Loading...
CEB Minutes 07/26/2007 R July 26, 2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida July 26, 2007 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the 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 at the Community Development and Environmental Services Bldg, Room 609/610,2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Sheri Barnett (Absent) ACTING CHAIRMAN: Gerald Lefebvre Larry Dean Lionel L'Esperance (Absent) Kenneth Kelly Richard Kraenbring Gerald Lefebvre Charles Martin Jerry Morgan George Ponte (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Jeffrey Klatzkow, Assistant County Attorney Bendisa Marku, Operations Coordinator Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA Date: July 26, 2007, at 9:00 a.m. Location: Collier County Government Center, Third Floor, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, F1341l2. NOTICE: THE RESPONDENT MAY BE LIMITIED 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 ODER AND SPEAK ONE AT A TIME SO THAT THE COURT REPORTER CAN RECORD ALL STATEMENTS BEING MADE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - June 18, 2007 4. PUBLIC HEARINGSIMOTIONS A. MOTIONS B. STIPULATIONS 1. BCC vs. Angel Martinez 2. BCe vs. Albert Houston SR. 3. BCe vs. Albert Houston SR. CEB 2007-55 CEB 2007-63 CEB 2007-64 C. HEARINGS 1. BeC vs. Glen Hollingsworth and Marsha Kendall 2. Bee vs. VI Partnership, L TO 3. Bee vs. Ursula M. Ervin 4. BCC vs. Cynthia Gonzales 5. BCe vs. Florida Motorsports, LLe 6. Bee vs. Naples Gym, Inc 7. BCe vs. Alfredo Miralles and Alfredo Miralles JR. CEB 2007-57 CEB 2007-58 CEB 2007-60 CEB 2007-61 CEB 2007-62 CEB 2007-65 CEB 2007-66 5. OLD BUSINESS A. Request for Reduction! Abatement of FineslLiens 1. BCe vs. eederiere Titus and Jeanne Bonnett eEB 2007-02 B. Request for Imposition of Fines/Liens I. Bee vs. Sandra ehacon 2. BCe vs. Bradley Residential, LLe 3. Bee vs. eesario and Vonada Nunez and Gerald and Elvira Warden 4. Bee vs. Angel Riquelme and Lissette Riquelme 5. Bee vs. Angel Riquelme and Lissette Riquelme eEB 2006-60 eEB 2007-16 eEB 2007-20 eEB 2007-34 eEB 2007-42 C. Request for Time Extension 1. Bee vs. Domenic P. Tosto and Joanne M. Tosto eEB 2007-32 D. Request for Foreclosure Authorization I. Bee vs. Deborah Katchur 2. Bee vs. Gary D. Wilson 3. BCC vs. Douglas S. White 4. Bee vs. Samuel Mena 5. BeC vs. Occeus Saintillien and Malveileas Estiveme 6. Bee vs. easa Bonita Home Builders, Inc 7. BCe vs. Bruce Assam 8. Bee vs. Cloe Waterfield 9. Bee vs. Luis Angel Dones 10. Bee vs. Elinord Pierre eEB 2004-015 eEB 2004-28 eEB 2004-081 eEB 2006-0 I eEB 2006-22 eEB 2006-24 eEB 2006-34 CEB 2006-35 eEB 2006-49 eEB 2006-53 6. NEW BUSINESS 7. REPORTS 8. COMMENTS 9. NEXT MEETING DATE - August 23, 2007 10. ADJOURN July 26, 2007 ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, it is 9:00. Everyone ready? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, ready now. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd like to start the Code Enforcement Board of Collier County for July 26th, 2007. Notice, the respondent may be limited to 20 minutes per 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 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 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. Roll call, please. MS. MARKU: Mr. George Ponte has an excused absence. Gerald Lefebvre? ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. MARKU: Larry Dean? MR. DEAN: Here. MS. MARKU: Ms. Sheri Barnett has an excused absence. Jerry Morgan? MR. MORGAN: Here. MS. MARKU: Richard Kraenbring? (No response.) MS. MARKU: Kenneth Kelly? MR. KELLY: Here. Page 2 July 26, 2007 MS. MARKU: Charles Martin? MR. MARTIN: Here. MS. MARKU: And Mr. Lionel L'Esperance has an excused absence. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And for the record, the alternate will be voting on all cases. And do we have any changes to the agenda? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, for the record, Michelle Arnold. We have several stipulations that we're going to be adding to that portion of the agenda. Item number 4-C-3 is a stipulation. It will become 4-B-4. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, and the name of the MS. ARNOLD: And that is Board of County Commissioners versus Ursula M. Ervin. Then Item No. 4-C-4, which is Board of County Commissioners versus Cynthia Gonzales, will become 4-B-5. Item 4-C-5, which is Board of County Commissioners versus Florida Motor Sports, LLC, will become 4-B-6. And Item 4-C-6, which is Board of County Commissioners versus Naples Gym, Incorporated, will become 4-B-7. Am I going too fast? ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No. MS. ARNOLD: And Item 4-C-7, which is Board of County Commissioners versus Alfredo Miralles and Alfredo Miralles, Jr., will become 4-B-8. Additionally, Item 4-B-2 (sic) is being removed from the agenda. The respondent paid costs, so there's no need to impose. And they're in compliance. And that was 4-B-2 -- excuse me, 5-B-2. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Which would be BCC versus Bradley Residential? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. Correct. Page 3 July 26, 2007 That's all the changes that I have. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I have a motion to approve the agenda? MR. DEAN: Motion to approve the agenda. MR. MORGAN: And a second? MR. KELL Y: Second it. And a vote, please. Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The agenda has been approved. The approval for the minutes of last month, June 18th, 2007. Do I have a motion? MR. MORGAN: I make a motion to approve. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And a second? MR. KELLY: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And a vote. Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Abstained. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And we can start off with the public hearings. And we'll start off with the motions. MS. ARNOLD: There are no motions today. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right. We'll go to stipulations. And the first stipulation is BCC versus Angel Martinez. And is the inspector here? And also, is the respondent here? MR. MUCHA: The respondent is not present. (Speaker was duly sworn.) Page 4 July 26, 2007 MR. MUCHA: Joe Mucha. M-U-C-H-A. Okay, this is CEB Case No. 2007-55, Department Case No. 2007010562. Location of violation: 307 Weeks Terrace, in Immokalee, 34142. I reached an agreement with the property owner, a Mr. Angel Martinez, and this was back on July 13th of2007. He agreed that he was in violation of Sections 10.02.06(B)(I)(a), 10.02.06(B)(1)(e), 1O.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i) of Collier County Land Development Code, Sections 105.1 and 111.1 of the Florida Building Code, 2004 edition; Sections 103.11.1 and Section 106.1.2 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Section 22, Article 2. And these violations are described as: Unpermitted additions to a mobile home. But I am happy to report that prior to this hearing that the respondent has obtained a demo permit and removed the additions to his mobile home. And he has also -- no, he has not paid the operational costs, but he has agreed to pay the operational costs of 291.52. So the violation has been abated. And that's all. MR. DEAN: Is anybody renting this property now? Is there any tenants in there or anything? MR. MUCHA: No, sir. MR. DEAN: Okay, thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further questions? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm going to close the hearing. MR. KELL Y: In the past weren't we putting a time frame on when the operational costs were going to be paid back? Is that something that staff wanted? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, it would be helpful for the board to establish a time frame for payment of the operational costs. MR. KELL Y: And in the past was it something just for Page 5 July 26, 2007 operational cost was like 30 days, if I remember correctly? I might make a motion that we add 30 days to the time frame in order to pay the operational costs. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Would you like to make a motion? MR. KELLY: I do. Make a motion. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Second? MR. MARTIN: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And all the ayes? MR. KELL Y: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nos? (No response.) (At which time, Mr. Kraenbring enters the boardroom.) ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And if you could make a note for the record, Mr. Kraenbring has come in. And it's 9:08. MR. KELL Y: I make a motion that we accept the stipulated agreement. MR. DEAN: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Did we already vote? MR. DEAN: All in favor. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MUCHA: Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: On this next case, do we want to take these both together, or individually? MR. DEAN: Can we? Page 6 July 26, 2007 MS. ARNOLD: Well, because they're two cases, two separate cases, you'll have to make two separate motions. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. And the next stipulated agreement would be BCC versus Albert Houston, Sr. And is the respondent in attendance? MR. MAZZONE: No, the respondent is not present. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. MAZZONE: Good morning. For the record, my name is Dennis Mazzone, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. The first case is Code Enforcement Board Case No. 2007-63, Department Case No. 2006070938, Collier County versus Albert Houston, Sr. And the first case -- both cases were stipulated by Mr. Houston. He said that he would be present today. I don't know why he's -- he didn't make it. The first case is located at 204 South Fourth Street, Immokalee, Florida. And it concerns a 24-by-32 plus/minus wood frame structure that remains on the property without a permit. Respondent stipulated to pay operational costs in the amount of $513.21 incurred in the prosecution of this case, and to abate all violations by completing the 24-by-32 wood frame structure that's located on lot six of block nine, Carson's Addition subdivision, Immokalee, Florida, so as to comply with all Collier County housing/maintenance and land development codes, and permit requirements. By obtaining an active Collier County building permit or demolition permit necessary to abate all found violations as noted in residential property maintenance inspection report number 204 South Fourth Street, Immokalee, Florida, dated 10/6/06. He agreed to accomplish this by August 27th, 2007 or fines of $50 per day will be imposed each day the violation continues. The respondent also agrees to -- ifhe elects to obtain a building Page 7 July 26, 2007 permit, to complete the abandoned project in question by executing the permit through final inspection and a certificate of occupancy by December 27th, 2007, or a fine of $50 per day will be imposed each day the violation continues. Respondent also agrees that ifhe elects to obtain a demolition permit, respondent must execute the permit by removing the wood frame structure and all resulting debris to a site intended for final disposal, and restoring all the premises to a state of compliance with Collier County housing/maintenance and land development codes and regulations by November 30th, 2007, or a fine of $50 per day will be imposed each day the violation continues. And the respondent further agrees that he will notify Collier County Code Enforcement to schedule a reinspection of the premise in question within 24 hours of abatement. I'll put a copy of the notice on the -- oh, it's on, okay. Any questions? ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Anyone like to make a motion? MR. KELLY: Actually, I have a question for Jean. MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. KELL Y: I didn't think on the last case, but the same thing occurs on this one where I would like to make a motion to set a time limit to when operational costs would be paid, to help staff out for enforcement. But if this is a stipulated agreement and the respondent has already agreed to what's written here and we go and change it, does that change the agreement to where it's not valid, or where that respondent would have to reagree to the agreement? MS. RAWSON: No, I don't think so. Because he has agreed to pay 513 .21 incurred in the prosecution of this case, which is to say even though he's not in compliance yet he has agreed to pay these, and they're not going to incur any more operational costs. So that's good for him. So I think you can say within 30 days. Page 8 July 26, 2007 MR. KELL Y: Very well. Thank you. I'd like to see that added, that we give him 30 days to pay the 513.21. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And are you making a motion? MR. KELLY: I am, make a motion. MR. DEAN: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nos? (No response.) MR. KELL Y: And I'll also make a motion to accept the stipulated agreement. MR. DEAN: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nos? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good. And for the next case? MR. MAZZONE: The next case involves the very same respondent. Again, he's not present. It's Code Enforcement Board Case No. 2007-64. Department Case No. 2006070939. And this lot is located directly to the rear of the lot we just Page 9 July 26, 2007 addressed. And the respondent -- which is 208 South Fourth Street, Immokalee, Florida. And the respondent agrees to pay operational costs in the amount of $513.21 incurred in the prosecution of this case and to abate all violations by repairing a 10-foot by 46-foot plus/minus mobile home type structure currently located on Lot 6.1, block nine, Carson's Addition subdivision, Immokalee, Florida, so as to comply with all Collier County housing/maintenance and Land Development Code permit requirements by obtaining all Collier County building permits or demolition permits necessary to abate all found violations as noted on the property in question, and also noted in the residential property maintenance inspection report dated 10/6/06. This must be completed by August 27th, 2007, or a fine of$50 per day will be imposed each day the violation continues. The respondent also agrees ifhe elects to obtain a building permit for rehabilitation, that he must execute said permit through a final inspection and certificate of occupancy by December 27th, 2007, or a fine of $50 per day will be imposed each day the violation continues. And he further agrees that if he elects to obtain a demolition permit, he must execute said permit by removing the mobile home and all resulting debris to a site intended for final disposal, restoring all premises to a state of compliance with our housing and maintenance and land development codes and regulations by November 30th, 2007, or a fine of $50 per day will be imposed each day the violation continues. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Does the board have questions? (No response.) MR. MAZZONE: Again, we do not have any time limit for the cost. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: One question. Is the mobile home currently occupied? Page 10 July 26, 2007 MR. MAZZONE: Neither of these structures are occupied. They haven't been occupied for a long period of time. Mr. Houston had taken out a permit several years ago to improve the wood frame structure on the front portion of this property, but it has lapsed. It's been an inactive permit. We've asked him to reactivate the permit, get it completed, or remove it, get a demolition permit and remove the incompleted structure. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Kelly, would you like to make a motion? MR. KELLY: I'd like to make a motion to set a time limit of 30 days to pay operational costs of 513 .21. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Second? MR. DEAN: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. KELL Y: And I'll make a motion to accept the stipulated agreement. MR. DEAN: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. The next stipulated agreement is BCC versus Ursula Ervin. Is the respondent present? Page 11 July 26, 2007 MR. SCRIBNER: No. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. BALDWIN: This is CEB Case No. 2007-60, Department Case No. 2005080978. The property is located at 4921 Teakwood Drive. It's owned by Ursula Ervin. Today we entered into a stipulated agreement with the respondent. She agreed that a violation did exist. And the violation of Sections 1 0.02.06(B)( 1)( a), 1 0.02.06(B)(1)( d), 1 0.02.02(B)(1)( d)(i) of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, and is described as an enclosed bottom floor of a stilt home and added electricity without building permits. The owner today paid operational costs in the amount of 481.90 that incurred in the prosecution of this case, and the violation was abated on Tuesday, July 24th, 2007. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're going to close the public hearing. Any questions from the board? MR. DEAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as read. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I have a second? MR. KRAENBRING: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion to approve the stipulated agreement? MS. ARNOLD: I think you got that. MR. DEAN: He's already paid, so we don't have to do the 30. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, we're going to move on to the next one. BCC versus Cynthia Gonzales. Is the Page 12 July 26, 2007 respondent present? MR. SNOW: Yes, they are. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: For the record, Investigator Kitchell Snow, Collier County Code Enforcement. CEB Case No. 2007-61, Department Case No. 2006090156. Property is located at 405 New Market Road, Immokalee. We entered into a stipulation agreement today. Violations of 1O.02.06(B)(2)(a), 10.02.06(B)(2)(d)(ix) of the Land Development Code 04-41, and Sections 16(2)(j) of the property maintenance code. The respondent has agreed to pay operational costs in the amount of 340.48 incurred in the prosecution of this case. And they have abated the violation. I'm very happy to report that. Weare working toward helping them obtain new signage and giving them guidance they need in obtaining the new signage. And I'm not going to read 2(A), but I want to read 3: Respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator that the violation has been abated -- which they did -- and request the investigator to come out and perform a site visit -- which they did. Cease displaying any sign that does not have a proper permit. Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: For the record, I believe that the operational costs have already been paid on this one as well. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is that correct? MS. ARNOLD: Oh, they have not? Okay, they have not. MR. SNOW: I believe she's going to pay today. MRS. LOZANO: Yes. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good. Mrs. GonzaleS, do you have any questions at all? MRS. LOZANO: Nothing. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you do agree to the stipulated agreement? MRS. LOZANO: Yes, I do. Page 13 July 26, 2007 ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good. And I'm going to close the public hearing at this point. MR. KELLY: Since the violations have been abated, should we just strike 2-A and maybe replace it with the violations have been abated, or add in the back at the bottom of it that they have been abated? ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Actually, we could probably ask the investigator when they have been abated and then just put in there all violations have been abated and the date as of. MR. KRAENBRING: Personally, I don't see the need to change it. Just leave it as it is. It's been abated. It's the same process that occurs normally. I think you're just adding paperwork to the pile. MR. SNOW: No, we just need a finding of fact for the record, that's all. MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that we accept the stipulated agreement. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Second? MR. KELLY: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor? MR. KELL Y: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. SNOW: Just for the record, that's Mrs. Lozano, not Mrs. Gonzales. She's representing. She's the mother, just for the record. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're all set? The next case will be Board of County Commissioners versus Florida Motorsports. MR. SNOW: Again, for the record, Investigator Kitchell Snow, CEB Case No. 2007-62, Department Case No. 2007040576. The address of the violation is 6329 Naples Boulevard. This is a Page 14 July 26, 2007 violation of Sections 5.04.05(A)(I), 5.04.05(A)(2). Violations of Ordinance 04-41, the Land Development Code. Banners displayed without first obtaining required county issued temporary use permit. We've agreed upon today for one, to pay operational costs in the amount of 269.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case, and abate all violations by: To submit for one permit within seven days from the date of this hearing for a banner displayed on said property or a fine of $250 a day will imposed until said permit is obtained. Start date for permit is from April 15th, 2007 to May 21 st, 2007. After-the-fact permit fees are to apply. Cease displaying any banner or sign that does not have proper permits within the unincorporated area of Collier County. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And number three? MR. SNOW: I'm sorry, the respondent must notify code enforcement investigator that the violation has been abated and request the investigator to come and perform a site inspection. Cease displaying any sign that does not have proper permits. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And for the record, your .? name, SIr. MR. ZOLA: Sean Zola. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And in what capacity do you represent Florida Motorsports? MR. ZOLA: Owner. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you agree to this? MR. ZOLA: Yeah, sure. Absolutely. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And also, you would agree to paying the operational costs within 30 days? MR. ZOLA: Not a problem. MR. KELL Y: I do have a question. 2(A), it says that they're to submit for the permit within seven days of this hearing or a fine of $250 a day will be imposed until the said permit is obtained. If they do submit within seven dates and for some reason it gets held up in Page 15 July 26, 2007 permitting department, they would then be responsible for the 250 a day. Should that maybe be reworded "until submitted" instead of obtained? MR. SNOW: Mr. Kelly, this is a temporary use permit. It's very easy to obtain. It's a one-day thing. It is not anything that's difficult. It's normally done. It's very quick to do. It's not something that requires an elaborate submittal process. It's very easy to obtain. That's the reason the short time frame. MR. KELLY: Fair enough, thank you. MS. ARNOLD: And I think because it's something that has already occurred and he's just getting an after-the-fact permit, it will probably just be that same day as well. MR. ZOLA: I'm just getting a permit, not to hang the signs, right? Because they're gone. I'm just getting a permit that says I permitted it -- had it for five days, or whatever. Okay. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And that's the reason it's after the fact. MR. ZOLA: Yeah, okay. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm going to close the hearing, and looking for a motion. MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion that we accept the stipulated agreement. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Second? MR. MORGAN: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. ZOLA: All set? ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All set? Page 16 July 26, 2007 Next stipulated agreement will be BCC versus Naples Gym, Inc. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: For the record, Investigator Kitchell Snow. This is CEB Case No. 2007-65, Department Case No. 2007050242. The address where the violation occurred was 2151 Trade Center Way. It's violations again of Section 5.04.05(A)(1), 5.04.05(A)(2). Violations of 04-41, the Land Development Code, banners displayed without first obtaining required temporary use permit. Respondent was ordered to pay the operational cost in the amount of292.77. They have obtained the permit that is required. In section 2-A they have done that, they've abated that violation. And number three, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator the violation has been abated, and request the investigator to come out and perform a site visit, which has been done. And cease displaying any sign that does not have a proper permit. Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you agree to the stipulated agreement? MR. FREEMAN: Yes. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: First of all, your name, please? MR. FREEMAN: Jonathan Freeman. F-R-E-E-M-A-N. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And your capacity for Naples Gym? MR. FREEMAN: I represent it. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And would you agree also to the stipulation that the operational costs be paid within 30 days from today? MR. FREEMAN : Yes, it will be paid today. Page 17 July 26, 2007 MR. KELLY: Make a motion we accept the stipulated agreement. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Second, please? MR. MORGAN: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor? MR. KELL Y: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It passes. MR. SNOW: Thank you. MR. FREEMAN: Thank you. MR. KRAENBRING: Mr. Chairman, which one are we on? ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Miralles. MR. MUCHA: Do I go ahead and start? ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Wait until we're done. Next stipulated agreement will be BCC versus Alfred Miralles and Alfred Miralles, Jr. Are the respondents present? MR. MUCHA: No, sir. This is -- I've got to be sworn in again? Okay. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. MUCHA: For the record, property maintenance specialist Joe Mucha, Collier County Code Enforcement. CEB Case No. 2007-66. Department Case No. 2006090335, Respondents Alfredo Miralles and Alfredo Miralles, Jr. Location of violations: 1715 Roberts Avenue West, Immokalee, Florida, 34142. I met with Alfredo Miralles on July 18th, and he signed the stipulation representing on behalf of himself and Alfredo Miralles, Jr. He agrees that he's in violation of Sections 1.04.01, paragraphs A, B andC. Page 18 July 26, 2007 Section 1.05.01, paragraph F. Section 2.02.03, Section 10.02.06, paragraph B. lA through IE of Collier County Ordinance 2004-41, Land Development Code. And these violations are described as a recurring unlawful use of an RMF -6 zoned property. Now I'm going to read from the agreement. First paragraph: Respondent agrees to pay operational costs in the amount of 372.03 incurred in the prosecution ofthis case. Paragraph two: Respondent agrees to abate all violations by -- paragraph 2-A: Respondent must serve notice to vacate to all occupants/tenants currently residing at the property, and have all structures vacated by August 25th, 2007, or a fine of $50 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. B: The respondent must engage the service of a contractor licensed in Collier County and obtain all required Collier County demolition permits necessary for the removal of all non-allowed, nonpermitted structures, improvements and prohibited use currently found at the property by August 25th, 2007, or a fine of 250 per day will be imposed for each day the violations continue. C: The respondent must execute all same demolition permits by ensuring all required inspections through to issuance of a certificate of completion for the removal of all non-allowed, nonpermitted structures, improvements, prohibited use and resulting debris to an approved site for final disposal, and provide code enforcement with copies of receipts for all same disposal by September 24th, 2007, or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed for each day violation continues. Section three: Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement and request the investigator to perform a final site inspection to confirm abatement. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I have a question for Jean. MS. RAWSON: Yes. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Are we allowed to ask the respondent to serve notice on tenants to vacate? Page 19 July 26, 2007 MS. RAWSON: Probably not. It's probably not within your purview. However, he has signed a stipulated agreement, and he's agreed to do that. So -- and he's not here. So your basic role today is to approve or not approve the agreement. Would you have an independent right to order somebody to do that? No, it's probably not within the scope of your responsibility and authority. But he's agreed to do it, so you can just approve his agreement. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. KELLY: I have a second part to that same question. In order to vacate a property, aren't you supposed to give them a minimum of 60 or 90 days? MS. RAWSON: Well, he's going to have to follow the statutory requirements for serving notice on his tenants. So I guess implicit in this contractual agreement with the county is that he will statutorily comply in order to serve notice on his tenants. MR. MUCHA: If! could just say for the record, on my last site visit it appears that all the structures have been vacated. But I just wanted to put that in there just in case. But it appears that he actually has already gotten everybody out of there. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: At this point I'd like to close the public hearing. Are there any questions from the board? Any further questions? (No response.) MS. ARNOLD: I just wanted to note that there was an interpreter for Mr. Miralles and that interpreter was who, Joe? MR. MUCHA: That was his son, Alex Miralles. MS. ARNOLD: And that's the signature that you see there on the bottom. MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that we accept the stipulated agreement. MR. KELLY: Second. Page 20 July 26, 2007 ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor? MR. KELL Y: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. MR. MUCHA: Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're now going to move on to the hearings. BCC versus Glen Hollingsworth and Marsha Kendall. CEB 2007-57. Is the respondent present? MS. MARKU: For the record, Bendisa Marku, operations coordinator for Collier County Code Enforcement. The respondent and the board was sent a package of evidence, and I would like to enter the package of evidence as Exhibit A. MR. KELL Y: Make a motion we accept the package. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Second? Is there a second? MR. MARTIN: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor? MR. KELL Y: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MS. MARKU: Violation of Ordinance 04-41, Sections 1 0.02.06(B)(1)( a). Description of violation: Conversion of storage space on first floor to living space. Location address where violation exists: 2551 Estey Avenue, C-3. Page 21 July 26, 2007 Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Hollingsworth, Glen, Marsha Kendall, 373 Dover Place, number 904, Naples, Florida, 34104. Date violation first observed: June 12th, 2006. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: August 10th, 2006. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: September 11 th, 2006. Date of reinspect ion: April 4th, 2007. Results of reinspection: Violations remain. At this time I would like to turn the case over to Code Enforcement Investigator John Marsh. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. MARSH: For the record, John Marsh, Investigator, Collier County Code Enforcement. Case No. 2007-57, Department No. 200606373. This is a violation of not having a permit for the first floor conversion to living area. A main issue of the respondent not being able to get a permit, and they have been actively working on this to get a permit, is that the case first started with a former investigator on the former owner of the property. That former owner internal along the way sold the property to the respondents here, and then it became their problem. They didn't know about it when they bought the property. So therefore the case was changed over into their name. I do believe their address has changed on the tax collector's rolls to the 2551 Estey Avenue, C-3, 34104. Part of the main issue now with them obtaining a permit and -- would be the flood zone has been -- the designation has been changed for the area there. This has been confirmed with the county FEMA coordinator, Jim Turner. It is now AE8.3 designation. And Mr. Turner does not believe with that designation that a permit could be Page 22 July 26, 2007 issued. However, if the respondents wish to, they could get an elevation certificate, and then this would verify if they, you know, could get a permit or could not get a permit. The violations consist of the downstairs area. There's a large area like a family room type area with a dry bar in it, a bathroom area with a shower. I must say that the facilities and the bathroom have all been removed and the plumbing has all been capped off at this point. There's a laundry closet with a washer and dryer, and there's a spiral staircase. I believe you were all given pictures in your packet. I do have pictures, if you'd like to put them up on the screen. The spiral staircase that goes up from the first floor up to the second floor. This would be the main area where the dry bar is. At one time I believe there was a bed in there, but that's been removed now. Most of the area is just being used for storage right now. The bathroom facility, the commode has been removed and capped off, and the shower is off to the left of that. And that shower area has been -- the plumbing has been taken out and capped off. And then this is the laundry closet area. I believe that's it on the pictures. Yes, if we could enter these into evidence, please. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept? MR. KELLY: If they were part of the original packet, would they -- MS. ARNOLD: They're not part of the packet. MR. KELLY: Okay. I'll make a motion that we enter them as Exhibit B. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Second? MR. DEAN: I'll second. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. Page 23 July 26, 2007 MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. MARSH: That's all I have to say. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And if you can just state your names, please. MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Okay, I'm Glen Hollingsworth, this is my wife, Marsha. MS. KENDALL: I'm Marsha Kendall-Hollingsworth. We just got married in June. MR. ARVILLA: I'm Joe Arvilla. I work for a number of people, a number of construction companies, as a consult. And Glen and Marsha have asked me to function on their behalf in this endeavor. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: We kind of got caught in this. We did all the legal channels, everything was researched, handed to us clear to close, so we did. And obviously we found out, when it was posted on our door with the old prior owner's, Luz Valencia's, name on it. So we called. And then there was another note posted to us, putting our name on it. But we were like floored, because one, this is a condo complex and there's many of them out there. All of them are -- almost all the condo complexes are enclosed. Whether they all have facilities or not, I don't know. But up and down that street there's -- it's low throughout there. I mean, we didn't think anything about this. I mean, we went to the closing and they said it's all clear. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: When did you close on the property? MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: It was the first week of April of'06. So it's bad timing, I guess. But it's one big mess now. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: When was the case Page 24 July 26, 2007 originally opened? MR. MARSH: This case was originally opened in the sixth month of '06. The original case -- ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The original case, I mean. MR. MARSH: I'm not sure on that. MR. ARVILLA: The paperwork that we've discovered dates to '04, since this. MR. MARSH: Well, there was a case in '04 on the original property owner for the same type of violation. Somewhere along the line he obtained a demolition permit and he removed it. So from sometime in '04 when he removed it until they purchased the property in '06, he put it back in again. And then he got caught. And then a case was opened up on him again. And before that could come to resolution, these folks here bought the property. MR. ARVILLA: Those people, by the way, cannot be found. There are no forwarding addresses for them. So, you know, Glen and Marsha are in a Catch-22 here. So that's -- MR. KRAENBRING: What is the county recommending be done at this time? Do we have a document, recommendations -- MR. MARSH: Yeah, I have a recommendation sheet here. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, we probably should find that there's a violation that does exist before we hear a recommendation. MR. KELL Y: I have a question. Was the washer and dryer part of the original plans, and the plumbing and electric going to it? MR. ARVILLA: That all has existed, both levels, that are the only thing available in that complex. Now, we've gone further than that, and I think John will attest to this. Marsha and Glen have retained an architect and an engineer, both of whom are well known to the county. And Mr. Lockhart does a lot of work for HRS. And we are going to pursue immediately a Page 25 July 26, 2007 permit by affidavit. That seems to be the only thing we can do that's -- you know, that you would require and accept. Additionally, I use Mark Allen Engineer surveying frequently, and they are going to cut us a number of elevations up and down that street on properties as well so that we have some comparisons. And they'll do spot checks on these people's properties. So we have a very concise and clear answer to what these elevations requirements would be, and try to conform with whatever regulations you have presently and those that have existed in the past. Now, these properties were constructed in '78, so they've been there a while. And, you know, we would, in our best scenario, ask that all of this be postponed until the professional people we have involved and already retained have an opportunity to do what they do best. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I guess the question from this board would be how long do you feel that would take? We just can't leave it open-ended. MR. ARVILLA: I would like to say 30 days, but all of -- there are no existing prints. We have gone through the microfiche, we've gone to Tallahassee, we've done everything we can do. One of the issues here is that Mrs. Bailey, who is a widow, whose husband built the complex, has an entire building under her ownership, and her 40 plus year old son lives there. And she says that it was permitted with those lower levels completed. Now she says also that it was C.O.'d. However, neither John nor I at this point in time have been able to recover that data. We would like to be able to do that. So I think that 60 days would be prudent under the circumstances. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Does the inspector (sic) have any more? MR. MARSH: I have no more, sir. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you have any more to Page 26 July 26, 2007 add? MR. ARVILLA: (Shakes head negatively.) ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd like to close the public hearing. MR. KELLY: I'm sorry, I do have a couple more questions, if we just leave it open for a minute or so. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. KELLY: My question, and the reason why I was asking about the washer and dryer was if this is a storage area for -- this is really open for the inspector or contractor. If this is just storage and the washer and dryer were existing, is there a need to do anything further until a time they do get the architect, the engineer, the permits, to turn it into a livable space? Is it nothing more than a garage at this point, if you would? MR. MARSH: Right at this point the area is basically being used as a storage area. They're not using it for a living area. MR. KELL Y: And is that in violation? MR. MARSH: No, that's not in violation using it for the storage area. But what has been built up in there is. As far as the extra electrical and the plumbing that -- other plumbing that's been brought down. The windows, the doors, all that stuff has to go through the inspection stage, you know, to be in compliance with the county ordinances. MR. ARVILLA: I'm in the process presently to require the NOAs for those, and will follow all the regulations. Also, with the architect's visual inspection of the properties, he says that the spiral staircase is acceptable, that they stand to their own codes. And it's an enclosed area, and if that needed to be a waterproofed area, it could be. MR. KELLY: Very good. There is an opportunity -- just for future reference, there's an Page 27 July 26, 2007 opportunity to ask for continuances. And it's usually done in the earlier part of our hearings here. But you could ask for that. I didn't know if you knew that or not. MR. ARVILLA: Well, John made that clear to me here just a week ago, and I was in his presence when I tried to acquire that, and I was already too late by a day. So we've done what we could as rapidly as we could, in fact. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions from the board? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd like to close the public hearing. MR. KELLY: Jean, is there any problem with us accepting a verbal motion for continuance? Because it seems like that's where it's headed. MS. RAWSON: You can do that. Actually, the county has already presented their case, so you would be asking for a continuance, if you will-- well, actually, you closed the public hearing, so you would be asking for a continuance after you've already heard the evidence. Probably a better way to do it is to -- if that's your concern, that they don't have enough time, give them more time on the other end. Because we've already heard all the evidence. MR. KELLY: Fair enough. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that if there's any violation to be found (sic)? MR. KELLY: I make a motion a violation exists. MR. DEAN: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor? MR. KELL Y: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. Page 28 July 26, 2007 MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MS. ARNOLD: Would you like to hear the county's recommendation? ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MR. MARSH: The county's recommendations are that the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs of$459.82 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days. And abate all violations by, one, obtaining required permit within 45 days or pay a fine of $200 per day until permit is issued. And obtain all inspections and C.O. within 60 days of permit issue date, or pay a fine of $200 per day until permit is C.O.'d. Or obtain a demolition permit and remove all nonpermitted improvements of the first floor area within 45 days or pay a fine of $200 per day until property comes into compliance. And two, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. MR. ARVILLA: May I speak to that? ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Hold on, please. MS. ARNOLD: I would just recommend a slight modification. Instead of obtain permit within 45 days, we would say that we would submit -- they are required to submit the permit application within that time period, and then obtain COs within the 60 days after that issuance date. So therefore, they're not being penalized for the review time of the county. So that first part where it says obtained would be modified to say submit. MR. ARVILLA: May I speak? ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes, sir. MR. ARVILLA: The reason that I asked for the 60 days is that I am familiar with what the county requires to review for permits. And I've just gone through 45 days to get from HRS through the county on Page 29 July 26, 2007 some very simple matters. So 60 days is not an unreasonable request for this. And also, you have decided that the violation does exist. However, these people have done everything that John has asked to discontinue all of what has incurred within this violation. And I feel that I need the appropriate amount of time, before you demand funds from these people, to acquire the permit by affidavit and make whatever corrections that we have to make under the circumstances. MR. KELL Y: May I comment to that? ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sure. MR. KELL Y: To the respondents. It's horrible that you've walked into this situation. The way that the ordinances read in Collier County, the violation remains with the property, regardless of the owner or the transfer. And we apologize for that. Our job is to help you go through some sort of resolution so that it just doesn't keep going on. And we're sympathetic to the time frame. And what staff has asked is for us to change wording from "obtaining" a permit to merely "submitting" a permit. Basically to submit your permit, you're still going to need your surveys, you're going to need your engineering report, and of course I'm assuming a set of plans -- MR. ARVILLA: That's correct. MR. KELL Y: -- in order to submit. My question to you would be, how long do you think it would take for you to gather your paperwork and actually present or submit for your permit to the county? MR. ARVILLA: I'm hoping that that can be done within the 30-day people period. These people all have work on their desks. But they do work for us as well. So, you know, I'm in that queue. We just have to get the properties measured properly in order to produce a set of plans for something that's 30 years old where nothing exists any longer. Page 30 July 26, 2007 ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But you do understand what the county just recommended was that you have 60 days to submit -- MR. ARVILLA: Understand. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- and then after that the clock stops until you get your permits. MR. ARVILLA: I do have a problem, however, with the -- to pay for the violation upfront when we have done everything that we can do to discontinue what has occurred in a violation that was not these people's responsibility. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're giving you that time to submit, 60 days to submit. MR. ARVILLA: Thank you very much. MS. ARNOLD: Actually, it was 45, which was our recommendation. If the board wants to change it to 60 days -- ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right, 45. MR. KRAENBRING: I think we should go with the 60 days. That's what they asked for. I think it's reasonable. You know, they are concerned about the fines accruing. Fifteen days. It doesn't seem to be a health hazard here associated with this. Again, they've walked into this situation. So I would suggest that we accept Michelle's change of the wording to "submit" and the change to 60 days. MR. KELL Y: And for the record, the operational costs are imposed by the county. We as a board have no authority to abate those costs or do anything with them. I'm sorry. I make a motion that we accept the county's recommendation, with the correction that under number one, they're to submit per required permits within 60 days, and that's the only correction. MR. KRAENBRING: I would suppose that just on the last sentence regarding the demolition, should we change that to 60 days also, just to be consistent? Page 31 July 26, 2007 MR. KELLY: Agreed. Yeah, the motion would be -- I'm sorry, 60 days to submit for either the required permits or 60 days for the demolition permit. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I have a second? MR. KRAENBRING: I'll second that. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor? MR. KELL Y: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion is passed. MR. AR VILLA: Thank you very much. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. The next case will be BCC versus VI Partnership, LTD. CEB Case No. 2007-58. And is the respondent present? MR. SNOW: No, sir, they're not. MS. MARKU: The respondent and the board was sent a package of evidence, and I would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A. MR. KELLY: I make a motion we accept the evidence. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Second? MR. DEAN: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor? MR. KELL Y: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MS. MARKU: Violation of Ordinances 04-41, the Collier County Land Development Code, as amended, Section Page 32 July 26, 2007 10.02.06(B)(2)(a), 10.02.06(B)(d)(ix), 5.06.06(0). Description of violation: Erection of signs without proper county permits and illegal erection of wind signs, banners, affixed to a fence in the front of the property. Location/address where violation exists: 11125 Gulf Shore Drive, 22870200005. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Helen G. Athan, as registered agent for VI Partnership, LTD, 5551 Ridgewood Drive, Suite 501, Naples, Florida, 34108. Date violation first observed: March 13th, 2007. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: March 23rd, 2007. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: April 24th, 2007. Date of reinspection: May 7th, 2007. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. At this time I would like to turn the case over to Code Enforcement Investigator Kitchell Snow. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: For the record, Investigator Kitchell Snow, Collier County Code Enforcement. The respondent is not here today. They have abated the violations, the two violations on the property. He had a family emergency in North Carolina. He did desire to be here. They have abated the violations; they have paid operational costs. But I would like to submit into evidence a couple of photographs, just so the board can be aware of what the violations are -- or were, and just have the photographs placed into evidence, please. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd like to have a motion to accept County Exhibit B. MR. KELLY: Motion to accept as B. MR. DEAN: Second. Page 33 July 26, 2007 ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. SNOW: And the county just requests that we get a finding of fact here that there was a violation. The violation basically is they placed banners, wind signs, around the fence. They can have those on a construction site, but they cannot have them with the logos. I explained that to them for several times. They have to be green, which is typical. The only time you can ever have any banners displayed on a fence would be around an athletic field, a pool. And they have to be facing inward, they can't be facing outward with any logos or anything, so this is a clear violation. The second part of that violation is that they had a real estate sign on the property. It was too large for the square -- for the acreage of the property. We had several conversations throughout the time with the property owner, and they were just -- from talking to him, I guess he had hired a sign contractor and he didn't really follow or didn't pull the signs or didn't pull the banners off the fence. But eventually it got completed, and they came in compliance 7/7 of this month. So again, the violations have been abated, operational costs have been paid, and we wish a finding of fact. MR. KELLY: I make a motion that a violation does exist. MR. DEAN: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. Page 34 July 26, 2007 MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is there a county recommendation? MR. SNOW: No, sir, just a finding of fact. Because everything's been abated. They have paid operational costs and they have abated the violation, so at this particular time we just wish to have a finding of fact that there was a violation on the property. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very well. If I'm not mistaken, that closes the hearings -- MR. SNOW: Just one thing before. Sorry. We would like to add for the record that they cease displaying any signs or any banners that do not have the appropriate Collier County temporary use permits or building permits issued. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I need to make a motion for that? MR. KRAENBRING: I believe we would have to set that as a -- ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Stipulation? MR. KRAENBRING: As an order. MS. RAWSON: Well, I don't even think you need to have an order, because that's the law. And if they do that, well, they'll be back here. MR. KRAENBRING: Yeah. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is the reason to bring this case, was it in case there's a repeat offense? MR. SNOW: No, sir, they had not abated the violation by the time that they were prescribed in the Notice of Violation. And they still didn't abate it a month later. And that's why we're here. And from making various site visits, they just weren't doing what we wished them to do. And finally I guess they -- after talking to him numerous times, they decided that it was time. And actually, I think they probably decided after they got the Page 35 July 26, 2007 notice of hearing to come to court that it was a serious matter. MS. ARNOLD: It would just -- you would file an order finding that there was a violation. In the event that there is a repeat violation, then we could bring that back to you as a repeat. Since they've abated and paid costs, you don't really need to specify either, but just that the violation did exist in your order. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. That should take care of the hearings, if I'm not mistaken. And we're going to go to old business. Request for reduction/abatement of fines and liens. BCC versus Cederiere Titus and Jean Bonnett. MS. ARNOLD: Can I just ask, was there a motion that there was a violation? MR. KELLY: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: And it was voted on? ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, thanks. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. ARNOLD: Is this the Titus? MR. KEEGAN: Titus. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Investigator, go ahead. MS. ARNOLD: Actually, they actually have a request for reduction. That should have been in your packet. I'll just read through what our executive summary says what the fine amounts are. And I think that there is some agreement between the respondents and the county to a reduction, so I'll specify that as well. This case was heard by the board on January 25th, 2007. At that particular time, a violation was found, and the respondents were to comply with your order, which is also attached to this document. The respondents have complied with the board's order, and that compliance was verified on May 30th, 2007. Page 36 July 26, 2007 Because the compliance was not timely, fines accrued in the amount of $3,400 for item number one, and that was to obtain the demo permit. So instead of obtaining the permit by the date specified, which was February 8th, I believe, they obtained the demo permit by the 26th. Additionally, 6,600 fines for accrued for not obtaining a C.O. timely. And the operational cost is 432.45. I believe the investigator could speak to why, you know, it would be just to reduce the fines. But we're in agreement to reducing part -- number two, which is the $6,600. MR. KEEGAN: I was thinking maybe a language barrier between myself, the investigator and Mr. Titus. I know that the board did pass an order. But I'm thinking that there was some kind of -- I don't want to say -- communication due to language. I spoke to Mr. Titus outside, I went over it with Michelle, and we have agreed to the amount to reduce the fine to $3,400. MS. ARNOLD: I think that they're -- the problem may have been that he wasn't clear that part of the compliance was to obtain C.O. The investigator had indicated that although he had told him that he needed to go through and demolish it, maybe it wasn't sinking in. MR. KEEGAN: When I did speak to him, it was kind of like a blank stare, to be blunt. MR. KRAENBRING: So you're looking to just abate the $6,600 and just impose the 34? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. The dates -- just so you have the information, because I've asked for this in advance, his demo permit was obtained on 2/26/07, reinspections were conducted on 3/7,3/19, 3/30, and there was no progress with those two dates, but there was progress in terms of the demo starting by that March 30th date. Another reinspection was done on 4/17/07 and 5/11/07. Both those times the violations were still remaining. Finally -- as well as Page 37 July 26, 2007 5/23/07. And only until the May 30th date was the violation finally abated. MR. DEAN: So demolition is completed? MR. KEEGAN: Completely done. C.O.'d, everything. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So the county would be looking for $3,400 in fines and then the 432.45 in operational costs for a total of 3,832.45? MR. KEEGAN: Correct, sir. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And do you agree to that amount? MR. TITUS: Absolutely. I agree. But I'm the one that said yes and a C.O. going to be issued, because right now I have a issue problem with the debt ratio with for the clemency. So I do speak with Mr. Keegan that a communication was misunderstood, lacking English. But what I was confused is, I was confused about they want to give me the -- they charge me $200 a day. So I told him -- I went down there, I talked to Mrs. -- I went to the board meeting. I told them what I should do to stop that fee. They told me exactly that as soon as you get the demo permit then the figure amount (phonetic) is stop. So they give me the permit for six month. And then after the six month, the six month, and then one week later that I do the demolition. So I called them. They send the instructor to come look at it. So they said, they didn't put anything. I called them again, they said three people coming to look at it. They said they don't put anything. I told them, why. They said because they didn't see any permit posted. And I thought I'm done with that. So they say now okay, now I have some fee to pay. I would be agree, because you're trying to help me that out -- and that help me out a lot. But the problem was now I mean, I have a debt issue that I'm paying the property for $2,500 a month plus I have family, five kids to feed and fire insurance on the building. I mean, I Page 38 July 26, 2007 went up -- I'd like to say yes, but I'm hoping where am I going to money come from to pay that. This is the issue. So I have the (unintelligible) and my house payment and plus (unintelligible), my family to take care. And I know I say yes and after that come an issue where can I get the money come from. This is the problem I got now. But I see that they try to help me a lot. I already see that, they try to help me to meet this note (phonetic). But I say yes, and afterwards I say it would be lying. I don't want to be lying. MR. KEEGAN: If I may, he did -- the permit of course was applied for way after our hearing. There was two permit meetings that I was at with the building department and Mr. Titus. The county is clear that 3,400 is fair, very fair, you know, considering the time and the board hearing the case on that amount. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, is there anything else you have to say, Mr. Titus? MR. TITUS: I'm sorry, sir? ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Anything else you have to say, Mr. Titus? MR. TITUS: Yes, sir. Like I said before -- I don't know if my wife wants to say something. Like I said before, sir, I will do -- I really, really do understand. I appreciate it, that the time you spend with me, and the stuff you can do to try to help me out. I do understand, I do realize that. It was to really try to help me. But to my side, I would say yes that I would agree with the payment, but what it comes to like is obviously way (sic) that I'm going to get that money. So how I'm going to pay that. So I don't know if my wife have something to say about that. MR. KEEGAN: From what I got outside, he was worried about a time frame for the payment. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But there is an ability to Page 39 July 26, 2007 set up a schedule with the county; is that correct? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: There is the ability to set up a payment schedule with the county, if these are imposed, that you can pay on a schedule. MR. TITUS: Okay. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you would have to talk to the county to set that up. MR. TITUS: Okay, one more question. May I? ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Absolutely. MR. TITUS: Yes, sir, I do agree. But any way that I can -- if I show you the stuff that I -- what I have -- at this point I get my bills and stuff like that, then can I apply for clemency? ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No, sir. Because we're specifically talking about this case, and I really don't feel like that would be relevant. MR. TITUS: Okay. So one more question, to finish. So what I -- that fee I'm going to pay, the house still have the lien? Is the lien still on the house? ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Until that's paid. MS. RAWSON: He's asking ifthere's going to be a lien on the house. Actually, the original order plus the order imposing the fines have both been recorded. So the answer is yes. But now, if you reduce the fines, this order will also be recorded so that the lien is going to be less. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, we actually haven't imposed fines yet. We only have the finding of fact lien that's on the property, which is in the form of a lien. MR. TITUS: So why I just asking the question, because I was to see maybe I start thinking if I can finance on the house. MS. ARNOLD: I'm sorry, I misspoke, there is imposition of fines that was filed. Sorry. Page 40 July 26, 2007 MR. TITUS: I was thinking to see if! can refinance the house, maybe I can collect some fees and pay that money. But I would like to know if I can do that or not. MR. KRAENBRING: It seems to me that -- I think he's asking, you know, ifhe can refinance his house in order to get these fees, if that's going to prevent him from doing that. I think that's his concern. That certainly can all be worked out with the county as far as what they want to do with the payment plan. And as far as refinancing your house, people finance debts against their house all the time. So I would like to think that the county isn't going to be draconian about this. It's $3,400, and I think it's a fair reduction. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm going to close the public hearing at this point. And if the board would like to talk amongst themselves. Any suggestions, recommendations? MR. DEAN: Well, I'd like to make a comment. One thing I feel bad about is a barrier of language. And I'm sure there's some interpreter somewhere we could get when we do have this problem. And sure, the dollar amount can be fair, but people have come before us, and our job is to help them. And it seems like that these people were pretty responsive. Yeah, the time delays and those things do happen. And I'm not comfortable with $3,400. Ifit was half that, then I would be a lot happier. Why? Because I think it's a hardship when you're getting into the 3,000 and plus the operational is going to be $3,800. So, I mean, here they stand and they've done everything they could. And yeah, there's a language barrier, as you had said, and I'm repeating myself. But I just feel that that's excessive, and I'd like to see that cut in half. I would feel more comfortable with $1,700 because they've showed their ability to do what they could. And I still go back with a language barrier. Yes, we have one in Florida. And we should get the Page 41 July 26, 2007 right people to do the communication with people when we have that problem. So therefore, I'd like to see that cut in half. MR. MORGAN: I agree. MR. MARTIN: I agree, too. MR. KELLY: I just spent two and a half weeks in France and I had a hard time finding a toilet, so I know exactly what they're saying. And, you know, it's not always clear. And 14 days to obtain a permit, you know, that might have been maybe just a little short to begin with. So I agree with Mr. Dean. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So we would be looking to reduce the fines to 1,700 and operational costs of 432.45? MR. DEAN: Yes. MR. KRAENBRING: Do we have that in the form of a motion? MR. DEAN: I'll make that motion. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'll second it. MR. KRAENBRING: I second. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you understand what we do did? We reduced the fines in half to $1,700, and imposed operational costs of2,132.45. $2,132.45, if I'm correct in my math. And again, you can set up with the county a payment plan to pay that. MR. TITUS: Thank you, sir. MR. KELLY: Mr. Titus, when you go to refinance your home, if that's what you're doing, what they'll do is they'll just hold that money in escrow to payoff the lien, and it will be a clear rollover into your refinances, so you'll be able to do that. Page 42 July 26, 2007 MR. TITUS: Okay, thank you, sir. Appreciate it. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: How about a -- we're going to take a 10-minute break, how does that sound? (Recess.) ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: CEB is called back to order. MS. ARNOLD: The next item is CEB Case No. 2006-60, Board of County Commissioners versus Sandra Chacon. Are the respondents present? Okay. This case was heard by the code board on October 26th, 2006, and at that time a violation was found. A copy of the order is attached for your review. The respondents have complied with the order of the board. And that occurred on October 26th -- nope, actually it occurred on July 5th, 2007. At this time, the county is requesting fines be imposed in the amount of $3,300 for untimely compliance from item number one, which accrued fines at $100 per day between June 2nd, 2007 and July 5th, 2007. The operational costs have already been paid by the respondents. I believe the respondents are here. (Speakers and Interpreter were duly sworn.) MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, staff -- I believe that the respondents are going to request an abatement of the fines, and staff doesn't have any objections to the abatement of those fines. THE INTERPRETER: Jesus and Sandra Chacon. And he's just asking for a reduction of fines for the fines to be completely taken away, because they have problems planting the plants, and also they were waiting for the rainy season. They don't have no irrigation in his property. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And they have planted all that has been required? Page 43 July 26, 2007 THE INTERPRETER: Yes, sir. MS. ARNOLD: I believe the investigator has information regarding the abatement of that fine. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: For the record, Jen Waldron, environmental specialist, code enforcement. The respondents have done a great job planting on their property. They have installed the irrigation. There were problems. As we all know, that the rainy season started very late this year. So in all respects they did do what they were told and we're not requesting that any fines be imposed at this time. MR. KELL Y: Make a motion -- MS. ARNOLD: They actually installed irrigation out there. MS. WALDRON: They have installed irrigation out there also. MR. KELL Y: I make a motion -- ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Let me close the public hearing. And is there any discussion from the board? MR. KELLY: As stated by county, I make a motion that we abate all fines. MR. DEAN: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And if you could just explain to them what just occurred, please. MS. ARNOLD: You guys ready? The next item is Board of County Commissioners versus Cesario Page 44 July 26, 2007 and Y onacia Nunez and Gerald and Elvira Warden. If you all recall, this case did come before you. It involves the -- the owners of the property are deceased, and Gerald and Elvira Warden were before you and agreed to do what was stipulated in the board's order. This case was heard on March 22nd, 2007. It involved exterior walls in need of repair, electric system not being maintained, holes in the roof, and rotted materials, doors without proper hardware, and ant infestation of the property. The respondents have not complied with the board's order, and fines accrued in the amount of $200 per day for the period between June 5th, 2007 to July 15th, 2007 for an amount of$8,000. And additionally, operational costs was $343.19. The investigator is here, and he can speak to the fact whether or not compliance has yet been met. Because this particular application was mailed out back in July, so that's why we have that specific amount. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you swear in all the parties, please. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MR. KEEGAN: For the record, Thomas Keegan, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. The respondents are in compliance with 90 percent of the issues. They did come in on time with compliance. They applied for the permit in time. The only thing that's keeping them out of total compliance is the c.o. I spoke to the respondent outside. He stated he didn't know the process of receiving the c.o. He didn't know he had -- you know, the steps, put it that way, of obtaining the C.O. But as of the other six, five violations, whatever was it, they are in compliance on that. And in a timely fashion. They did meet the deadline for the time frame. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. Page 45 July 26, 2007 MR. WARDEN: I never knew about a C.O. I didn't know. Even when he told me outside, I had no clue what a C.O. was, so it's just our ignorance. MR. KEEGAN: For the record, I just want to submit the stipulation that the respondent did sign. But like he said, he wasn't totally sure what it was stipulated. MR. WARDEN: I thought once we had the inspection, all that, they signed it and everything, I thought we were done with it, to be honest with you. MRS. WARDEN: We already got electricity there too. MR. WARDEN: Yeah, we've had electricity close to a month now. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Did they set up a time for you to go out there? MR. KEEGAN: I don't inspect the electric to see if it's done right. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Oh, I know you don't inspect it, but you do make sure that it's in compliance, correct? MR. KEEGAN: Of course. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Had they set that up in your discussions earlier for you to go out there? MR. KEEGAN: No. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And that would be the next step, correct? MR. KEEGAN: Once the electric is C.O.'d, the case is done. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So that hasn't been done yet; is that correct? MR. KEEGAN: Correct. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you understand the process now? MR. WARDEN: Yeah, yeah. Yeah, he explained it to me outside a while ago that I had to get a C.O. We had never heard about Page 46 July 26, 2007 that, so we were kind of -- once I called in, had everything put up, called an inspector, he came and signed it, left the paper there, signed and everything, we thought we were done with it. Because we did everything he asked to do, just didn't call in for the c.o. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Does the board have any other questions? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you have anything else to add? MR. WARDEN: If you could reduce the 8,000 -- ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, we have to impose the fines first, and then you would come back and ask for reduction of fines. So that's the stage we're at right now is to impose fines. I close the public hearing and -- go ahead. MS. ARNOLD: I was just -- they don't need to come back again. You could choose to impose a lower amount, if that's what the board's wish is, or abate the violation altogether. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, we're not in compliance yet. MS. ARNOLD: That's true, they're not in compliance. Forget it. I'm drinking too much coffee today. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Looking for a -- MR. KELLY: Well, my comment would be it's too bad we couldn't just table this. I mean, if they called it in today, they'd probably get the C.O. tomorrow. It's really just clerical. And you just need one person down at the county to review the permits, see that the final electrical inspection was called in, and then just close out the permit, which is the certificate of occupancy. There's no more review. So it's a shame. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can we continue this to next month? MS. RAWSON: You have the right to do that. Page 47 July 26, 2007 MR. KELL Y: Does the county have any objection? MS. ARNOLD: As long as they waive their notice rights. So we will not be sending you another notice, if this gets -- ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you understand, if we continue this to next month you can come back at that point, we can impose the fines, and then you can ask -- if we do impose the fines, you can ask for abatement or reduction of fines at that point. And what we're saying is if we do do that today, you will not receive notice. Your notice will be verbally today as telling you when the meeting is next month, and you will be there at the meeting next month. MR. WARDEN: Fine. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd like to hear a motion. MR. KELL Y: And I would also add that I would strongly advise to get the C.O. taken care of before -- MR. WARDEN: Yeah. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right, that would be -- the reason that we would continue is that you would -- with the understanding that you would get the C. O. between now and the next meeting. MR. WARDEN: Okay. MR. KELL Y: I make a motion that we continue this case until the August 23rd CEB hearing date. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And do I have a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second that. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MS. ARNOLD: And just -- Page 48 July 26, 2007 ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next meeting. MS. ARNOLD: -- the next meeting is August 23rd. MR. WARDEN: 23rd. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And the next request for imposition of fines and liens would be BCC versus Angel -- or actually Michelle, you're supposed to be doing that. MS. ARNOLD: That's okay, you can do it. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You've been doing it the past couple, so -- and you're probably better at pronunciation. Riquelme and Lissette Riquelme. I'm not sure if I said that right. I apologize if I didn't. MS. ARNOLD: This case was heard by the board on May 24th, 2007 for an unpermitted shed. The finding of facts was entered in by the board and a violation was found. A copy of that order is attached to the summary for your reVIew. The respondent has not complied with the board's order, and fines accrued at an amount of $100 per day for the period between June 24th, 2007 and July 17th, 2007, for a total of $2,300. And additionally, operational costs in the amount of $357.80 have not been paid. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. KEEGAN: For the record, Thomas Keegan, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. Mr. Riquelme did apply for the permit for the shed on July 17th, '07. He has kept in constant contact with me. We speak pretty regularly. His engineer even called me. I know he's had some -- as he said at the last hearing, he's had some personal issues that he has to deal with. The county has -- I talked to him outside. The county has agreed to knock the fines in half on both the cases, this case and the next case that you're going to hear. We have no problem with that whatsoever. Page 49 July 26, 2007 If Mr. Riquelme would like to speak to you guys, that's fine. MS. ARNOLD: I just wanted to add, this one is similar to the last one where compliance has not yet been met. But the second part of the order, based on when he obtained his building permit, it gave him an additional amount of time to comply. So he has until September 17th to comply with that part of the order. MR. RIQUELME: When I came here last time, I had a certain amount of days to apply for the permit. Now, I had to get an engineer to go out there and physically see what I needed to get approved and drawings had to be drawn. During that time frame, the engineer actually got ill for some reason, and for some reason my paperwork just sat on his desk I guess for a week or so. Time was riding and it started costing me money. When he realized the issue in hand, the actual engineer did call the code enforcement and told them what was actually happening, that it really wasn't my doing of not having the prints done on time so I can present it. In fact, the same day that the actual engineer gave me the prints, I took it directly to the county right there on the spot. It's a well-known firm. The board knows them. It's Lockhart Architectural and Engineering. He asked for me to come out here and speak to you on their behalf to see if you can try to drop the actual fines of that nature. Now, I have a high mortgage. I work construction, and in Collier County the work is actually almost stopped, almost like at 80 percent. In fact, just this Tuesday we had the men come out here that you saw all these contractors and everybody out here protesting against it. I'm one of those that unfortunately had lost my actual full-time work and now I'm just doing small jobs at the end. During the process, when he had first come out to my house to tell me about the -- how I was at a -- you know, didn't pull the permits, Page 50 July 26, 2007 he had given me all this paperwork and stuff like that. I had given it to my wife at the time. And I told her, please handle this for me, because unfortunately I had to leave the state with the company that I was working with. When I come back, not only do I find an empty home, but I don't find anything in the house or anything else. So therefore, I had to pick up all the pieces. And then I found myself on top of almost a foreclosure, no money, and my work's slowing down. So I relayed that message to him. I agreed to that $100 per day on the issue, thinking that I would be able to get the paperwork on time. Unfortunately it didn't work out that way. I'm asking -- they're willing to drop it by half. I wish I can get that even lowered, because I really can't afford it. That's where I'm at. Now, all the permits have been issued. And on top of that, when I applied for the permits I not only have to pay the permit regular price, but I also had to pay it four times its value. And it's two permits that we're talking about, and they were very high. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: This is very similar to the last case. At the current time you're not in compliance, correct? MR. RIQUELME: Yes, I am. MR. KEEGAN: They're not C.O.'d. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Not C.O.'d. MR. RIQUELME: They're not C.O.'d, exactly. I have to get a C.O., but I had to go through the whole process. MR. KELLY: But under the order, he still has time in order to achieve that. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Correct. MR. KELL Y: So technically he's in decent standing, according to our order. MR. RIQUELME: Correct. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: How long before do you Page 51 July 26, 2007 think you'll have a C.O. on this property? MR. RIQUELME: Well, one of my C.O.'s would be tomorrow, if God's willing. And the next one would probably be within another week or so, as soon as the city gives me back my prints. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So I guess in this case a continuance probably would be in order also. MR. KELL Y: It I may, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the fines are being imposed because of missing deadlines on just order item number one and number three. We could reduce or do something with those fines, maybe abate them. The order that still stands where if he doesn't come into compliance for the C.O., there's a chance for fines on that level as well. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: IfI'm correct, Jean, we usually don't like to amend our orders; is that correct? MS. RAWSON: That is correct. He is being fined, or the request for imposition of fines, on only two orders, item number five and item number seven from the order of the board. In both cases I think the fines are still accruing, correct? MS. ARNOLD: Order one, you're right, it was because he missed the deadline for the submittal of the building permit. Five is just reiterating the amount that would be imposed in the event that he missed that deadline. You're correct, the fines for the C. O. will not continue unless -- or not accumulate unless he misses that time. So you wouldn't really have to amend your order. You could either impose fines at whatever amount you feel appropriate, and in the event that additional fines accrue, it will just accrue. You already have an order imposing fines. Do you understand what I mean? ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing and open it for discussion to the board. Page 52 July 26, 2007 MR. KELL Y: Given the circumstances, I don't see any reason why we couldn't abate, you know, the two fines that are being imposed today. He still has operational costs, he still has another case, and our order still covers ifhe's not able to get that C.O.'d by September 17th, I believe it was. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So you're looking to abate the fines? MR. KELLY: That's correct. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you want to put that in the motion? MR. KELL Y: I will. I make a motion that we abate the fines. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And do I have a second? MR. MARTIN: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. We're going to move on to the next case. MS. ARNOLD: No, you still have to impose fines. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Oh, sorry. MS. ARNOLD: Because we're asking you to impose the operational costs, which he has not paid. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd like to make a motion to impose the fines? MR. KELLY: I make a motion we impose operational costs of $357.80. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd like to have a second. MR. MORGAN: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I have a second. Page 53 July 26, 2007 All in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MS. ARNOLD: The next case is against Mr. Riquelme. The same applies. As he indicated, one was for -- the first one was for a shed, and this one is for the underground swimming pool. He has obtained permits for this. Fines have accrued at a rate of $100 per day between the periods of June 24th through July 17th for a total of 2,300, and operational costs are $357.80, which has not been paid. Again, he has until September 17th to obtain the c.o. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you have anything to add in this? MR. RIQUELME: No, it's the same thing. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do we have to swear them in again? MS. RAWSON: I would. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. KEEGAN: I could just repeat what I said last case. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: For a separate case, you've been sworn in again, so go ahead. MR. KEEGAN: Okay. For the record, Thomas Keegan, Collier County Code Enforcement. It's the same story as the last case. He has been in constant contact. The permit was applied for on July 17th, '07. It was -- I believe it was issued the same date. He did call me. The engineer called me. You know, I know of his personal problems, financial problems. Just leave it up to you guys. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you have anything to add? Page 54 July 26, 2007 MR. RIQUELME: No, sir, I don't. It's the same for both. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And does the county have any opposition to abating the fine? MS. ARNOLD: I think the county agreed to reducing it by half, so it's up to the board what they want to do. And again, there is operational costs that have not been paid. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm going to close the public hearing and open it to discussion to the board. MR. KRAENBRING: We're going to do the same? MR. MORGAN: Same thing. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Kelly? MR. KELL Y: I make a motion that we abate order item number one and number three, and we impose only operational costs of 357.80. MR. KRAENBRING: I'll second. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And I'd like to have a motion to impose the fines. MR. KELL Y: Does that count as I did it kind of all in one, where I abated one and two but yet imposed the operational? MS. RAWSON: Actually, if! might, it's order number five and seven of the last order of the board. MR. KELL Y: You're right, I'm sorry. I'm looking at the recommendation sheet, which has an order one, which is referring to order item number five. I apologize. It would be original order number five and number seven to be abated. And then to impose operational costs of357.80, for clarification of my motion. Page 55 July 26,2007 ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I need to amend the second also? MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And can I have a motion to impose -- MR. KRAENBRING: I think you did that. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right. MR. KEEGAN: Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And if I'm not mistaken, this should be the last -- we're going to requests for time extension? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. KRAENBRING: Mr. Chairman, did we address Bradley Residential? MS. ARNOLD: That was removed from the agenda. MR. KRAENBRING: Removed, okay, thank you. I guess I should be on time next time. MS. ARNOLD: This next item is CEB Case No. 2007-32. Domenic P. Tosto and Joanne M. Tosto. They're requesting an extension of time. This one was the dome structures out in Cape Romano. And Mr. Tosto is here to make his request. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. MAZZONE: Excuse me one moment, please. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Tosto, what we're doing here is actually not imposition of fines, it is you're presenting your request to the board for an extension of time. Page 56 July 26,2007 MR. DOMENIC TOSTO: Yes, that's correct. MS. ARNOLD: So you have the floor. MR. DOMENIC TOSTO: Okay. As you know, we were here last time and we signed an agreement stating that we would apply for a demolition permit. We subsequently went up there and tried to apply for a demolition permit and we were told that we could not apply for a demolition permit, we had to have a licensed contractor apply for a demolition permit. Then we went up and we applied for restricted -- MR. JOHN TOSTO: A minor. MR. DOMENIC TOSTO: A minor demolition permit, which we applied for. And we haven't heard anything from that as of yet, as of this point. On a couple things. We -- on the agreement there it said that we had to have something from the engineer to state that the domes were in fact savable. A letter was sent, apparently not enough of proof by just a letter from the engineer. They wanted, I guess, structural plans or a set of plans from the engineer now. The letter that we sent wasn't enough proof to the building department that the domes are in fact structurally sound. So we still haven't had state approval. And that seems to be the biggest drawback. Because the building department, when we initially said I would get state approved before you enter -- go too far with this. And that's what we're trying to do. We're trying to get all the state permits in line so now we can address Collier County and try to get a building permit from Collier County. We have all the permits filed for and we just haven't had any response from the state back to us yet. So I'm kind of like stuck here. We're incurring a fine daily. And I'm really hesitant to jump in and hire the engineering company at a cost of almost $50,000 to draw up a set of plans that I don't know if Page 57 July 26, 2007 I'm going to be able to even use at this point in time. So I'm asking for the court -- the commissioners to give me a little bit of extension of time to see if I can straighten this mess out. That's basically all I really have to say. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: How much time are you looking for for a continuance? MR. DOMENIC TOSTO: November 1st, I would hope for. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And when were you supposed to originally come into compliance? Or to comply. May 28th? MR. JOHN TOSTO: The first part of it -- number one was May 28th to apply for a demo permit. MR. DOMENIC TOSTO: Demolition permit. MR. JOHN TOSTO: And obtain a demolition permit by June 27th. That's the first part of the noncompliance. The second part of the noncompliance would be a significant response from the engineer showing that the pods are salvageable. We do have a letter from the engineer stating that they are salvageable. The next step would be to go into engineering, which would require borings and a significant amount of work. The property -- the first structure that we owned out there, we did go ahead and get all the engineering and survey work and everything in line to submit to Collier County at a cost of about $25,000. We were later denied by the State of Florida for an environmental resource permit. So the 25,000 was wasted. What we're asking is that you give us enough time till the state approved, you know, the environmental resource permit so then we can bring it to Collier County. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And the people you're talking to on the state level have said that probably by November 1st you would have that permit? MR. JOHN TOSTO: To be honest with you, we were under the Page 58 July 26, 2007 inclination that we would have it now. But they sent an additional request for information which required some more survey work, which was done and satisfied, satisfying to the state. I would think that November 1st would be a time frame enough for us to get it done. However, it's hard for me to predict how long the state may take. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Anything else to add? MR. DOMENIC TOSTO: I don't think so. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm going to close the public hearing. And does the board have any questions? MR. KELL Y: If! could. Are your plans still to rebuild the structures or to demolish them? MR. JOHN TOSTO: To rebuild. MS. ARNOLD: Can I just state something for the board? This one is somewhat unusual because your order mostly says demolish it, because we have certification from the building official that the structures are unsound. The engineer needs to provide something to the county that says it's sound enough for rebuilding. But I think we all agree because Mr. Dunn, who's with the building department, is also present and was in a part of the discussion. It's kind of a waste of time, unless the state says that they're going to authorize them to utilize that. So really, what they need to do is wait for the state determination before everybody else looks into this. So we have no objection to the extension oftime to November. Hopefully by that time we'll get verification from the state. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: To avoid them coming back to us, is there a way that we could possibly put in we can amend this, I guess this order and say that they have to submit for Collier County demolition permit within, let's say, 15 days after receiving state I guess approval? MR. KRAENBRING: I think the one issue with that may be that Page 59 July 26, 2007 once they get the state approval, then they have to get their engineering in line. So that would probably take longer than 15 days. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm just wondering, I don't want to see them have to come back in front of us. I mean, I want to make sure that November 1st is the date. I don't want to waste your time and don't want to waste the board's time having you come in front of us. MR. DEAN: Well, I feel if they ask for November 1 st, it sounds equitable, and if they have to come back, I think that's equitable. MR. KELLY: I actually agree with you in something you said earlier where you don't like changing orders. And I think that if we start pushing one day back, we have to go through all 10 of these and start looking at the other dates as well. It could potentially create a mess. Whereas, we always have the option to come back after the fact and abate or at least reduce fines. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. KELLY: And I do feel sympathetic to the situation. I was very vocal on it originally. MR. DOMENIC TOSTO: I know. I wish I had listened to you. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So I guess we could leave it as is and have them come back to us after they -- MR. KELL Y: Well, I don't want to state publicly that we're going to either reduce or abate any fines. I don't want to leave that impression. I just, you know, to the board we always have that option. MR. MORGAN: Come back in November. MR. DEAN: I make a motion that we give them the time that they requested, November 1st, '07, and they come back to the board. MR. KELLY: And which date is that? Is that going to be for item number two on the order that we're extending? MR. JOHN TOSTO: No, that would be for -- ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: One, correct? Page 60 July 26, 2007 MR. JOHN TOSTO: No, that would be for the -- number one is the demo permit. MR. MAZZONE: Paragraph nine, I believe. MR. JOHN TOSTO: Paragraph nine, correct. Thank you, Dennis. MR. MAZZONE: May I just say for the record, currently the proper folio number for that property is 01199121006. It -- the -- we have the parent number, parent folio number on the -- all the paperwork. Because the property had changed hands. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I think we have a motion on the floor right now, if I'm not mistaken. MR. KELLY: My question is what about all the other dates in here, is this exclusive because we're going the demolition route now, or -- you know what I'm saying? ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yeah, it's going to skew all the other dates. MR. MARTIN: Push all the other dates to November. MS. ARNOLD: We could make this simple and if the board is in favor of giving them an extension of time, which would refer to the engineering report information, we won't impose fines until after that date. So you won't really have to worry about all those other dates. Because that's the only thing that's kind of holding things up to make a determination whether or not items one through four are really even relevant. MR. KELLY: I think that's a great solution. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So we have a motion. MR. KELLY: I'll second Mr. Dean's motion. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. Page 61 July 26, 2007 MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. JOHN TOSTO: Thank you. MR. DOMENIC TOSTO: Thank you very much. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Good luck. Request for foreclosure authorizations. MS. ARNOLD: You should all have received a memo identifying several cases that are either in compliance or not in compliance, and fines are still outstanding. And we did impose fines. And we're just requesting at this time that those cases be forwarded to the county attorney's office for collection or foreclosure, whichever is the most appropriate. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do we have to go through each one or -- MS. ARNOLD: No, you could just -- I don't know. Yeah, you could just say that you're authorizing each one. That way everybody knows for the record which cases that we're requesting authorization for. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you want me to read them, or -- MS. ARNOLD: Sure. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Request for foreclosure authorization on the following cases: BCC versus Deborah Katchur, CEB 2004-015; BCC versus Gary D. Wilson, CEB 2004-28; BCC versus Douglas S. White, CEB 2004-081; BCC versus Samuel Mena, CEB 2006-01; BCC versus Occeus Santintillien and Malveileas Estiverne, CEB 2006-22; BCC versus Casa Bonita Homebuilders, Inc., CEB 2006-24; BCC versus Bruce Assam, CEB 2006-34; BCC versus Cloe Waterfield, CEB 2006-35; BCC versus Luis Angel Dones, CEB 2006-49; and BCC versus Elinord Pierre, CEB 2006-53. MR. DEAN: Michelle, I had one question. On the person making a monthly payment, is that still inclusive, or should it be separate? Page 62 July 26, 2007 MS. ARNOLD: What do you mean inclusive? MR. DEAN: Well, the persons making $100 a month payment. He's paid $900 so far. Are they still part of the foreclosure? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. What happens is once you authorize that this gets forwarded to the county attorney's office, they can make whatever settlements that would be relevant or warranted at that time and the matter would be brought to the Board of County Commissioners. MR. KELLY: I have a question. Any of these folks have the opportunity to come back in front of the board to ask for a reduction? MS. ARNOLD: After you forward it, no. But those are things that are considered with the county attorney's office. MR. KELLY: I just remembered what Mr. Dean was referring to in that case and the circumstances behind it I thought were just horrible. It's sad to see it go to this level. MS. ARNOLD: Well, again, you've forwarded -- the board's forwarded many cases. The fine amounts are looked at by the county attorney. The circumstances are looked at. And, you know, they do have the ability through that process to obtain further reductions. Instead of that being brought to you, however, it gets brought before the Board of County Commissioners and for resolution. MR. KELLY: Okay. MS . RAWSON : You lose jurisdiction over the case once we give it to the county for foreclosure. That doesn't mean that they can't negotiate settlements. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that we approve the foreclosure authorization. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. MORGAN: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And all those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. Page 63 July 26, 2007 MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? MR. KELLY: Nay. MR. DEAN: Nay. MR. KELLY: My only thought was on that particular case with the monthly payment, I'd like to see that maybe stay with our jurisdiction temporarily. I really feel that those folks -- ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Unfortunately the motion's passed. MR. KELLY: I know. I'm just clarifying why the nay. Sorry. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No problem. Do we have any new business? MS. ARNOLD: No. I just have a couple comments when we get to it on the agenda. I just wanted to report to the board that we are actively working through the modifications to our systems within the community development, our computer system, and taking into consideration some of the processes that we do before you all to make it a little bit more streamlined and bringing it up to the 21st century. So I just wanted to let you all know that we're kind of working through that process. We're pretty excited about how things are going to be a little bit more electronic than all the paper that we currently have to deal with. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any reports? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any comments? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next meeting will be August 23rd, 2007. And do I hear a motion to adjourn? MR. DEAN: I'll make the motion to adjourn. Page 64 July 26, 2007 ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. MORGAN: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11: 11 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD GERALD LEFEBVRE, ACTING CHAIRPERSON These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected , Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 65