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by the following: One, obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of occupancy/completion for the dog kennel structure and the rear addition to the house within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Two, obtain required Collier County building or demolition permit, inspections, certificate of completion for the two sheds removed within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Three, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a January 24, 2020 Page 98 final inspection to confirm the abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation within -- 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 the abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, fine. Herminio? MR. ORTEGA: Sure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What do you think a fair amount of time would be to get this done? MR. ORTEGA: I would say 90 days and $200 a day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. DOINO: Second. MR. ORTEGA: And costs. MS. CURLEY: Even though half of one's already gone? I mean -- MR. ORTEGA: They have to go through permit -- design permitting. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. You can't get a permit by affidavit on this if they're the ones who did it. So we have -- MR. SABORA: Just to be clear, we didn't build this structure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. MR. SABORA: Oh, okay. I just want to make that clear. MS. CURLEY: What I said was -- MR. SABORA: We're just trying to fix it. We didn't build it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How many days? Ninety days? And 120 -- how much is the fine? MR. LEFEBVRE: Two fifty. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Two fifty. Okay. Now I have it down. MR. LETOURNEAU: That's for both 1 and 2 then, correct? January 24, 2020 Page 99 Because there are two parts of this recommendation. The one, they just need to get a demo permit for the sheds that have already been removed, correct? MR. SABORA: Correct. MR. LETOURNEAU: Which is No. 2. MS. CURLEY: Is the dog kennel connected to the house? I don't know why 1's -- why the dog kennel is in -- like, it would be -- it would have been better if 1 was by itself, the structure, and 2 were the ancillary buildings. MR. HOLMES: Well, in conversation I've had with the owners, I do believe their intention is to just demolish the dog kennel structure anyhow. But, no, it is not connected to the house. It's off in the backyard area. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: When I look at the -- what the motion is, I think that covers everything, 1 and 2., that everything gets done in 90 days. MR. SABORA: We'll take care of everything. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay? Whether there's a structure left from the past or not, it shouldn't really matter. Any more discussion on the motion? MS. CURLEY: I just want to know where the doggy is now. MR. SABORA: Yeah. And the concern for the dogs, they're also in planning and in drawings, they're all a concrete shelter that it does for the dogs. So your concern for the dogs -- I don't know where they are, but the shelter that -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. RICCIARDELLI: They want to build a new building. MS. CURLEY: And also the laundry. I mean, I don't know -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You want to know where the dirty clothes are? MS. CURLEY: It's unincorporated. If this was low end [sic], January 24, 2020 Page 100 that's -- the pollution factor for draining your laundry detergent's all -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You can't. Of course not. MS. CURLEY: -- is of concern. MR. HOLMES: And that was a concern. I mean, it's gone now, so they weren't -- they aren't doing that anymore. MR. SABORA: It just -- it moved from a simple demo permit to the county asking a lot of questions, and then one of it was a survey, honestly, and, you know, we're just struggling to get somebody out there. You can't get to the pins on the road. There's no pins. There's no -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Setbacks, yeah. Okay. Well, we have a motion, and it's been seconded. Any other discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you. So you've got your days; 90 days. MR. SABORA: Thank you, 90 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Ninety days has September, April, June, and the respondent. Let me ask Ms. Fingers. Okay right now? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. January 24, 2020 Page 101 MS. BUCHILLON: Next item on the agenda. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Moving right along. MS. BUCHILLON: Number 22, CEAU20170016724, Tam and Tammy Nguyen. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name on the microphone for us, please. MR. NGUYEN: Yes, sir. Tam Nguyen, resident of 5175 Green Boulevard, Naples, Florida. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All right. Dee, your turn. MS. PULSE: Okay, good morning. For the record, Dee Pulse, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. This is in reference to Case No. CEAU20170016724 dealing with violation of the Florida Building Code, Sixth Edition, 2017, Chapter 1, Part 2, Section 105.1, and the Collier County Land Development Code Ordinance 04-41, Section 5.03.02.F.3, for a chain link and wood fencing on property, and no Collier County building permit has been obtained. Fencing is dilapidated and not maintained. It's located at 5175 Green Boulevard, Naples, Florida, 34116; Folio 38396160008. Service was given on May 31st, 2017. I would like to now present case evidence in the following exhibits, which the respondent has observed: One photo taken by Investigator Pitura on October 25th, 2017; two photos taken by me on May 21st, 2019; an aerial photo of the property, 2019; a survey; and zoning verification. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you have no objection to the pictures? MR. NGUYEN: No, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Get a motion from the Board to accept them? January 24, 2020 Page 102 MR. DOINO: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And a second? MR. ORTEGA: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: (Absent.) MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. MS. PULSE: A complaint was received for dilapidated fencing located on this property which is leaning on the neighboring property owner's fencing as well as inquiring if the fence is permitted. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you zoom in. Thank you, Jeff. MR. LETOURNEAU: I'm trying. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We need a new zoomer here. MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So Green is on the top or bottom? MS. PULSE: Bottom. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: Right here. MS. PULSE: An investigation confirmed wood fencing is broken leaning on neighbor's fence as well as fallen down in areas, and no permit has been found. Notice of violation was issued. There has been communication with the owner as well as in-office meetings providing Mr. Nguyen with all of his options. Time has been provided for compliance, but January 24, 2020 Page 103 as of today, January 24th, violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This goes back to 2017? MS. PULSE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Nguyen. MR. NGUYEN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You heard what the county has stated. MR. NGUYEN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You want to say something? MR. NGUYEN: I may. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, then do it. MR. NGUYEN: All right. So I was meeting with the Code Enforcement a couple times. The reason I delay for remove the wood fence -- I know it's bad. The reason for delay, because the neighbor is so -- the two neighbor is so -- you know, this argument, everything. And that neighbor has been calling for my property line for probably 10 times in last five years when I move in there. And I understood the wood fence need to be -- need to be -- do something with that, and I will remove it. The reason delay because accepting [sic]. I mean, we -- they just fight all the time. My wife and their wife get -- all the time. So that's why I delay. The first time -- and the wood fence need to be -- need to be addressed. And then the second time I don't know why the chain-link fence come up. And I did not put the chain-link fence up. I told the department. They say, well, I do not -- I did not put the fence up, and why it not permit? Why the issue for the violation without -- the fence put up without a permit. Do you have any documentation or anything prove you say that's a violation? The reason I'm saying that, because I pulled up the county records, and the fence over there been 1976. And I asked the Code Enforcement, I said, please, that neighbor call all the time because the January 24, 2020 Page 104 disagreement or they don't like me for any reason and keep call. Code Enforcement get upset my family for fun. And I ask the Code Enforcement all the time, please, give me some solid evidence or any documentation or records showing it's in violation, please. If not, I mean, get the harassment from the neighbor and using Code Enforcement all the time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the county shown you anything to show that that is in violation? MR. NGUYEN: Show the violation, but no documentation saying that the -- who put the fence up or why not permit. They say, wood fence unpermit, and then the second time a chain-link fence unpermit. Who did that? That chain-link fence and the wood fence might be built in 1976 with the house. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The way the law is, when you own the property, you own any violation on the property. MR. NGUYEN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Whether you did it or it was done before you owned the property. MR. NGUYEN: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So how long have you owned the property? MR. NGUYEN: 2014. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So even if it was done 20 years ago, if it was done without a permit, it becomes your responsibility. MR. NGUYEN: I understand that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. NGUYEN: But why -- the wood fence need to be addressed for sure, I understood that. The reason I mentioned because, you know, the neighbor; disagreement. That's why I feel it is not accepted. That's why I did not remove it. But I think that thing January 24, 2020 Page 105 needs to remove for sure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. NGUYEN: Okay. I understood that. But why the chain-link fence? What's wrong with the chain-link fence? Why dig it out -- why the county say, dig it into the record and say, well, without a permit, need to remove. Why? What happened? Show me the records that say why the fence no permit and why -- what reason -- why you need to remove it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is the fence on your property? MR. NGUYEN: No, sir. That fence belong to FP&L. It's a 10 feet between property line. FP&L. It's not mine either. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's in the easement. MS. CURLEY: Easement. MR. NGUYEN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Dee, do you concur with that? MS. PULSE: I cannot say that Florida Power & Light owns that fence or installed that fence. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you blow that up, Jeff. MS. CURLEY: Florida Power & Light's just an easement to access the property. They don't own the dirt. MR. NGUYEN: But who put the fence up or -- like I said, the Chairman asked, who fence is that? I don't even know. But FP&L own that piece of land; 10-feet easement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Where is the fence on that picture? MR. LEFEBVRE: Up there, sir. MR. NGUYEN: Can I? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. MS. CURLEY: Yes. MR. NGUYEN: It's right here. All the way up, and the pole right here. The pole of the -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Which is your house? January 24, 2020 Page 106 MR. NGUYEN: The pole's right here. The power line, 10-foot right here. The whole thing fenced up from here to up there, all the way to the back. MS. CURLEY: And where is the wood fence? Is the wood fence -- MR. NGUYEN: The wood fence probably from here to here. Wood fence. But I will remove the wood fence. MS. CURLEY: Okay. That's fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. NGUYEN: Can I show you something? Can I show you one more thing? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. NGUYEN: The plat -- the easement of FP&L. And nobody know -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Give it to -- MS. CURLEY: Why don't you have legal counsel explain to him what the difference between -- what an easement is because he's confused. MR. LEFEBVRE: He doesn't represent him. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He's us. Okay. You can put that up on the -- sure. MR. LEFEBVRE: Did we accept it? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Give me a motion to accept the document. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept the document. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. January 24, 2020 Page 107 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. That's the easement; is that correct? MR. NGUYEN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The problem is, that's the easement with words. I don't know where the fence is. MS. CURLEY: But an easement doesn't mean ownership. An easement means access. MR. NGUYEN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: That means Florida Power & Light has access to your property, your dirt, in the event that they need to access your power lines. Florida Power & Light does not own your land. They only own the ability to access it if need be. That doesn't really have any bearing on your case. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So that means that the fence is actually on your property. MR. NGUYEN: I don't know. I mean, the fence -- I bought it from the bank foreclosure. Everything there. And I do not know who put the fence up or permit or not permit. MS. CURLEY: So how about a survey? Did you get a survey done when you bought your property? MR. NGUYEN: We have a survey. MS. PULSE: Yeah. There's a survey that was entered into evidence. MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah. I just want to say that this to me proves that the fence is probably not permitted because it is in an easement, and we wouldn't have allowed that in the first place. MS. CURLEY: You can have fences in easements. January 24, 2020 Page 108 MR. ORTEGA: Nonpermanent, correct. You can have a chain link. That's not permanent. A block wall, that's permanent. MS. CURLEY: Yeah. A fence is nonpermanent, and it can be in an easement. It's all over the county. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Jeff, you have the survey? You're looking for it, okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: Is the chain-link fence in disrepair also? MR. NGUYEN: I think chain-link fence is fine. And the first thing is the wood fence, because after the hurricane the neighbor call. I understood the wood fence need to be addressed. I know that. I don't know why the chain-link fence pop up a second -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Because we didn't find a permit for it; that's why. MS. CURLEY: So this has been open since 2017, and it's frustrating for me to hear you say so many times that the wooden fence should be addressed. It's two years ago. No wonder the neighbor's mad at you. MR. NGUYEN: I know. MS. CURLEY: Yeah. So let's move on from that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. First thing first. Jeff, did you find it? MR. LETOURNEAU: I did. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We'll take a look at that, and then we'll find out whether there is a violation or not. MR. ORTEGA: Blow it up like 4,000 percent. MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah, okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Are we trying to determine if the chain-link fence is actually on his property? What's the survey going to prove? MS. PULSE: 2014. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You would think it shows it. MR. LETOURNEAU: Shows the property line. January 24, 2020 Page 109 (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. ORTEGA: You can see there's a fence on both sides. THE COURT REPORTER: I can't hear you when you're all talking and not on the mics. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's just mumbo jumbo. Background noise. MS. CURLEY: It's on the line. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Are we talking about the chain-link fence now, or are we talking about the wooden fence? MR. NGUYEN: I don't know. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Not you. The county. MR. LETOURNEAU: The county contends that both fences are on Mr. Nguyen's property and that FP&L did not put the fence up there. And even if FP&L did put it up there, it would have needed a permit. We can't find a permit for the chain-link fence, and it needs a permit. MS. CURLEY: And you shouldn't put a fence on a property line. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MS. CURLEY: So you don't know. It could be the neighbor's. If it's on the line -- MR. NGUYEN: Yes, ma'am. That's why -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. LEFEBVRE: Does it circle -- does the chain-link fence go around your whole property? MS. CURLEY: Scroll down on the survey. MR. LETOURNEAU: Simple question. MR. NGUYEN: I can't even walk in the back. MR. LETOURNEAU: Does this chain-link fence go around your whole property? MR. NGUYEN: One side. January 24, 2020 Page 110 MR. LETOURNEAU: That's it? Only the west side? MR. NGUYEN: On that side with FP&L middle. I think, on the front -- I mean, the front part, the 10 feet all the way chain-link fence, both sides, all the way to the back. MR. LETOURNEAU: So you're saying that it goes around both sides? You have chain-link fence on both sides of your property? MR. NGUYEN: Both side, that fence. Their fence and my fence and 10-feet easement between the two property with FP&L 10-feet easement. MS. CURLEY: Stop saying easement. MR. ORTEGA: Can I see a closeup of that? MS. CURLEY: I don't have anything to do with it. MR. LETOURNEAU: What do you want to look at? MS. CURLEY: I want to see the back of the property to see if it has the poles. Keep going. Yeah. I want to see if the poles continue to the back. The county's right. There you go. MR. LETOURNEAU: Is there a chain-link fence back here in the back of your property? MR. NGUYEN: I do not know. MR. LETOURNEAU: You don't know if there's a fence in the back of your property? MR. NGUYEN: It's heavy wood. I never walk in the way in the back there. It get -- half of the lot not -- I mow -- I taking care of. The rest of that, I do not know. MS. CURLEY: Well, the survey from 2014 shows that there's a fence back there, and that was when you bought the property? MR. NGUYEN: Yes, ma'am. MS. CURLEY: Okay. So do you understand how we're -- do you understand that? MR. NGUYEN: Yeah. MS. CURLEY: Okay. January 24, 2020 Page 111 MR. NGUYEN: I am a craft [sic] engineer, ma'am. I can read all that. MS. CURLEY: That's a lot of fence. MR. LETOURNEAU: County's contention is neither fence is permitted, and the wood fence is damaged severely. MS. CURLEY: I agree with the county that the fence does -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Herminio, after close inspection what do you say? MR. ORTEGA: It appears that the fence is inside his property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ORTEGA: That's also an old survey. MS. CURLEY: Fourteen, it says. Oh, wait. Is that received? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's stamped on the 14th. MS. CURLEY: Oh, I beg your pardon. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't we determine whether a violation exists. MS. CURLEY: I'll make a motion a violation exists. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second a violation exists. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. January 24, 2020 Page 112 Dee, you have a suggestion for us? MS. PULSE: Yes. Recommend that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all cost -- all operational costs in the amount of $59.35 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days, and abate all violations by: Number 1, obtaining all required Collier County building permits, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy for all unpermitted fencing or remove all unpermitted fencing within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Number 2, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate 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 provision of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Jeff, do you have any idea why they put a chain-link fence up, whoever did it, around the property? MR. LETOURNEAU: I -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You have no idea either? MR. LETOURNEAU: I have no idea. I mean, there is a pool on the property. That's going to be addressed in the next case. But they did have a -- they did have a screen porch on that, so I don't know if one led to the other at some point. I have no idea -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: -- but I -- we just couldn't find a fence permit for either one of those fences. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CURLEY: I have a question, Jeff. So if they -- I'm just January 24, 2020 Page 113 asking for -- just for my -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Shits and giggles. MS. CURLEY: If this gentleman got a new survey showing that the fence was in his property, can you then -- can a citizen of the county go and then ask for a permit for that fence? MR. LETOURNEAU: I'm going to say that if Mr. Nguyen goes and gets a survey and it shows that it's not on his property, is that what you're saying, or -- MS. CURLEY: Is or isn't, either way. MR. LEFEBVRE: If it's not on his property, then we would come back to the Board and rescind this order and go after the person that -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Whose property it's on. MR. LETOURNEAU: Exactly. Now, if it shows that it's on his property, then we're in the same boat. He's got to get a permit. MS. CURLEY: Does he still have to remove it, or he has to get a permit? MR. LETOURNEAU: He has to get a permit or remove it. One or the other. MS. CURLEY: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: When I purchased my house three-and-a-half years ago, it had an unpermitted fence on the property. And the owners, the seller, got it permitted. It took him 25 days maybe, not even, and it was taken care of. So this isn't a monumental task that needs to be done. So with that being said, I make a motion that the operational costs in the amount of 59.35 be paid within 30 days, and the respondent has 60 days, or $100-a-day fine will be imposed. MS. CURLEY: So it's not monumental, but this case has been open since 2017. MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct. But I'm just saying the process to January 24, 2020 Page 114 get if done is not that -- it was done pretty easily. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. ORTEGA: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: One quick question before we wrap up this case. This chain-link fence, does it completely surround the property? Is it closed off? MS. PULSE: My only evidence is the survey. MR. LETOURNEAU: I just -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Does it come up to the house? (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. LETOURNEAU: -- testimony at this point. MR. LEFEBVRE: I know we're done with the case, but it's for follow-up for the next case. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. LETOURNEAU: Supervisor Perez showed me a picture. When was that picture -- January 24, 2020 Page 115 MS. PEREZ: 2015. MR. LETOURNEAU: -- 2015 showing the fence did go through the backyard, so I'm assuming it goes around the whole property. MS. PULSE: Also, there's none in the front. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. PULSE: Along the Green Boulevard, and there is none on a small portion of the east side of the front property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This comes to play in the next case. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah. Sorry. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So with that said, let's move on to the next case. MS. ELROD: Do you want to explain to him that he needs to get a permit for the fence. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think we should hear the second case -- MS. ELROD: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- which has to do with a similar situation. Are you okay with -- okay. You notice everybody gets up to go to the bathroom here, but you're stuck there. Okay. Next case. (The speakers were previously duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. PULSE: Okay. For the record, Dee Pulse, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. This is in reference to Case No. dealing -- or, I'm sorry -- Case No. CEPM20190006547 dealing with violation of the Florida Building Code, Sixth Edition, 2017, Chapter 4, Section 45, Sections 454.2.17.1 through 454.2.17.3. It's for no barrier around the in-ground pool located at 5175 Green Boulevard, Naples, Florida, January 24, 2020 Page 116 34116; Folio No. 38396160008. Service was given on May 31st, 2019. I would like to now present case evidence in the following exhibits: One photo taken by me on May 30th, 2019; one taken July 11th, 2019; an aerial view of the property from Property Appraiser website for the year 2010 which shows an existing screen enclosure around the pool; one for the year 2016 showing no enclosure; and one for 2019; and a zoning verification document. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you go back to the picture, Jeff, that has the -- so we can see the -- MR. LETOURNEAU: I shouldn't be having this up here until you accept the -- MS. CURLEY: Motion to accept. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. You can put it up now. MS. PULSE: I will say that Mr. Nguyen has observed my documents. I'm not sure if he fully accepts all of them, specifically the photographs taken by myself. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Nguyen, do you have an objection to any of the photographs that Ms. Pulse has shown you? January 24, 2020 Page 117 MR. NGUYEN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Which particular photo, and what is the objection? MR. NGUYEN: One photo from Code Enforcement took direction from Green Boulevard straight to the back and shows the pool ladder. And I disagree with that. I don't think that the pool ladder -- would you show her -- the chairman that pictures -- that photo? MS. PULSE: I'm sorry? MR. NGUYEN: Would you show the chairman that photo? MS. PULSE: It's the photo taken on July 11th, 2019. MR. NGUYEN: Would you show the photo? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We can't see the photo unless we rule on whether or not we can see it. You say you don't want us to see it. My question to you is, is that a picture of your ladder? MR. NGUYEN: No, sir. No ladder in the pool that direction -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is it a picture of your property? MR. NGUYEN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, if it's a picture of your property and -- we can judge whether there's a ladder there. MR. NGUYEN: I'm sorry about that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If somebody snuck in and put a ladder on your property, I don't know. Okay? So as far as that -- I think the chair overrules that objection, okay? MR. LETOURNEAU: We're good to go? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: That's the picture Mr. Nguyen was talking about. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't know what I'm looking at other than a tree. MR. ORTEGA: Neither do I. January 24, 2020 Page 118 MS. PULSE: Okay. This is a view from the property. And as you will see, you saw in the aerial photos, the pool is very close to this corner of the rear yard. So I was never invited to the property for an inspection, so this is what I could see from my legal vantage point on Green Boulevard. It is a chrome -- shall I point to that? It is a chrome ladder that normally is installed in a pool where the steps are walking down into a pool. MR. LETOURNEAU: Where's the ladder at, Dee? MS. PULSE: How can I point? MS. CURLEY: Is that a mechanical equipment that we're looking at that you just -- by the black drain hose? MR. NGUYEN: That the A/C. MS. CURLEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me see if I can cut to the chase here. Do you have a pool in the backyard? MR. NGUYEN: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have a fence around it? MR. NGUYEN: No, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: I mean, the aerials -- let's go to the aerials. MS. CURLEY: Make a motion a violation exists. MR. DOINO: Second. MS. PULSE: The thing I'm talking about is the handle -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. PULSE: -- that goes into the pool. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: There's a pool there. MR. LETOURNEAU: Here's 2010 where you see the screened porch was on -- over the pool. January 24, 2020 Page 119 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you stand up, Jeff, and point with your finger. Outline. He's tall enough. MR. LETOURNEAU: Right here. The pool's underneath this screened porch. This is the aerial from Property Appraiser's from 2010. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So there's a pool there. MS. CURLEY: And a birdcage over it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct. So I'm going to jump up to an aerial from -- if I can get out of here -- to 2016. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So there's a pool there without a cage now? MR. LEFEBVRE: As you can see, the pool's still there. There's no official -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Fence. MR. LETOURNEAU: -- pool barrier, be it a cage or a fence for this pool at this time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Question for him. MS. PULSE: Okay. I'm going to go ahead with my details. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. PULSE: This case was open as a result of investigating CEAU20170016724 for no barrier around the pool and had been observed -- building official determined a pool barrier must be maintained, and a notice of violation was issued. There has been communication with the owner as well as in-office meetings providing Mr. Nguyen with all of his options. As of today, no barrier is installed, and violation remains. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The motion that you heard before was out of order. We have to find out whether a violation exists first now. So I'll entertain your motion that you made before. MR. LETOURNEAU: Are you going to -- does Mr. Nguyen January 24, 2020 Page 120 want to -- have a say here, or are we just going to jump into the -- MS. CURLEY: We asked him, and he said he doesn't have a pool enclosure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He said he does have a pool. MR. DOINO: No enclosure. MS. CURLEY: No enclosure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: There's no fence around your pool. MR. NGUYEN: No, sir. But on the 2018, the same thing, and I came up here for the hearing, and Code Enforcement closed the case in 2018. Couple months later, pop the case again with the swimming pool barrier. I don't know why. And the 2018, the same thing, closed the case. 2019 with the pool cage or pool cage or pool barrier again. I don't know why. MR. ORTEGA: Does a barrier exist now, yes or no? MS. PULSE: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It doesn't matter. That's for -- I don't know why we need to know that. I only need to know what is there now. MS. CURLEY: So back to the motion on the table. We did hear from the -- we're familiar with the property already, and I made a motion that a violation exists, and it was seconded. MR. DOINO: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we have a motion. Any discussion on the motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Just a question. When you purchased the property, did it have a screen enclosure or not? MR. NGUYEN: No. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. ORTEGA: It did. MR. LEFEBVRE: When he purchased it in '14. MR. ORTEGA: How far do you go in your aerials? January 24, 2020 Page 121 MS. PULSE: 2010. I have one of 2010. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. Ten -- MR. LETOURNEAU: This is the beginning, right here, of 2014, and we've got 2015. MS. CURLEY: Okay. Here we go. MS. PULSE: It was gone there. But the bank owned the property, so when the bank owns, they put that cover on a pool, and that's what we're seeing here. MR. LETOURNEAU: I can't explain why the pool cage was -- it came up missing in the year 2014, obviously. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Was that after a hurricane? MR. LEFEBVRE: No, I don't believe so. MS. PULSE: Wilma was in '16. MR. LETOURNEAU: Wilma was in 2005. Irma was 2017. MS. PULSE: Oh, five, yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What I'm surprised is a pool without a barrier around it should be heard immediately. MR. LEFEBVRE: But if it just came to the attention -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, well -- okay. So we have a motion. It was seconded. All those in favor of that motion? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. And you have a suggestion for us. MS. PULSE: Yes, sir. January 24, 2020 Page 122 Okay. It's recommended that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $59.21 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy for a permanent approved in-ground pool barrier within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Number 2, must install a temporary pool barrier within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Number 3, the responded 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 the abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You want to take a shot at it? MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that the 59.21 in operational costs be paid within 30 days and within -- for the -- No. 1 within 45 days, or a 200 -- sorry -- within 45 days or $250 fine and No. 2 within 15 days or a $250 fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can we get a second? MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We get a second. Okay. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. January 24, 2020 Page 123 MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. So you need to put up a temporary barrier around that fence [sic] within the next 15 days, or you're going to be fined $250 a day. MR. NGUYEN: Can you repeat it, please. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We'll get it to you in writing. But it's the temporary banner -- you know, you've seen those orange fences, you know -- MR. NGUYEN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That will work temporarily. MR. NGUYEN: On the -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Because it's very serious having a pool that doesn't have a fence. Somebody could fall in and die. And a permanent fence should be put around the pool within 45 days, or the same fine exists, $250 a day. MR. NGUYEN: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. NGUYEN: Can I say something? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. NGUYEN: I see a lot of pools around Collier County, long it not appear water or the pool appear to the public safety, then no need a pool cage. Is that correct? I don't know. That's why I mentioned about the pool ladder. From -- Code Enforcement say, well, the pool there. That means appear -- appear to the public the pool existing. But without that ladder, then the pool not existing January 24, 2020 Page 124 accept aerial view. MS. ELROD: Is there water in the pool? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You have a pool. MR. NGUYEN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You used to have a cage around it. MR. NGUYEN: I do not know. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, the pictures show that there was a cage around it, a screened lanai, whatever you want to call it, that used to be there. MR. NGUYEN: That's 2010. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't care when it was. It was there. MR. NGUYEN: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Now it's done. MR. NGUYEN: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's a safety violation right now. So you need to put up a temporary fence around the pool now and a permanent barrier around the pool within 45 days. MR. NGUYEN: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay? And what exists in other places in the county, there's nothing we can do on the Board unless the case comes before us. But I will guarantee you that any case that comes before us with a pool that's not protected, you will never find that we let that go by. That is like number one on our list of things that we need to make sure, because many children fall in pools and drown, and we would feel guilty if we didn't do anything. MR. NGUYEN: I understood that, except, you know, because I see a lot of them. I don't know why they existing without a pool cage. In my case they got me pulled, I mean, case up. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If you filed a code violation against January 24, 2020 Page 125 what you see -- MR. NGUYEN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- they will take care of it the same way they did with this one. MS. CURLEY: Let's stay focused on you. So the -- MR. NGUYEN: Sure. MS. CURLEY: -- best advice would be for you to call a fencing company and work with the county together, because the fencing company's going to understand the rules, even be able to help you put up a temporary fence that's accessible. So it's a good idea if you call professionals and work with the county on -- for this issue, because you have a very short time frame. And let's worry about you, not the rest of the Collier County people. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. NGUYEN: What about the chain-link fence? What can I do about a chain-link fence? MS. CURLEY: That was the case before. We're talking about the pool now. MR. LETOURNEAU: If I would interject, I mean, I would try to incorporate that chain-link fence, if it's viable, as the pool barrier if it was me. I would, you know, talk to the Building Department, see if that portion of the fence is good enough for what you need, get whatever latches you need and gates, and try to incorporate that as the barrier. That's what I would do if I was the homeowner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If your entire backyard is fenced so that no children can get through, that would meet what we're saying. For the most part, that chain-link fence is around your property. So, if you work with these people -- they may have to extend it to the side of the house to make sure that you can get in and out of there, but that might be a solution, but that's -- MR. NGUYEN: That might be a solution, but when we talk January 24, 2020 Page 126 with that lady over there, got to be pool cage and the fence need to be take off because no permit. I don't know. That what she told me. MS. CURLEY: Try calling a professional company to help you. MR. NGUYEN: Sure. MS. CURLEY: It's complex. MR. NGUYEN: Easy way by incorporate or fix something instead of taking it out. She asked [sic] me pool cage got to be up and the fence got to be moved out because of no permit. That's what I'm here for. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you. MR. NGUYEN: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good luck. MR. NGUYEN: Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. BUCHILLON: Next item on the agenda, we're going on under imposition of fines. We're going to do No. 13 first for medical reasons, because -- CESD20190003992, Adolphe Antoine and Nahomie Plancher. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The respondent's name on this is Blanchard? MS. CURLEY: Plancher. MR. LEFEBVRE: Plancher, P-l-a-n-c-h-e-r, No. 13. MS. CURLEY: Number 6.C.13. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have the individual sheets on these. Excuse me while I fumble through the paperwork. Found it. Oh, okay. Do you want to go first, or you want the respondent to? MR. MUCHA: For the record, Joe Mucha, supervisor, Collier County Code Enforcement. I believe they have a request that they want to make of the Board. January 24, 2020 Page 127 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And could you state your name on the microphone. You may want to pull it up. You're taller than I am. MR. JOSEPHET: My name is Kervin Josephet. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And, Kervin, you wanted to say something to the Board before we review this? MR. JOSEPHET: Yes. I believe there was a violation for a shed in our backyard. I believe we were given two or three months to abide by it. I believe it was -- we didn't have a permit for -- we did not have a permit for the shed. I believe it was supposed to be connected to the house or 10 feet away from the house. MR. LEFEBVRE: She shed. MR. JOSEPHET: Yes. And with that time being said, we were unable to, and my father basically decided to completely demolish the shed itself, to take it apart. He did not have the money or the resources to connect it to the house or space to put it away. And I believe he asked for, I believe, 30 or 60 days to just to remove the shed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This was -- I'm looking. The past order on this, May 23rd, 2019; is that correct? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And? MR. MUCHA: So, basically, they've had six months, weren't able to figure out -- to permit it, I guess. It was going to be too much for him. So he's asking for additional time to just -- so they're just going to remove the shed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is the shed still there? MR. MUCHA: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Did you pull a demo permit yet? MR. JOSEPHET: No. January 24, 2020 Page 128 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And how much time do you think you need to pull a demo permit to get this thing gone? MR. JOSEPHET: For me personally, I do not know, but I was told to say 60 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Whoever told you was very good. MR. LEFEBVRE: I remember this case. The mother was using it as a sewing room, I think it was. MS. CURLEY: Me, too. So do you know what's happened since they found out that -- when they realized that the expenses were greater than the keeping the shed, like, what time frame that was? Was that in the fall? In the summer? Do you know when? MR. JOSEPHET: Not that I talked to them about that. I was told actually a couple weeks back that he was unable to do anything about it. Because right now I'm full time in college, so I don't know what was going on with the shed. And I was told that they weren't going to do anything with it. They couldn't do -- couldn't connect it or put it away, so they told me they just wanted to remove it completely. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we extend this, give an extension for 60 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You want to continue it? MR. LEFEBVRE: Extension. The fines will not be accruing. MS. CURLEY: I don't agree with that. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. ELROD: I'll second his motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Go, Sue. MS. CURLEY: They put you in the hot seat sending you here, just so you know. MR. LEFEBVRE: We have a motion and second. Discussion? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I thought you had something. January 24, 2020 Page 129 MS. CURLEY: Nothing to say. MR. DOINO: Sure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion that's been seconded to extend this for 60 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: That's correct, sir. MS. CURLEY: The only comment I have on this is that the fining didn't even motivate them to get it done. Since November 23rd they've been being fined and knew it. They got the paperwork. So in spite of that, even putting fines out -- so I don't know why you would reward them by removing all the fines and starting the fining process at 61 days from now. I find it to be inadequately unfair to the way that this board operates. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we have a motion that's been seconded. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MS. CURLEY: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. It carries. Sixty days. MR. JOSEPHET: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Shed's gone. MR. JOSEPHET: And after -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Fines are gone. MR. JOSEPHET: Who do we contact to let you guys know that -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Contact Joe. MR. JOSEPHET: Okay. January 24, 2020 Page 130 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He's a good guy. MR. JOSEPHET: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He tells me that anyhow. Next. MS. BUCHILLON: Next item on the agenda under motion for imposition of fines, No. 1, CEPM20190000168, AW Becker. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You want to read this into the record. MR. MUCHA: Sure. For the record, Joe Mucha, supervisor, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is dealing with a violation of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Section 22-213(12)(c). Location was 9 Topaz Lane, Naples. Folio number is 31142503081. Description of the violation was roof and fascia damage from Hurricane Irma. Past orders: On June 27th, 2019, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. Respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinance and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the Board, OR5652, Page 854, for more information. Violation has been abated as of October 23rd, 2019. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of $100 per day for the period from September 26th, 2019, to October 23rd, 2019, for 28 days, for a total fine amount of $2,800. Previously assessed operational costs of $59.49 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing is $59.28. For a total amount of $2,859.28. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Would you like to say anything? January 24, 2020 Page 131 MR. BECKER: My name is Carl Becker, and I'm representing my father. And I do have a power of attorney, which I didn't have back when it was originally done. I'd like to say that we were able to get it done. We were not able to get it done in the time frame. We had it under permit before it. The company was not able to accomplish it by that date. We did everything that we could to facilitate that. And we're -- I'm asking that -- if we could rescind that fee. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any discussion or motion from the Board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to deny the county's imposition of fines. MR. ORTEGA: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Fines are gone. MR. BECKER: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. BENNETT: Have a good day. MS. BUCHILLON: Next item on the agenda, under imposition of fines, No. 2, CESDSD20180009477, Raymond H. Brown Trust. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. SHORT: For the record, supervisor Eric Short with Collier January 24, 2020 Page 132 County Code Enforcement Board. This property is in compliance, and I believe the respondent has a request. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. If you would read through this, and then we can adjust it at that time. MR. SHORT: Sure. This is in regards to violation of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Location is 9051 Gulf Shore Drive, Unit 301, Naples, Florida; Folio 23470280000. Description was an interior remodel, plumbing, electrical work, and removal of interior walls without required permits, inspections, and certificate of completion. Past orders: On April 26th, 2019, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. Respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the Board, OR Book 5629, Page 3159, for more information. The violation has been abated as of November 7th, 2019. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of $200 per day for the period of October 24th, 2019, to November 7th, 2019, 15 days, for a total fine amount of $3,000. Previously assessed operational costs of $59.70 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing, $59.35. For a total amount of $3,059.35. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you're here to ask us? MR. CARROLL: Yes. My name is Mark Carroll. My wife and I own the unit, and we just basically wanted to waive the fees. We have a letter that the Planning Department -- planning development, Michael Fernandez sent to the Board requesting that -- the reason for our delay for completing it on a timely manner. January 24, 2020 Page 133 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Board? MR. DOINO: Make a motion, deny the county. MS. ELROD: Second. MR. ORTEGA: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second to deny the county's ability to collect the fine. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you, sir. MR. CARROLL: Thank you. MS. BUCHILLON: Item No. 3 under imposition of fines, CESD20160002295, Destiny Church Naples Inc. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, or is it afternoon already. MR. WAHLBERG: It is afternoon. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We'll try to get one of the blue-shirt people here. MR. WAHLBERG: Yeah, Cristina will be. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Or maybe Cristina will be. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. PEREZ: Good afternoon. I was trying to explain fences out there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. January 24, 2020 Page 134 MS. PEREZ: Good afternoon. For the record, Cristina Perez, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in records [sic] to Case No. CESD20160002295. 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). Location: 6455 Hidden Oaks Lane, Naples, Florida; Folio 41930720008. Description: An unpermitted shed, fence, pole barn type structure, also unpermitted shipping crates, containers used for storage. Past orders: On January 25th, 2017, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings 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, OR5359, Page 3952, for more information. On June 22nd, 2017, the Code Enforcement Board granted a continuance. See the attached order of the Board, OR5410, Page 3395, for more information. On August 29, 2019, the Code Enforcement Board granted a continuance. See the attached order of the Board for more information in document and images. The violation has been abated as of January 17th, 2020. The fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at the rate of $150 per day for the period from May 26th, 2017, to January 17th, 2020, 967 days, for a total fine amount of $145,050. Previously assessed operational costs of 647.59 and 63.54 and 59.63 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing is $59.77. Total amount is $145,109.77. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good afternoon. MR. WAHLBERG: Good afternoon. January 24, 2020 Page 135 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You probably are here to request something? MR. WAHLBERG: I'm asking that we could abate these fines, as we are now in compliance with the -- THE COURT REPORTER: Your name, please. MR. WAHLBERG: Oh, I'm Gene Wahlberg. I am the chair of our board of trustees at Destiny Church. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have any motion from the Board or discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, I'll make a motion that the -- deny the county's ability to collect the fines. MS. ELROD: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) MR. WAHLBERG: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So your time was well spent. MR. WAHLBERG: It was. MS. PEREZ: Thank you. MS. BUCHILLON: Next item on the agenda, No. 4, CEV20190003764, Francis M. Smugorzewski. It's hard to say it. January 24, 2020 Page 136 MR. JOHNSON: That's exactly right. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: John, do you want to read this? MR. JOHNSON: I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. JOHNSON: Violation: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Section 130-95 and 130-96(a). Location was at 2739 Holly Avenue, Naples, Florida; Folio No. 50890320005. The violation was unlicensed vehicles parked in the grass and a boat without a trailer parked in the front of this residence. Past orders: On September 25th, 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 violation. See the attached order of the Board, OR5684, Page 54, for more information. The violation has been abated as of January 22nd, 2020. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at the rate of $250 per day for the period from November 26th, 2019, to January 22nd, 2020, 58 days, for a total fine amount of $14,500. Previously assessed operating costs of $59.21 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearings, $59.21. Total amount: $14,599.21. The gravity of this violation is extremely minor. The vehicles have been removed from the property. And I do have pictures if you guys want to see it. But you know this gentleman, right? Okay. He's -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Looks familiar. MR. JOHNSON: He's not really the respondent, but he's representing that property, and he's done tremendous work there. He's actually abated other violations we have as well. January 24, 2020 Page 137 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: He's the chief abater for the neighborhood. MR. JOHNSON: He is -- he is that and more. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. SAUNDERS: Good afternoon, Board. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good afternoon. MR. SAUNDERS: We started, as far as you know, in the morning. But, anyway, what I'd like to do is have all fines and fees waived if possible. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Board, we have motion? MR. ORTEGA: Motion to deny the county's collection. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. SAUNDERS: Thank you very much, and have a wonderful afternoon and a great weekend. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You, too. MS. BUCHILLON: Next item on the agenda, No. 8, CESD20160015129, Luis Flores Salceiro. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is not an imposition, or it is an January 24, 2020 Page 138 imposition? MS. BUCHILLON: Yes, it is an imposition, sir. (The interpreter was sworn to truly and correctly translate English into Spanish and Spanish into English.) (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We're all sworn in and ready to roll? Would you like to read the case into the record? MS. GUY: Yes, thank you. For the record, Paula Guy, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violation is Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 3.05.01(B), 10.02.06(B)(1)(e), and 10.02.06(B)(1)(c), and Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances Chapter 22, Article IV, Section 22-108. The location is 2298 Everglades Boulevard South, Naples, Florida; Folio 41287600004. Description of the violation is site work improvement of property grading and/or removal of protected vegetation using heavy machinery without a permit which would allow an alteration of land through placement of fill that removed or otherwise destroyed vegetation without first obtaining approval from the county; damaging native vegetation by the use of heavy machinery to remove exotic and non-native vegetation; work done in the right-of-way, including a temporary driveway access from Everglades Boulevard without first obtaining valid Collier County permits. Past orders are to include -- are on June 22nd, 2017, 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 violation. Refer to the attached order of the Board, OR5410, Page 3377, for more information. On January 26th, 2018, the Code Enforcement Board granted a January 24, 2020 Page 139 continuance. Refer to attached order of the Board, OR5477, PG2466, for more information. On November 22nd, 2019, the Code Enforcement Board granted a continuance. See the attached order of the Board, OR5703, Page 3312, for more information. The violation has now been abated as of December 10th, 2019. Fines and costs to date are as follows: The fines accrued at a rate of $100 per day for the period from September 21st, 2017, to December 10th, 2019, a total of 811 days, for a total fine amount of $81,100. Previously assessed operational costs of 67.64, 59.70, and 59.49 have all been paid. The operational costs for today's hearing is 59.70. The total amount due is $81,159.70. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning. Good afternoon. Soon to be evening. MS. FLORES: Good afternoon. Well, we would like to -- THE COURT REPORTER: Your name? MS. FLORES: Oh, Shala Flores. I'm Luis' daughter. So we would like to ask the Board if you guys can waive the fees, all the fees and fines. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments or motions from the Board? MR. DOINO: Make a motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. To? MR. DOINO: Deny the county. MR. ORTEGA: 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. January 24, 2020 Page 140 MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) MS. FLORES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. FLORES: Thank you. Have a good day. MS. GUY: Thank you. MS. CURLEY: I just want to know if you have -- do you have goats? Did you get a goat farm? MS. FLORES: What did you say? MS. CURLEY: Do you have the goats? MS. FLORES: No. MS. CURLEY: No. No goats. Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Different case, I guess. MS. BUCHILLON: Next item on the agenda under imposition of fines, No. 14, CESD20180014203, Joan E. Kittrell. MS. KITTRELL: Good afternoon. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I do. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. MUCHA: For the record, Joe Mucha, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is dealing with the violation of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e). Violation location was 291 Grassy Key Lane, Naples; Folio 81627240000. Description of violation was a fence and cabana-type structure January 24, 2020 Page 141 without first obtaining Collier County permits. Past orders: On May 23rd, 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 violation. See the attached order of the Board, OR5638, Page 2151 for more information. The violation has been abated as of October 31st, 2019. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of $100 per day for the period from November 20th, 2019, to December 13th, 2019, 24 days, for a total fine amount of $2,400. Previously assessed operational costs of $59.63 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing is $59.35 for a total fine amount of 2,459.35. MR. LEFEBVRE: I have a question. MS. CURLEY: Yeah. MR. LEFEBVRE: If the fine's -- if it was abated -- I should say -- not the fine. If the violation was abated on October 31st, how can fines accrue after that date? MR. MUCHA: Yeah, that's a good question. MS. CURLEY: I think your dates are just a little bit off. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't we just dispose of it. MS. CURLEY: I'll make a motion to deny the county's -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Very good. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. MS. CURLEY: Just simply on the technicality. MR. MUCHA: Actually, I'm looking at the paperwork here. It looks like the paperwork was finaled on December 13th, so that was just a typo, sorry. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Scrivener's error. MR. MUCHA: Scrivener's error, yes, sir. January 24, 2020 Page 142 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. I hope you enjoyed the entertainment this morning. MS. KITTRELL: I'm retired. It was great fun. Have a marvelous weekend. Almost better than television. MS. CURLEY: You came on a good day. MS. BUCHILLON: Next item on the agenda under imposition of fines, No. 7. I didn't know he was here. CESD20170002774, N-A Properties LLC. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, Dee. MS. PULSE: Okay. Good afternoon. For the record, Dee Pulse, Collier County Code Enforcement. I do believe that the respondent might have a request. MR. LEFEBVRE: We have to hear it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Read it into the record first. MS. PULSE: You want me to read it first, okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. Okay. Violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), (e), and (i). Location is 5630 Copper Leaf Lane, Naples, Florida; Folio 38169440007. Description was an in-ground swimming pool on the property January 24, 2020 Page 143 with no barrier and no permits obtained. Past orders: On November 17th, 2017, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings 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, OR5456, Page 1396, for more information. On July 26th, 2018, the Code Enforcement Board granted a continuance. See the attached order of the Board, OR5540, Page 2990, for more information. On October 26th, 2018, the Code Enforcement Board granted a continuance. See the attached order of the Board, OR5567, Page 3040, for more information. Fines and costs to date are as follows -- oh, I'm sorry, the violation has not been abated as of January 24th, 2020. The fines and costs to date are as follows: B, fines have accrued at a rate of $100 per day for the period from January 2nd, 2018, to January 24th, 2020, 753 days, for a total fine amount of $75,300. C, fines have accrued at a rate of $150 per day for the period from November 21st, 2017, to January 24th, 2020, 795 days, for a total fine amount of $119,250. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of $59.49 have been paid. Previously assessed operational costs of $59.84 and $59.56 have not been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing, $59.77. Total amount: $194,729.17. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Now, ordinarily we do not hear -- if the operational costs have not been paid, we don't even hear from the respondent. This thing is still in violation. Speaking to the county, is there any reason you can see why this should not be imposed? MS. PULSE: They have had a lot of trouble with the contractor January 24, 2020 Page 144 that they hired and paid to do the work, get the permit done. They had -- all inspections were completed on the 21st of this month, January, but there was some problems because the inspections are being done as of today's code, when it's really permitted back in the day when the pool was installed. There are -- all inspections have been scheduled again today. One plumbing -- final plumbing inspection did pass, but the other ones are still waiting to be completed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is there a barrier around the pool? MS. PULSE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Okay. Well -- MS. CURLEY: Are you the contractor? MR. SEPANSKI: No. Please, no. I've been here three times. It's my house. MS. CURLEY: It's your house. MR. SEPANSKI: But I had to hire a contractor to do it because the county wouldn't allow me to do it myself. Supposedly, now we're waiting on one more inspection, because the inspector that came out didn't understand what he was looking at, so he had to go back and talk to his supervisor, which has happened, like, four times now. They keep sending inspectors out who don't understand what they're looking at, and then they've got to go back and get a new opinion, then we've got to go back and change it again. So if we can continue this maybe till the end of the meeting, he's waiting for his supervisor, and it might all pass, and we can be done with this. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are you available to pay the two fines that were assessed and never paid? MR. SEPANSKI: Which ones are those? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: 59.84 and the 59.56. MR. SEPANSKI: Yes. I guess. I mean, I assumed they were January 24, 2020 Page 145 already paid. MS. CURLEY: Those are fees for attending the meeting, so that's -- MR. SEPANSKI: I know. I thought they were paid. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: According to my sheet, they weren't. MR. SEPANSKI: I mean, every time -- the last time I appeared here, we went right down two days later and paid them. So I -- MS. PULSE: I don't have access to look that up right now. MR. LETOURNEAU: It would be hard for me to assess right now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you pull this until next month. MR. LETOURNEAU: The county would like to withdraw this case until next month. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good thought. MR. SEPANSKI: That's fine. If it's not done next month -- I mean, if I'd have known this, I'd have filled the damn thing in, believe me. It would have been easier and cheaper. I've already got $5,000 into permitting a pool that was put in 25 years ago. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Not only that, it wouldn't be so cold. MR. SEPANSKI: Oh, well, yeah. Believe me, somebody went in the pool today to fix the wiring. They tried to get it to pass. MS. CURLEY: Was that you? MR. SEPANSKI: No. I've been here all day. I had to force somebody else to do it. Okay. See you next month. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We'll see you next month. MR. SEPANSKI: Thank you. MS. PULSE: Thank you. MS. BUCHILLON: The next item on the agenda, under January 24, 2020 Page 146 imposition of fines, No. 15, CEPM20180006143, Grupo Melgar Inc. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. MUCHA: For the record, Joe Mucha, Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name on the microphone for us, sir. MR. MELGAR: Jay Melgar. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You're going to read through it, Joe? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MUCHA: This is dealing with violation of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 5.03.02(F)(3), and Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Sections 22-228(1) and 22-231(12)(C). Violation location is 500 Cynthia Lane, Naples; Folio No. 004278800007. Description of the violation was an abandoned home in need of proper maintenance and repairs. The roof is in need of repair and appears to be leaking in several areas. Past orders: On August 13th [sic], 2018, 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 violation. See the attached order of the Board, OR5549, Page 971, for more information. The violation has been abated as of December 16, 2019. Fines have accrued at a rate of $200 per day for the period from November 22nd, 2019, to December 16th, 2019, for 25 days, for a total fine amount of $5,000. Previously assessed operational costs of 59.70 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing is 59.42 for a total amount of January 24, 2020 Page 147 $5,059.42. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MELGAR: So I would like please have the fines and fees removed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Board? MS. CURLEY: I totally agree with his request. MR. LEFEBVRE: This property he acquired. An investor bought it, let it -- he's the one that originally was brought in front of this board. MR. MELGAR: Yeah, it's -- we're taking care of it, but the fines and the violation was to the prior owner. MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct. MS. CURLEY: Congratulations. MR. LEFEBVRE: Then you still have work to do on the interior, correct? MR. MELGAR: Yes. MS. CURLEY: Yeah. I'll make a motion to deny the county's -- MR. ORTEGA: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. We have a second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. It was worth the wait. MR. MELGAR: Yes, thank you. You guys have a good January 24, 2020 Page 148 afternoon. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You, too. MS. BUCHILLON: Next item on the agenda under imposition of fines, No. 17, CESD20180007557, Farid Uddin Ullah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is this a violation? MS. BUCHILLON: There was a gentleman here, but he left. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. There was a gentleman here. He died of old age waiting. What do we -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Should we just skip it? MS. BUCHILLON: So we're going to No. 18, imposition of fines. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the name again is? MS. BUCHILLON: CESD20180000943, ADGNP Mortgage Inc. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name on the microphone for us. DAVID MARTINEZ: David Martinez. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the gentleman with you. DAVID MARTINEZ: My father, Nelson Martinez. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. DIAZ: Alula Diaz. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Cristine, you want to read through it? MS. PEREZ: Yes. Good afternoon. For the record, Cristina Perez, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in regards to CEB Case No. CESD20180000943. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location: 891 Fifth Street Southwest in Naples, Florida; Folio January 24, 2020 Page 149 37162681000. Description of the violation is a guesthouse was converted -- the guesthouse was converted into three units. The first unit, the garage, and utility room were converted into living with an unpermitted kitchen and bathroom. The second unit, an interior wall was added in the kitchen, bathroom of the main house structure, and the third unit was an unpermitted kitchen and bathroom all constructed without first obtaining the authorization of the required permits and all certificate of occupancies as required by Collier County Building. The past orders: On September 27th, 2018, 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 violation. See the attached order of the Board, OR5562, Page 1664, for more information. The violation has been abated as of January two thousand -- I'm sorry. January 2020. Fines and costs are as follows. MR. LETOURNEAU: Do you have something different than I have up there? MS. PEREZ: I do believe so. MR. LETOURNEAU: I have November 25th, 2019. MS. PEREZ: Yes. So the violation has been abated as of November 25th, 2019. Fines have accrued at the rate of $250 per day for the period of December 27, 2018, to November 25th, 2019, 334 days, for a total fine amount of $83,500. The previously assessed operational costs of 59.70 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing is $59.35. Total amount is: $83,559.35. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I'm assuming this was in Naples Park; is that correct? January 24, 2020 Page 150 DAVID MARTINEZ: I think it's Golden Gate. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, Golden Gate. MS. PEREZ: This is Golden Gate Estates. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Okay. You're up. DAVID MARTINEZ: We would like to request that the fines be abated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. DAVID MARTINEZ: Based on complete compliance at this point with the county regulations. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So you pulled the permits and had them all converted? DAVID MARTINEZ: Everything's been taken care of. MS. PEREZ: There was a demo permit that was issued, and everything was reverted back to its original state, permitted state. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Board? MS. ELROD: I'd like to request the county be denied. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. MR. ORTEGA: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Worth the wait. DAVID MARTINEZ: Thank you very much. January 24, 2020 Page 151 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. DAVID MARTINEZ: We enjoyed the show. MS. BUCHILLON: Next item on the agenda, we're back to hearings, No. 1, CESD20190012462, CLC of Naples LLC. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. GIGUERE: Hello, everybody. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. GIGUERE: Good afternoon. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let the record show the respondent is not present. Would you like to present your case? MS. GIGUERE: I would, thank you. Good afternoon. For the record, Vicki Giguere Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20190012462 dealing with violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), a home hauled onto property without first obtaining permits located at 3415 Cherokee Street, Naples, Florida, 34112; Folio -- excuse me -- 74413240001. Service was given on October 23rd, 2019. I would like to now present case evidence in the following exhibits. It's just one photo taken on October 15th, 2019. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion from the Board to accept? MR. DOINO: Motion to accept. MS. ELROD: Motion to accept. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay seconded. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. January 24, 2020 Page 152 MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. MS. GIGUERE: There is the home still on its trailer. This was a complaint that was received for this home that was hauled onto a property and left on the trailer. I spoke with the owners, and they said they would take care of it and get the necessary permits, and at this time the violation remains. There was a permit applied for recently, but it was voided, so they haven't done anything. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that -- the property owner, not the -- is the property owner and the owner of that structure the same person? MS. GIGUERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So they had a house delivered? MS. GIGUERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Instant. MS. CURLEY: I have a question. Is that a lot that -- where something's been demoed and they've moved that, or is that sitting next to another piece of -- MS. GIGUERE: It's sitting next to -- it's a separate property what you see on the left. The little bit of that structure is a separate property. MS. CURLEY: Is this Mr. Cadenhead's property? MS. GIGUERE: Yes, it is. They both are, the side by side. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We remember him. MS. CURLEY: He just changed the name of the owner. I know the address. I can -- MS. GIGUERE: Exactly. January 24, 2020 Page 153 MR. LEFEBVRE: I was wondering that, too. MS. CURLEY: Yeah. He transferred the ownership, obviously, because that's the address. We've seen him a million times. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you want to go through your -- you contacted them? MS. GIGUERE: I've talked to Mr. Cadenhead. Jeff has talked to Mr. Cadenhead. It's always the same story, as we know, that he's going to take care of it, and nothing's been done. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Get a motion from the Board if a violation exists. MR. DOINO: Motion a violation exists. MS. CURLEY: Second. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion and a second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. You have a suggestion for us? MS. GIGUERE: I do. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $59.28 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: One, obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of January 24, 2020 Page 154 completion/occupancy to keep or remove the home that was brought onto the property within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank dollars 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 try to fill in the blanks? MR. LEFEBVRE: Just a quick question. On a first offense -- well, is this a repeat violation? Not for this case, but there's been other cases on this property, correct? MS. GIGUERE: There's been so many cases on every one of his properties. MR. LEFEBVRE: On this particular property, has -- MS. GIGUERE: There -- well, technically, this is a second case for the same violation, but as far as -- because we closed it out because he changed the deed. So we opened the new case for the new ownership. MR. LEFEBVRE: Was the -- but that case wasn't heard in front of us, right? MS. GIGUERE: No. MS. CURLEY: It's a delay tactic. MR. LEFEBVRE: What's the maximum first-time fine that we can -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You can go $5,000. MR. LEFEBVRE: No, per day. Per day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You can go $5,000 a day. January 24, 2020 Page 155 MS. CURLEY: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Jed? I'm right -- am I right? MR. LEFEBVRE: That's if there's a one-time -- MR. LETOURNEAU: I believe you are correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Of course. MS. CURLEY: I have a question for the county. MR. LEFEBVRE: Whoa, whoa. I have a question. MS. CURLEY: I'm so sorry. MR. LEFEBVRE: It hasn't been answered yet. I asked our attorney. MR. SCHNEK: That is correct. By your local ordinance, you may impose a fine up to $5,000 per day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What a guess. Okay. So does that answer your question? MR. LEFEBVRE: It does. But I wanted to hear it from our legal counsel. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Now that you heard it, would you like to do anything -- Sue, you have something? MS. CURLEY: This is a question for the county. There's already a structure on this property, and so just -- I mean, can you -- is -- if he -- even the philosophy of that might become a permanent structure there, is that allowed? I mean -- MS. GIGUERE: Well, there's no structure on this property. This is the only structure on this parcel. MS. CURLEY: I see. MS. GIGUERE: Yeah. So that would be their primary if they were able to permit it as such. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So I would like to see a very short leash on this. If you give him more time, he just delays for more time. So a short time and a big fine. MS. CURLEY: We can't do a civil penalty on this? January 24, 2020 Page 156 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's not necessary. MS. CURLEY: I didn't think you could abate civil penalties. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This isn't a civil penalty. This is a regular everyday what we do. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Let's see if this will fly. MR. SCHNEK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. SCHNEK: I stand corrected on the $5,000 limit. It is actually $1,000 for the first-time violation. That's your cap. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. MR. SCHNEK: And then the cap on a repeat violation would be $5,000, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. SCHNEK: -- to clarify it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Very good. I was under the cap for the first-time violation anyways. So 59.28 paid within 30 days, 45 days to come into compliance, or a fine of $1,000 a day. MR. DOINO: Second. MS. CURLEY: I have some discussion. Would you -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Sure. MS. CURLEY: -- be open to reducing that to the next date -- the next meeting of next month instead of 45 days, whatever the time frame is between this meeting and the next meeting? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're suggesting 30 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, probably less than 30 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: But it won't be able -- they won't be able to bring it in front of us at that period because -- in 30 days because they're going to have to prepare all the paperwork. You see what I'm saying? They can't prepare a case until he's passed that time frame. MS. CURLEY: Well, he had till November 5th to do January 24, 2020 Page 157 something, and he's done nothing. MR. LEFEBVRE: Oh, I understand. MS. CURLEY: I feel like he's already gotten 90 days free. And this guy totally milks every time, and he does things on purpose. He transfers property. He doesn't show up. MR. LEFEBVRE: I understand. MS. CURLEY: He's sick. There's a million and one reasons why. MR. LEFEBVRE: So are you asking for 30 days? I'll amend my motion to 30 days. We just need to have the second amend it. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. Okay. Let me ask. Jed, so this -- you probably want to write it up so that I can sign it sooner rather than later. MR. SCHNEK: Understood. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And I do have a hammer. MR. LETOURNEAU: We won't be able to get back for the next hearing, like Mr. Lefebvre said, because, you know, the hearing notices and everything else. So it would be at least two months before this came back for an imposition. MS. CURLEY: Well, you could do 15 days. MS. BUCHILLON: It will be for March. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think 30 days -- I'm not going to amend my motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. January 24, 2020 Page 158 MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MS. GIGUERE: Thank you. MS. BUCHILLON: Next item on the agenda under hearings, No. 10, CEV20190012844, Steven J. Stilton Estate. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why does this sound familiar to me? (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. MUCHA: For the record, Joe Mucha, supervisor, Collier County Code Enforcement. That is because there is a previous case that I believe is running fines for people being there without water. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MUCHA: It's kind of a problem property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MUCHA: Okay. This is -- I'm sorry. Because I've got two here. This is in reference to Case No. CEV20190012844 dealing with a violation of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 130, Article III, Section 130-95 described as an unlicensed vehicle parked on the property. Violation location is 120 Andrea Lane, Naples, 34114; Folio number is 738680006. Service was given on October 24th, 2019. I'd like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Two photographs taken on October 24th, 2019, and two photographs taken yesterday, January 23rd, 2020. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Get a motion to accept. MR. DOINO: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. January 24, 2020 Page 159 MS. ELROD: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. MUCHA: The picture there basically depict -- there's a van unlicensed. It's kind of abandoned in the front yard. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So that's two violations. One is it's on -- it's not on the driveway. It's on the yard. MR. MUCHA: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the two, it's unpermitted. Okay. MR. MUCHA: Okay. So the case initiated on October 24th. On November 8th, the investigator received a call from, I guess, the vehicle owner, and she stated she would remove it. As of today the vehicle remains, and no contact from the vehicle owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This is the Estate. Is the respondent still with us or -- MR. MUCHA: No. He's deceased. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MUCHA: And I think that's part of the problem. I think there's different people in and out of there. We really don't know what's going on there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: Looks like they're golfing at least, January 24, 2020 Page 160 though. MR. LEFEBVRE: There's a golf bag in the bottom right. MS. CURLEY: Is this -- is this a neighborhood complaint? MR. MUCHA: Yes, and Sheriff's Office. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we want to make a motion if a -- MS. CURLEY: I'll make a motion a violation exists. MS. ELROD: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second that a violation exists. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. You have a suggestion for us, Joe? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. Obtaining -- pay operational costs in the amount of $59.21 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and to abate all violations by: One, obtaining and affixing a current valid license plate to each vehicle not stored within the confines of a completely enclosed structure or storing said vehicle within a completely enclosed structure and/or repairing the defects so vehicle's immediately operable or removing the offending vehicle from residentially zoned area within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Two, the respondent must notify the code enforcement January 24, 2020 Page 161 investigator when a 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: My only point on that is if I went and put license plates on that vehicle and left it there, it's still in violation. MR. MUCHA: Technically, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, it's still in violation, because it's on -- what's the ground? Impervious blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, right? Okay. I just mention that in passing. Okay. Anyone want to take a shot at this one? MR. LEFEBVRE: Operational costs in the amount of 59.21 to be paid within 30 days. Fifteen days to remove the vehicle or get plates on it, as stated, or a $200-a-day fine. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Get a second on that. MR. ORTEGA: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thanks, Joe. January 24, 2020 Page 162 MR. MUCHA: You're welcome. MS. BUCHILLON: He has another case; the same. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Helen, what case is it? MS. BUCHILLON: Number 11, CELU20190012842, Steven J. Stilton Estate. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Just wanted to have it on the record. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. MUCHA: Sure. No problem. For the record, Joe Mucha, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CELU20190012842 dealing with a violation of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances Chapter 54, Article VI, Section 54-181, and also the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41 as amended, Section 2.02.03 described as litter and prohibited outside storage including, but not limited to, trash, containers, buckets, wood, a wheelbarrow, dollies, dilapidated golf cart, A/C units, tiles, tires, and other household items. Violation location is 120 Andrea Lane, Naples, 34114; Folio number is 738680006. Service given on October 24th, 2019. I'd like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Eight photographs from October 24th, 2019, and five photographs from January 23rd, 2020. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the photos? MS. ELROD: Motion to accept. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. January 24, 2020 Page 163 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. LETOURNEAU: I'm just going to go through these. Stop me if you want. There's a golf cart in the back. Golf clubs again. MR. MUCHA: A lot of golf clubs. So, basically, this is the same scenario. It's a house that we believe that transients are in and out of, so there's really nobody responsible. You know, and I don't know if anyone's there now. I mean, you go there some days and it looks like nobody's there. Then we get reports that people are there. So the owner's deceased. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is there any possibility of securing the house, you know, or is it not worth trying? MR. LETOURNEAU: I think the house is probably secure, isn't it? MR. MUCHA: Yeah. It's not like there's wide-open doors or anything. I mean, I do believe that people are probably staying there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: It's a Sheriff's Office issue at this point as far as the people in there, I believe. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, our motion will probably take care of the situation. Does a violation exist? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a -- MS. ELROD: Motion a violation exists. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. January 24, 2020 Page 164 MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Do you have a suggestion for us, Joe? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. MUCHA: That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $59.21 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and to abate all violations by: One, removing all unauthorized accumulation of litter from the property to a site intended for final disposal or storing items within a completely enclosed structure within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Two, that 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: Anybody want to fill in the blanks? Very similar to the previous. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Go ahead. MR. LEFEBVRE: Operational costs in the amount of 59.21 be paid within 30 days, and they'll have 15 days to remove or take care January 24, 2020 Page 165 of everything, or a $200 fine per day. MS. CURLEY: Is that the same as the motion before? MR. LEFEBVRE: Exactly same so there's no confusion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Exactly, okay. So we have a motion. Do we have a second? MS. CURLEY: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MS. BUCHILLON: Next item on the agenda under hearings, No. 15, CESD20190002904, Johnny R. Mollett. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let the record show respondent is not present. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. GUY: I do. Good afternoon. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good afternoon. MS. GUY: For the record, Paula Guy, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20190002904. It's dealing with a violation of a building or land alteration permit; improvement of property prohibited prior to an issuance of a building permit, Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(e). January 24, 2020 Page 166 The description of the violation is to include removal of vegetation from an unimproved parcel with no permits. The location is no site address. The folio number is 41508600000. Service was given on April 15th by method of service of mailing. I would like now to present case evidence in the following exhibits: I have Exhibits A and B which are photos taken by myself on March 8th, 2019, and Exhibits C and D taken by myself on March 19th, 2019. Also, Exhibit E is an aerial map of the parcel, and Exhibit F would be the DEP wetland determination from 2005 that I was able to locate. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Get a motion to accept the exhibits. MS. ELROD: Motion to accept. MR. ORTEGA: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Where is this? Out in the Estates or -- MS. GUY: Yes, it is. It's off of 36th Street on the east side of DeSoto. And you can see the parcel where they're actively there. They had a camper and were living there. They had cleared from the frontage of the lot about 24 feet in, and then to go back halfway through the parcel. January 24, 2020 Page 167 That's the camper where they were staying. And the previous -- there was another case I had issued for the land use of the storage. The pictures, the second ones, are after they cleaned everything up where they actually made it look extra nice. But you can see it clears all the way to the back. So the initial complaint received from a citizen was on March 7th, Case CESD2019002574. That was for the persons living in the RV and the land clearing. That case was abated on September 26th by removal of all the items stored, and they ceased all removal of vegetation. On my initial inspection, I visited owner on site; informed me that he is a resident of Kentucky, and he purchased the land to build a Florida home. On March 13th, my on-site visit with the owner, I measured the square footage removal of all the vegetation removed. It determined to be approximately 9,216 square feet of the parcel. The size of the parcel is 2.71 acres. On March 26th, 2019, Collier County Environmental Department determination findings advised to issue a notice of violation for removal of vegetation without a permit. April 15th the violation was issued and posted on the property. At that time the owner had vacated and gone back to Kentucky. On May 13th, 2019, owner Mr. Mollet contacted me, advised he's still working with the DEP of environmental regarding the removal of the vegetation. On August 5th communication again with the owner. He advised he's attempting now to sell the property with full disclosure of violation in place. He does not have the financial means to pursue the requirements for proceeding with building or a replanting restoration plan. October 14th, 2019, no progress for corrections, and I prepared January 24, 2020 Page 168 the case for hearing. The last communication I had with Mr. Mollett was on December 31st, 2019. He advised that he would be coming into Florida in February and again inquired for a less expensive alternative to correct his violation. I advised him that the hearing was set for January 24th, as we previously discussed, and recommended that he attend. And I've had no other communication with him since that date. So as of today's date, the violation remains in place. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion a violation exists. MS. ELROD: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Do you have a suggestion for us? MS. GUY: I do. So my recommendation is that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $59.28 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days, and abate all violations by: One, must immediately cease all land clearing, vegetation removal, and/or landfilling and remove all materials and items brought on site and obtain all required federal, state, and county January 24, 2020 Page 169 approvals, permits, inspections, and certificates of completion to either permit the current vegetation removal or restore the property to its original permitted condition within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed as long as the violation remains. Number 2, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. One question. MS. GUY: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What's the size of this particular piece of property? MS. GUY: It's 2.73 acres. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. GUY: So it's approximately less than a quarter of what he's cleared. My last inspection, there is some brush that's growing back where he cleared, but after consulting environmental, they advised that it still needs to have a restoration plan; that the regrowth had too much exotics. There was nothing Florida native in there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: There are no exotics in there? MS. GUY: Oh, yes. Well, the regrowth is exotics. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If he was here, could he say "the only thing I removed is exotics," or that wouldn't be true? MS. GUY: That wouldn't be true. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Someone like to try filling out the blanks? MR. ORTEGA: I'll give it a shot, if I can see it. January 24, 2020 Page 170 MS. CURLEY: Can you zoom up on it, Jeff. MR. ORTEGA: What's that? MS. CURLEY: I just asked him to zoom up on 1 and 2. MR. ORTEGA: That the respondent pay the operational costs of 59.38 within 30 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: 59.28, right. MR. ORTEGA: I can't see. MS. GUY: Correct. MR. ORTEGA: 59.28. MR. LETOURNEAU: Let me out of there and come back in. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We would have been done at 10:00 if we had someone better at the computer. MR. LETOURNEAU: I don't know what I did here. MR. ORTEGA: Okay. So we're -- that the respondent pay 59.28 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days, and that the violation be abated within 90 days of this hearing at $200 a day. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MS. GUY: Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. BUCHILLON: Next item on the agenda. Under January 24, 2020 Page 171 imposition of fines, No. 9, CESD20190006401, Johnson Pharisien. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm still looking for the paper. Pharisien is P-h-a-r-i-s, blah, blah, blah, okay. MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. Okay. Joe, read away. MR. MUCHA: For the record, Joe Mucha, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is dealing with a violation of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location: 2617 Holly Avenue, Naples; Folio No. 50890640002. Description of the violation: Per Jonathan Walsh's building determination, the existing rear structure requires a permit. Also, Permit PRBD20180318305, for the replacement of a mobile home has expired -- that expiration date was November 20th, 2018 -- without having its final inspections and the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Past orders: On September 26th, 2019, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. Respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the Board, OR5684, Page 60, for more information. Violation has not been abated as of January 24th, 2020. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of $300 per day for the period from October 27th, 2019, to January 24th, 2020, for 90 days, for a total fine amount of $27,000. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of $59.21 have not been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing is $59.28, for a total fine amount of $27,118.49. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Have you had any contact with the January 24, 2020 Page 172 respondent? Has anybody? MR. MUCHA: I believe he's incarcerated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, they know where to find him. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You know where to find him, right. Okay. Anybody like to make a motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to impose the fines. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion to impose. MS. ELROD: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MS. CURLEY: I just have a question. If they're incarcerated, nobody gives him his mail? How does that work out? MR. MUCHA: I think there -- the investigator was in touch with his wife or girlfriend. So they're aware, or she's aware, and I'm sure she speaks to him. Well -- MS. CURLEY: That's too bad. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Next case. MS. BUCHILLON: Last case, No. 17, CESD20180007557, Farid Uddin Ullah. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) January 24, 2020 Page 173 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let the record show the respondent is not present. MR. MUCHA: For the record, Joe Mucha, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is dealing with a violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1) and Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(e). Violation location is 3633 Treasure Cove Court, Naples; folio number is 27690008123. Description of the violation is an exterior lanai wall that was blocked in where the screens were originally without first obtaining the required permits. On September 26th, 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 violation. See the attached order of the Board, OR5684, Page 58, for more information. Violation has not been abated as of January 24th, 2020. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of $250 per day for the period from November 26th, 2019, to January 24th, 2020, 60 days, for a total fine amount of $15,000. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of $59.21 have not been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing is $59.28, for a total fine amount of $15,118.49. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any motion from the Board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Motion to impose. MR. ORTEGA: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion to impose. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. January 24, 2020 Page 174 MS. CURLEY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. MUCHA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have one left over here. MS. CURLEY: That was when you were asleep when we heard. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: On 104th Avenue. Jovanovic. MS. BUCHILLON: That was withdrawn. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Withdrawn? MS. BUCHILLON: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How about Allen? MR. LEFEBVRE: Withdrawn. MS. CURLEY: How about motion to adjourn? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. What was this? MR. LEFEBVRE: That was No. 2, Brown. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: She's got a lovely daughter. That's a song. Okay. We are adjourned. ***** January 24, 2020 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1 :56 p.m. ODE . FO ' EMENT BOARD --7-1200115" / ' O : ERT T MAN, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on 02-,X) - 9.0 , as presented ;/ or as corrected . TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC/COURT REPORTER. Page 175