The URL can be used to link to this page

CEB Minutes 08/25/2022August 25, 2022 Page 1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida August 25, 2022 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Robert Kaufman John Fuentes Kathleen Elrod Lee Rubenstein Tarik N. Ayasun, Alternate Zully Ruiz, Alternate Danny Blanco (Excused) Sue Curley (Excused) Chloe Bowman (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Elena Gonzalez, Code Enforcement Helen Buchillon, Code Enforcement Jeff Letourneau, Manager of Investigations Patrick White, Attorney to the Board Code Enforcement Board Nuisance Abatement Board AGENDA Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 August 25, 2022 9:00 AM Robert Kaufman, Chair Kathleen Elrod, Member Danny Blanco, Member Chloe Bowman, Member Sue Curley, Member John Fuentes, Member Lee Rubenstein, Member Tarik N. Ayasun, Alternate Zully Ruiz, Alternate Notice: Respondents may be limited to twenty (20) minutes for case presentation unless additional time is granted by the Board. Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five (5) minutes unless the time is adjusted by the Chairman. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Roberts Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. MOTIONS MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 1. CASE NO: CESD20210002415 OWNER: Melva Padilla and Nazaria Angelica Nunez OFFICER: John Negra VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06(B)(1)(e) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Alterations to garage area without a required Collier County building permit. FOLIO NO: 56324013549 PROPERTY 8322 Valiant Dr, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 2. CASE NO: CESD20210008625 OWNER: A & T INVESTMENT TEAM LLC OFFICER: Rickey Migal VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e). Cleared land prior to obtaining building permit. FOLIO NO: 36868040001 PROPERTY 120 25th St NW, Naples, FL ADDRESS: MOTION FOR RE-HEARING B. STIPULATIONS (NON-CONTESTED CASES AND PRESENT AT THE HEARING) C. EMERGENCY CASES D. HEARINGS 1. CASE NO: CEPM20220003654 OWNER: Roland W Sanders and Darlene S Sanders OFFICER: John Johnson VIOLATIONS: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22-236. The primary structure on this parcel has been declared a Dangerous Structure. FOLIO NO: 82640200000 PROPERTY 2448 Andrew Dr, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 2. CASE NO: CESD20220003133 OWNER: Richard Poulin and Linda Chabot OFFICER: Joseph Mucha VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06(B)(1)(e) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Interior renovation to a mobile home done without a Collier County Permit and an unpermitted shed on property. FOLIO NO: 50865005766 PROPERTY 5 Natchez TRL, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 3. CASE NO: CESD20220001740 OWNER: Vanessa Alvarado OFFICER: Jordann Marinos VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06(B)(1)(e) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). 2 sheds in the rear of the property built without permits and a lanai enclosed into an interior structure without valid permitting. FOLIO NO: 36379880006 PROPERTY 2296 55th St SW, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 4. CASE NO: CESD20220003600 OWNER: Sanyay Leyva OFFICER: Bradley Holmes VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Unpermitted renovations/modifications including conversion of the attached garage into living space and enclosure/conversion of the lanai into living space. FOLIO NO: 67965015607 PROPERTY 109 Plantation Cir, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 5. CASE NO: CELU20220004146 OWNER: VIAGE MARINAS LLC OFFICER: John Johnson VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 2.02.03. Designated Accessory Parking Zones (APZ) on this parcel are being used for the storage of boats, trailers and boat transport dollies which is a prohibited use per the LDC definition of APZ. FOLIO NO: 48173280007 PROPERTY 3470 Bayshore Dr, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 6. CASE NO: CESD20210005400 OWNER: Ronnie Haar OFFICER: Jordann Marinos VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Expired building permit PRBD20200518310. Expired 05/03/2022. FOLIO NO: 36308160001 PROPERTY 5255 Coronado Pkwy, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 7. CASE NO: CENA20220005667 OWNER: SUSO 4 MISSION HILLS LP C/O SLATE ASSET MANAGEMENT LP OFFICER: Bradley Holmes VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 3.05.07(H)(g)(ii). Presence of Collier County Prohibited Exotic Vegetation within preserve areas on the property including, but not limited to: Ear Leaf Acacia and Brazilian Pepper. FOLIO NO: 60204200044 PROPERTY 7550 Mission Hills Dr, Naples, FL ADDRESS: VI. OLD BUSINESS A. MOTION FOR REDUCTION/ABATEMENT OF FINES/LIENS B. MOTION FOR IMPOSITION OF FINES/LIENS 1. CASE NO: CELU20190013849 OWNER: NOAH’S ARK CHURCH INC OFFICER: Bradley Holmes VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 1.04.01(A). Operating a food bank/pantry distribution program, patrons are occupying more parking spaces then what is allocated to the church per the approved Administrative Parking Reduction approval letter. FOLIO NO: 35931080009 PROPERTY 11853 Collier Blvd, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 2. CASE NO: CELU20190011289 OWNER: PELICAN LAKE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC OF COLLIER COUNTY INC OFFICER: Joseph Mucha VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 1.04.01(A) and 2.02.03. Observed paving of asphalt into the drainage easement as well as trailers, pavers, wood, signs, sign poles and other miscellaneous items being stored in the drainage easement. FOLIO NO: 66679503040 PROPERTY NO SITE ADDRESS ADDRESS: 3. CASE NO: CESD20210008625 OWNER: A & T INVESTMENT TEAM LLC OFFICER: Rickey Migal VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e). Cleared land prior to obtaining building permit. FOLIO NO: 36868040001 PROPERTY 120 25th St NW, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 4. CASE NO: CESD20210002415 OWNER: Melva Padilla and Nazaria Angelica Nunez OFFICER: John Negra VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06(B)(1)(e) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Alterations to garage area without a required Collier County building permit. FOLIO NO: 56324013549 PROPERTY 8322 Valiant Dr, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 5. CASE NO: CEPM20190009270 OWNER: Keith G Purdy and Darlene Purdy OFFICER: John Johnson VIOLATIONS: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22-236. An overhanging roof that is in a complete state of disrepair and is falling. FOLIO NO: 53353080009 PROPERTY 2965 Lunar St, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 6. CASE NO: CEPM20210004962 OWNER: SARAH SCIALABBA EST OFFICER: Bradley Holmes VIOLATIONS: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Sections 22-228(1) and 22-231(15). Unmaintained pool and screen enclosure screens torn, hanging, or missing. FOLIO NO: 56105509104 PROPERTY 11752 Longshore Way W, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 7. CASE NO: CEPM20210011514 OWNER: ROBERT A YOUNG EST OFFICER: Rickey Migal VIOLATIONS: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22-242. Unoccupied house. Front double door is wide open and rear sliding glass door has been removed from its track. FOLIO NO: 37594920009 PROPERTY 377 20th Ave NW, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 8. CASE NO: CESD20190008994 OWNER: Nelson Hernandez Castellanos, Lissette Veloso and Greta Restano OFFICER: John Negra VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06(B)(1)(e) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Permit obtained for unpermitted garage conversion has expired. FOLIO NO: 36375000000 PROPERTY 2483 54th Terr SW, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 9. CASE NO: CESD20200007975 OWNER: Jessica Doyle and Marc C Berry OFFICER: John Connetta VIOLATIONS: Florida Building Code 6th Edition (2017), Chapter 4, Section 454.2.17, and Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). A pool being built without a permit and a barrier around it. FOLIO NO: 38160200000 PROPERTY 3180 63rd St SW, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 10. CASE NO: CENA20210010881 OWNER: Nelson Martinez and Ada M Diaz OFFICER: Jordann Marinos VIOLATIONS: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 54, Article VI, Section 54-179. Property has garbage and trash all over the yard. FOLIO NO: 37162680001 PROPERTY 871 5th St SW, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 11. CASE NO: CESD20210011230 OWNER: 2190 KIRKWOOD LLC OFFICER: John Johnson VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06(B)(1)(e) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Structure(s) on the property without first obtaining Collier County Building Permits. FOLIO NO: 61580880006 PROPERTY 2180 Kirkwood Ave, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 12. CASE NO: CESD20210007357 OWNER: Laura Carr OFFICER: Ryan Cathey VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). A structural addition installed onto the SE corner of the duplex, without required Collier County permits, inspections, and certificate of completion. FOLIO NO: 53100160004 PROPERTY 526 107th Avenue N, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 13. CASE NO: CESD20200002094 OWNER: Jose Valdes and Olga L Benitez OFFICER: Adam Collier VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06(B)(1)(e) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Multiple unpermitted structures on the property. FOLIO NO: 41342440002 PROPERTY 2730 32nd Ave SE, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 14. CASE NO: CESD20210007663 OWNER: Kevin J McCloskey and Carolyn McCloskey OFFICER: Jordann Marinos VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06(B)(1)(e) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Metal entrance gate and electrical access box for gate installed prior to obtaining a permit. FOLIO NO: 56340000060 PROPERTY 5361 Mahogany Ridge Dr, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 15. CASE NO: CESD20210011573 OWNER: BAYSHORE SUITES LLC OFFICER: John Johnson VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Multiple locations of modifications that are being made to the structures on this parcel are being done without the required permitting. This includes external modifications to the stilt home and internal modifications to the multi-family structure. FOLIO NO: 48171320008 PROPERTY 3200 Bayshore Dr, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 16. CASE NO: CESD20210007329 OWNER: Esteban Vargas Ayala and Esperanza Ramirez Reyes OFFICER: Jonathan Musse VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). A 21ft by 23ft two-bedroom one bathroom residence and an exterior outlet built between 2019 and 2020 without a valid Collier County Permit and Permit # PRBD20180213303 for the demolition of the damaged manufactured home, currently in expired status. FOLIO NO: 764680009 PROPERTY 17037 Blue Heron Drive, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 17. CASE NO: CESD20200013730 OWNER: Peggy L Mills OFFICER: Thomas Pitura VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Master bath remodeled without the required permits. FOLIO NO: 33400000363 PROPERTY 431 La Peninsula Blvd, Naples, FL ADDRESS: 18. CASE NO: CELU20200010724 OWNER: GREG CARLISLE C/O E JAMES KURNIK OFFICER: Ryan Cathey VIOLATIONS: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 2.02.03 and Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 54, Article VI, Section 54-181. Observed a vacant residential lot being used to store litter/outside storage consisting of but not limited to boats, trailers, RV’s, storage containers, metals, and plastics. FOLIO NO: 38103000005 PROPERTY NO SITE ADDRESS ADDRESS: C. MOTION TO RESCIND PREVIOUSLY ISSUED ORDER D. MOTION TO AMEND PREVIOUSLY ISSUED ORDER VII. NEW BUSINESS VIII. CONSENT AGENDA A. REQUEST TO FORWARD CASES TO COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IX. REPORTS X. COMMENTS XI. ADJOURN XII. NUISANCE ABATEMENT BOARD A. HEARINGS XIII. NESXT MEETING DATE - SEPTEMBER 22, 2022 AT 9:00AM XIV.ADJOURN August 25, 2022 Page 2 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, everybody. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board to order. A good time to turn off your cell phones. Notice: The respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation unless additional time is granted by the Board. Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes unless the time is adjusted by the Chairman. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Robert's Rules of Order and speak one at a time so 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. If you could all stand for the Pledge. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Helen, why don't we start out with the roll call. MS. BUCHILLON: Yes, sir. Good morning. For the record, Helen Buchillon, Code Enforcement. Mr. Robert Kaufman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Here. MS. BUCHILLON: Ms. Kathleen Elrod? MS. ELROD: Here. MS. BUCHILLON: Mr. Blanco hasn't come in yet. Mr. John Fuentes? MR. FUENTES: Here. MS. BUCHILLON: Mr. Lee Rubenstein? MR. RUBENSTEIN: Here. August 25, 2022 Page 3 MS. BUCHILLON: Mr. Tarik Ayasun? MR. AYASUN: Here. MS. BUCHILLON: And Ms. Zully Ruiz? MS. RUIZ: Here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The next is the approval of the minutes, which I have read. Anybody have any comments or changes to the minutes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If not, I'll accept a motion to accept the minutes. MS. ELROD: Motion to accept. MS. RUIZ: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And seconded. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. RUBENSTEIN: Aye. MS. RUIZ: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: (No verbal response.) MR. FUENTES: Aye. MR. AYASUN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Which brings us to the agenda. MR. WHITE: May I interrupt, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. MR. WHITE: Going back to roll call, Board Attorney Patrick White, for the record. As far as those board members who are absent today or currently not present, do we have any information about requests to be excused or otherwise? August 25, 2022 Page 4 MS. BUCHILLON: Yes, I'm sorry. Ms. Sue Curley is excused. Ms. Chloe Bowman... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No response? MS. BUCHILLON: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And Danny? MS. BUCHILLON: And Danny hasn't -- didn't confirm. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. WHITE: But there was no request to be excused by Mr. Blanco? MS. BUCHILLON: No, sir, not that I know of. MR. WHITE: Thank you. Sorry, Mr. Chairman. MS. BUCHILLON: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Patrick is taking attendance. This is like third grade, I think. MR. WHITE: Yes, you're expected to be in school or otherwise request an absence. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Oh, keep quiet, or I'll come down and hit you with a ruler, although I have a (indicating). Okay. Changes to the agenda. MS. BUCHILLON: Yes, sir. We have five stipulations. First stipulation, under hearings, No. 4, CESD202200036000, Sanyay Leyva. Next stipulation, No. 6, CESD20210005400, Ronnie Haar. Number 5, CELU20220004146, Viage Marinas, LLC. Number 3, CESD20220001740, Vanessa Alvarado. And last stipulation, No. 7, CENA20220005667, Suso 4 Mission Hills, LP. Those are all the stipulations. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have any withdrawns? MS. BUCHILLON: Yes, sir, we have some withdrawns. August 25, 2022 Page 5 Under public hearings, D, hearings, No. 1, CEPM20220003654, Roland W. Sanders and Darlene S. Sanders, has been withdrawn due to compliance efforts. Number 2, CESD20220003133, Richard Poland and Linda Chabot, has been withdrawn. Permits have been reactivated. Under old business, B, motion for imposition of fines and liens, No. 1, CELU20190013849, Noah's Church, Inc., has been withdrawn due to compliance efforts. Number 5, CEPM20190009270, Keith G. Purdy and Darlene Purdy, has been withdrawn and will be rescheduled for the September hearing. And No. 14, CESD20210007663, Kevin J. McCloskey and Carolyn McCloskey, has been withdrawn and will be rescheduled for the September hearing. Number 15, CESD20210011573, Bayshore Suites, LLC, has been withdrawn and will be rescheduled for the September hearing. Those are all the changes for now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Can we get a motion from the Board to accept the agenda as modified. MS. ELROD: Motion to accept the agenda. MR. FUENTES: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And seconded. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. RUBENSTEIN: Aye. MS. RUIZ: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: (No verbal response.) MR. FUENTES: Aye. MR. AYASUN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) August 25, 2022 Page 6 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. So we're going to start out with the stips, with No. 4 first? MS. BUCHILLON: Yes, sir. ***First case, No. 4, CESD20220003600, Sanyay Leyva. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? MR. HOLMES: I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let the record reflect that the respondent is not present. MR. HOLMES: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MR. HOLMES: All right. For the record, Bradley Holmes, Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: One, pay operational costs in the amount of $59.28 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Two, abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion/occupancy for the unpermitted garage conversion and the unpermitted lanai conversion within 90 days of this hearing, or a fine of $150 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Three, the respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement and the violation -- of the violation and request that the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; Four, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, August 25, 2022 Page 7 and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody want to make a motion, or discussion on this? MS. ELROD: Make a motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. FUENTES: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. RUBENSTEIN: Aye. MS. RUIZ: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: (No verbal response.) MR. FUENTES: Aye. MR. AYASUN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you, Bradley. MR. HOLMES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Next stipulation, I guess, is No. 6. MS. BUCHILLON: Next stipulation, No. 6, CESD20210005400, Ronnie Haar. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? MR. HOLMES: I do. We're going to be doing that a lot today. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let the record reflect the respondent is not present. MR. HOLMES: All right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, Bradley. MR. HOLMES: For the record, again, Bradley Holmes, Collier August 25, 2022 Page 8 County Code Enforcement. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: One, pay operational costs in the amount of $59.28 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Two, abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspection, and certificate of completion/occupancy to complete the property construction improvements or to restore the property to its originally permitted state within 90 days of this hearing, or a fine of $150 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Three, the respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; Four, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any motions or comments from the Board? MR. FUENTES: Motion to accept the hearing -- stipulation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion. MS. ELROD: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. RUBENSTEIN: Aye. MS. RUIZ: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: (No verbal response.) MR. FUENTES: Aye. MR. AYASUN: Aye. August 25, 2022 Page 9 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MS. BUCHILLON: ***Next stipulation, No. 5, CELU20220004146, Viage Marinas, LLC. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? MR. JOHNSON: I do. MR. MARSHALL: I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name on the microphone for us. MR. MARSHALL: I'm Barry Marshall. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. One quick question on -- you have authorization to speak in behalf of this business? MR. MARSHALL: I am the owner with another gentleman. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. JOHNSON: We have that document in the case if you need to see it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Nope, that's fine. Okay, John. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. Good morning. For the record, John Johnson, Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Number 1, pay operational costs in the amount of $59.21 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Number 2, abate all violations by removing all boats, trailers, boat transport dollies, and any other equipment from the designated accessory parking zones, APZ, that does not conform to the allowable vehicles that are permitted inside accessory parking zones within 90 days of this hearing, or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until August 25, 2022 Page 10 the violation is abated; Number 3, the respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; and, Number 4, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Sir, do you have any comments? Any problem meeting dates? MR. MARSHALL: No, I appreciate the extension, if possible. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any motion from the Board? MS. ELROD: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. FUENTES: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. RUBENSTEIN: Aye. MS. RUIZ: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: (No verbal response.) MR. FUENTES: Aye. MR. AYASUN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you, sir. MR. MARSHALL: Thank you. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. MS. BUCHILLON: ***Next stipulation, No. 3, August 25, 2022 Page 11 CESD20220001740, Vanessa Alvarado. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? MR. HOLMES: I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let the record show that the respondent is not present. MR. HOLMES: All right. For the record, Bradley Holmes, Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: One, pay operational costs in the amount of $59.28 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Two, abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspection, and certificate of completion/occupancy for the two unpermitted sheds and enclosed lanai within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Three, respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; Four, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. RUIZ: So moved as stipulated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're making a motion? MS. RUIZ: Yes. MS. ELROD: Second. August 25, 2022 Page 12 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And we have a second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. RUBENSTEIN: Aye. MS. RUIZ: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: (No verbal response.) MR. FUENTES: Aye. MR. AYASUN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MS. BUCHILLON: ***Next stipulation, No. 7, CENA20220005667, Suso 4 Mission Hills, LP. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're busy, Bradley. MR. HOLMES: A little bit. MR. FUENTES: You're going to need an arm brace at this point. MR. HOLMES: This is the Brad show. MR. FUENTES: Yeah, Brad's day. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? MR. HOLMES: I do. MR. MUELLER: I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sir, could you state your name on the record for us. MR. MEULLER: Chris Mueller. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And your relationship to this Mission Hills property? MR. MUELLER: Property manager for JLL here on behalf of Suso Mission Hills, LP. August 25, 2022 Page 13 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you have authorization to speak in their behalf? MR. MUELLER: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, we received that. MR. HOLMES: All right. Ready? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Read the stip. MR. HOLMES: For the record, Bradley Holmes, Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: One, pay operational costs in the amount of $59.21 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; Two, abate all violations by removing all prohibited exotic vegetation from the preserve areas using approved Collier County methods, including obtaining all required Collier County approvals/vegetation removal permits within 180 days of this hearing, or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; Three, respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; Four, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How many days did you say that was? MR. HOLMES: One hundred eighty. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So you have six months. Any problem meeting that deadline? August 25, 2022 Page 14 MR. MUELLER: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody want to make a motion? MS. ELROD: I'll make a motion to accept the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. FUENTES: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. RUBENSTEIN: Aye. MS. RUIZ: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: (No verbal response.) MR. FUENTES: Aye. MR. AYASUN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Thank you, Bradley. MR. HOLMES: Thank you. MS. BUCHILLON: ***Next case, we're going to go to the extension of time. Under public hearings, A, motions, motion for extension of time, No. 1, CESD20210002415, Melva Padilla and Nazari Angelica Nunez. MR. HOLMES: Me again. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We've noticed. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? MR. HOLMES: I do. MS. PADILLA: I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You can pull that microphone August 25, 2022 Page 15 down. There you go. Either that or grow. And could you state your name on the microphone for us, please. MS. PADILLA: Melva Padilla. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you are requesting? MS. PADILLA: Extension. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you want to tell us more? MS. PADILLA: Oh, okay. The extension, because I submit a lot of papers there all the time, you know, and they say I need to take out air condition, I take it out. I need to put a split; I put the other kind of air condition. And I need the plain, and I need different kind, and it's past the time, and it's not ready. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. PADILLA: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What I'm reading here is -- MS. PADILLA: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- there was an alteration to the garage area without a required permit. Is that converting the garage to something? I don't -- MS. PADILLA: It's a storage, but -- before I put in normal air condition. I extending from the house inside the garage, but it's not -- it's not correct. I don't know that. I need to change the air condition, you know, taking the connections out and put, like a -- a split something, another kind of air condition only for the garage. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't need to know that. What I need to know is, you're doing this without a permit, so -- MS. PADILLA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- if you're looking for an extension of time, are you going to apply for a permit? MS. PADILLA: I apply, but -- apply, but they denied first because they need change some of the stuff, and they need to review August 25, 2022 Page 16 again. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's a normal process for the permit. MS. PADILLA: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Bradley? MR. HOLMES: To provide a little clarification on it, there's currently a permit under review. She's been making corrections to it as they come along. She's recently done document submittals, and so it's under review. But it's valid. She's just needing additional time to finish up the corrections. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And how much time do you think you need? MS. PADILLA: I don't know; maybe two months. See if it's ready. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You need 60 days? MS. PADILLA: Yes. It's okay? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Is that agreeable to the county? MR. HOLMES: I have no objection to that if that's what she needs. MS. ELROD: Make a motion to accept the extension -- or continuance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Continuance for 60 days. MS. ELROD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. FUENTES: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. RUBENSTEIN: Aye. August 25, 2022 Page 17 MS. RUIZ: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: (No verbal response.) MR. FUENTES: Aye. MR. AYASUN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. So you have two months. MS. PADILLA: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You'll get the permit done, and we probably won't see you again. MS. PADILLA: I hope. Thank you. MS. BUCHILLON: Mr. Kaufman, since -- we have this case scheduled for imposition of fines also, so we go ahead and withdraw it now? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. Make a motion -- someone make a motion to withdraw the case. MS. ELROD: I'll make a motion to withdraw. MR. AYASUN: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. RUBENSTEIN: Aye. MS. RUIZ: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: (No verbal response.) MR. FUENTES: Aye. MR. AYASUN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. You're still standing there, Bradley. MR. HOLMES: I am, yep. You'll get used to it. August 25, 2022 Page 18 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. BUCHILLON: ***Next extension, No. 2, CESD20210008625, A&T Investment Team, LLC. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? MR. HOLMES: I do. MS. BARROSO: I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Could you state your name on the microphone for us. MS. BARROSO: Terecita Barroso. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you are? MS. BARROSO: Owner. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Owner of A&T Investments? MS. BARROSO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Bradley, you want to give us a little explanation on this? MR. HOLMES: I think that basically -- this is what's going on right now. They have a VRP that has been issued, and they have a permit that is ready for issuance with fees pending. She just needs additional time for reasons that she'll explain; I'm going to leave that to her. They did get their operational costs that were overdue from the last hearing paid yesterday, so... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This is for an extension? MR. HOLMES: Yes. She's requesting additional. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So this is where land was cleared without a permit? MS. BARROSO: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Was it a clearing permit or demo permit? MS. BARROSO: This is a clearing permit. We had building August 25, 2022 Page 19 permit that we just got it on the 19th, but I'm going to start building it. I went -- go ahead and ordered trusses, but they told me that it will be ready in about eight months. I've been buying materials in a storage, so when -- you know, to save time, but mainly the process they say that would take about eight months. I put a request, like, two months ago, after I got the approval for the plan. And I'm here to ask for maybe nine months. I'm going to try to do as quickly as I can, you know, but the trusses told me that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me just see if I can clear the -- if you have a permit, you can do the clearing, okay. So it's not -- unless the county wants this thing CO'ed at the end of the road, Jeff. MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. Just to clear up, basically, two options. When you clear a property before a permit, you either replant it or you get a building permit to build on it, and then that will mitigate it. Obviously, they're going the permit route. I'm sure they're not going to be done with the CO in nine months, but the county has no objection to any kind of extension right now, and then she can come back and give a progress at that point. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So let me ask, how long do you think it will take to get your building permit? MS. BARROSO: I got my building permit on the 19th. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Bradley, is there a permit -- an active permit? MR. HOLMES: There is an active permit, yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So if there's an active permit, we don't have a case. MR. HOLMES: Well, no. August 25, 2022 Page 20 MR. LETOURNEAU: It's not really -- the violation really isn't abated until the CO is issued for the house. MR. HOLMES: Right. Because they're approaching it from two directions. They had to get a VRP for some of the clearing because it wouldn't fall under the building that they're proposing to install, so they had to do both. They needed a VRP. They got that. Now they're going to be building a structure to handle the rest of the clearing. And then once that's CO'ed, we would consider it abated. MR. LETOURNEAU: And from what I gathered, there's a wood shortage, maybe, and the trusses are going to be delayed a little bit, correct? MR. HOLMES: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm still confused. I'm confused. If you have a building permit, you can clear the -- a property where you're going to put the new structure; is that correct? MR. LETOURNEAU: You can. Well, they cleared it before -- now, let's go back, though. They cleared it before the permit was -- so they were in violation at that time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And it's a violation because they didn't have a permit, and you could do it with the permit, or you could do it in another way? MR. LETOURNEAU: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But I'm curious mostly on the permit. MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, okay. Let's just say that for some reason the permit expired or didn't get finished. It would be a violation again at that point. So we -- like all our orders, we ask for the permit to be issued, inspections to be done, CO be completed. That way we know there's not going to be a violation of the clearing. We've had a few cases where the building stalled, the permit expired, and we're right back into the same spot. So the county's just asking August 25, 2022 Page 21 for the CO to complete this whole issue. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, point of order. That is what the prior order actually required in order to abate, either that or restore things. Obviously, they won't be doing that. So the building permit in this instance doesn't cure what the order requires for abatement. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. WHITE: The VRP's just one of the steps leading to, ultimately, the CO, hopefully. MR. LETOURNEAU: And due to the fact that there is a permit issued and they are actively building, this might be one of the cases where you consider a continuance over -- or an extension over a continuance, yes, just to -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And how much time do you need on this; eight months? MS. BARROSO: Nine months. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Nine months. MS. BARROSO: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Like having a baby. MS. BARROSO: Because the trusses told me eight months, so hopefully. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any discussion from the Board? MS. RUIZ: Yeah. I just want to, you know, be clear on this. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. RUIZ: What do the trusses need to do with the clearing? I'm still not -- MS. BARROSO: Okay. I already obtained my vegetation removal permit. I am -- MS. RUIZ: You have a permit to remove? MS. BARROSO: I have two permits. MS. RUIZ: Two permits? August 25, 2022 Page 22 MS. BARROSO: Yes. I opened one permit for vegetation removal, and I opened one permit for building a detached garage. MS. RUIZ: Okay. MS. BARROSO: I'm working on those permits right now. MS. RUIZ: Okay. All right. And so you need the extension? MS. BARROSO: Mainly the extension at this point is for building the garage. I just got my detached garage permit on the 19th, and I'm working on, you know, my subcontractors and all of that. And the trusses -- I went ahead and ordered the trusses, and they -- MS. RUIZ: Well, that's another situation. The clearing of the land -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. LETOURNEAU: And maybe I can explain it just a little bit easier. They cleared the property without a permit, which was a violation. There's two things they can do: They can replant it, or they can get a building permit for a primary structure, a house. That allows them to clear an acre out in the Estates at the time which mitigates an acre of the clearing at that point. I'm not sure if -- you know, I'm not -- did they clear more than an acre? MR. HOLMES: This is more so for her detached garage. I believe there's a primary structure. MR. LETOURNEAU: Oh, okay. Oh, so it's not even a primary structure at this point. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. So when you add a structure, they allow you to clear more property at that point. So rather than replanting, they decided to add the structure at that point. MS. RUIZ: Okay. So is she going to be allowed to complete one permit and then take on the other one? I just want to see what the timing is related to the trusses and the clearing and all of that to August 25, 2022 Page 23 understand what we're doing. MR. HOLMES: At this point there's only one permit to handle, which is her building permit for the structure that's going to clear them of the clearing violation. MS. RUIZ: So she only has one permit? MR. HOLMES: That we're dealing with now. And basically, now she's got the permit issued. She needs her materials to execute the construction and inspections and then obtaining her CO for that building. MS. RUIZ: Okay. So the extension -- MR. HOLMES: Is to allow -- MS. RUIZ: -- is for the clearing only or for the garage? MR. HOLMES: Is to allow her to abate the violation. MR. LETOURNEAU: The extension is to get the building finished, which will abate the clearing violation. MR. WHITE: If I may, Mr. Chairman. What the order required -- MS. RUIZ: Why do you need so much time to -- you know, to do the -- MS. ELROD: Shortage of materials. MS. BARROSO: Can you repeat that again? Would you repeat that again? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. One at a -- one at a time. Okay? Okay. You had a question. I think Jeff tried to answer it. Let me see if I can clarify that. The only thing you can do on this case, because of prior of a case, was to replant the vegetation that you removed or finish the building permit that -- MS. RUIZ: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And what they've decided to do is to finish the building permit. How long it takes to get nails August 25, 2022 Page 24 or screws or 2x4s I don't care about. I just want to know when it's going to be done. The respondent has said that they should be able to complete that in nine months. And that's what's before us now. Does that make it clearer? MR. AYASUN: Yeah, that's very clear. I think we should -- I make a motion that we give her 10 months to finish -- MS. BARROSO: Okay, thank you. MR. AYASUN: -- get the CO and do away with the violation. MS. ELROD: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion, and we have a second. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, sir. MR. WHITE: Point of order. The due date for compliance was July 27th, just for your information. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This is a continuance to -- for 10 months. MR. AYASUN: Ten months. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That means that between now and the next 10 months, fines will continue to accrue until you get into compliance. MR. RUBENSTEIN: Question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Question. MR. RUBENSTEIN: We're talking about a garage? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, it sounds like it. MR. RUBENSTEIN: You're building a garage? MS. BARROSO: Detached garage. MR. FUENTES: Guys, we have a motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Right. This is discussion on the motion. MR. FUENTES: Yeah. August 25, 2022 Page 25 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Does that answer your question? MR. RUBENSTEIN: Not really. MR. AYASUN: She can't get the trusses. MR. RUBENSTEIN: I mean, I know my fellow member gave her 10 months. I'm just trying to figure out why it takes 10 months to build a garage. MR. AYASUN: She can't get trusses. MR. FUENTES: So the trusses are in short supply at this time. In fact, a lot of lumber is. So since she can't get the trusses, she can't get the CO for the garage. If you can't build the garage, she can't get have a building permit that's CO'ed. So without the trusses, it's an incomplete structure. MR. RUBENSTEIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay? Okay. So we have a motion and a second on the floor. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. RUBENSTEIN: Aye. MS. RUIZ: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. FUENTES: Aye. MR. AYASUN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. So you have 10 months. MS. BARROSO: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. It's in your best interest to get it done; otherwise, your detached garage is going to cost a lot of money. MS. BARROSO: Well, I'm doing my best. Working very August 25, 2022 Page 26 hard. Thank you. Have a good day. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MR. FUENTES: How do your legs feel, Brad? MR. HOLMES: Good so far. I had my Wheaties. MS. BUCHILLON: Mr. Kaufman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. BUCHILLON: This case is also scheduled for imposition. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Could we get a motion to remove it? MS. ELROD: I'd like a motion to withdraw. MR. FUENTES: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion and second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. RUBENSTEIN: Aye. MS. RUIZ: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: (No verbal response.) MR. FUENTES: Aye. MR. AYASUN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MS. BUCHILLON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. BUCHILLON: ***We're going to go ahead and start with our first case in imposition of fines under old business. Number 2, CELU20190011289, Pelican Lake Property Owners Association of Collier County, Inc. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And on this case we have four slips for people who would like to talk. But let's start out with Joe. Can you give us a -- you broke the August 25, 2022 Page 27 microphone. That will be 250. No -- MR. BOYD: Chairman Kaufman, can you add that to my tab? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. WHITE: Everybody -- anyone who's going to testify, would you stand and raise your right hand. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? (All speakers indicated in the affirmative.) MR. MUCHA: All right. For the record, Joseph Mucha, supervisor, Collier County Code Enforcement. Past orders: On February 27th, 2020, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the Board, OR5742, Page 236, for more information. On September 24th, 2020, the Code Enforcement Board granted an extension of time. See the attached order of the Board, OR5831, Page 3985, for more information. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Was that an extension of time or continuance; do you know? MR. MUCHA: It says extension of time on my sheet, so... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm looking through. There's about 50 pages here. MR. MUCHA: It looks like the fines started from December 24th. So September 24th would have been an extension of time, it sounds like, for three months. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Excuse me. We have a lot of paper to look through on this case. MR. WHITE: If it may be of assistance to any of your board members that didn't have an opportunity to review this beforehand, August 25, 2022 Page 28 on Page 6 of the respondent's motion, under No. 22, I believe, are the relevant factors for your consideration that are articulated by respondent's counsel as to why they believe the request is warranted. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What I'm looking for -- Helen, maybe you can help me -- is the sheet that shows the actual fines. Do you know what I'm talking about? What I have here in front of me -- MS. BUCHILLON: This one? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Probably. MS. BUCHILLON: Yeah, you should have it. MR. WHITE: The second page of that includes the staff's analysis of those same factors I mentioned were in the respondent's motion so that you have, in a sense, both sides of the story, from the staff's perspective and that of the respondent. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So this was abated on July 12th? MS. COWAN: Correct. MR. MUCHA: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Fines have accrued at $200 a day from December 24th of 2020, to July of 2022, $113,200. Okay. And it says on May 26th, 2022, the Code Enforcement Board granted a continuance. So it wasn't -- it was a continuance. MR. WHITE: There was originally an extension of time that was granted back in September of 2020, and subsequently, in January of '21 a continuance, October of '21 a continuance and, as you noted, May of this year a further continuance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The reason we're going through this is when you have a continuance, the fines continue to accrue. When you grant an extension of time, it goes backwards; the fines go away. So what I'm looking at is February 27th, respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the August 25, 2022 Page 29 violation. See the attached order of the Board for more information. September 24th, 2020, the Board granted an extension of time. So any fines that were accruing prior to that date, September 24th, they go away. On January 28th, 2021, and after that, they were all continuances, so the fines added up after that, okay? How am I doing, Jeff? MR. LETOURNEAU: You're doing good. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, it's "well." MR. LETOURNEAU: You're doing very well, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: English. Okay. So the problem has been abated. Do you want to give us a little quick lowdown, Joe, and then we'll go from there? MR. MUCHA: Um -- so, yeah. So, obviously, I think they submitted some paperwork that will show the processes of why it took so long. It's very detailed. I mean, these meetings go back for -- I believe since 2020 they started with the county. And I think originally they tried to vacate this drainage easement, and that took a while, and then it ended up not working out, so they had to go the different route of getting the easement-use agreement. And that took -- just things in the county just seem to take a lot of time. There's a lot of meetings, there's a lot of approvals, and she can probably explain it a lot more. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So that's the story. MR. MUCHA: But I do have the folks here from Copper Cove, the affected parties, that -- you know, like I said, they've been working on this for years, but, you know, I've also got people that have been very upset about it for a lot of years as well, and they would like to have their opportunity to spea k. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MUCHA: So I don't know if that's appropriate for them to August 25, 2022 Page 30 speak now, or do you want to hear from them first? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'll go to my attorney. When would you like the speakers to speak; before or after? MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I believe you need to hear from respondent's counsel as to anything they may have, any cross-examination of staff they may have. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. WHITE: And recall that after all of the interested parties do speak, each of them could be cross-examined by the attorneys for the respondent. They can choose, of course, to waive that. But I would believe at this point the order of process would be that counsel for the respondent should be afforded an opportunity to put anything on the record they believe appropriate. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So having gone through that... MR. BOYD: Thank you, Chairman Kaufman. My name's Don Boyd. I'm one of the attorneys for Pelican -- the respondent, Pelican Lake Property Owners Association. I'm joined today by Attorney Brittany Cowan and two members from Pelican Lakes' Board of Directors, Mr. John Albert and Jim Reese. For sake of brevity, I'm going to keep my opening remarks pretty short here, and I'm going to refer to the association as Pelican Lake. On August 9th of 2022, we filed our renewed motion for reduction or abatement of fines in this case which, essentially, lays out everything that Pelican Lake has gone through in order to get the requisite approvals needed for this easement-use agreement. The underlying violation in this case concerns Pelican Lakes' use of a portion of a property containing a drainage easement for storage. Pelican Lakes [sic] is a motorcoach resort, and the area in question is where Pelican Lakes stores trailers which owners attach to August 25, 2022 Page 31 their motorcoaches. Based upon an extensive engineering study which Pelican Lake had performed on the property by Peninsula Engineering, the drainage easement was determined not to be functional, and it didn't serve a purpose, and it wasn't necessary. The Code Enforcement's order in this case dated March 13th of 2020 states that Pelican Lake must abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County approvals and/or use agreements to use the drainage easement for storage or remove all items being stored and return it to a permitted state. Since that order was issued, Pelican Lake has been working with the county on an agreement which would allow it to continue using the drainage easement for storage. Per the county's request, Pelican Lake first needed to obtain an environmental permit modification from the South Florida Water Management District to remove the ditch from the drainage easement. The District agreed with our engineer's findings that the drainage easement didn't serve a purpose and agreed to issue a permit. Collier County Stormwater Department would not provide its letter of no objection until the District permit was first issued. Additional stormwater approval was needed to allow landscaping encroachments into the drainage easement to address the neighboring property's concerns regarding screening of the area. Since the date of the last Code Enforcement hearing, I'm pleased to report that Pelican Lake has obtained all necessary approvals for a continued use of the drainage easement for storage. On July 12th of 2022, Pelican Lake's easement-use agreement was approved by the Board of County Commissioners, and then on July 21st of 2022, that easement-use agreement was recorded in Collier County public records. Pelican Lake believes that a reduction or abatement of fines in August 25, 2022 Page 32 this case is warranted because it has obtained all necessary approvals from the South Florida Water Management District and Collier County to continue using the drainage easement for storage. Throughout this proceeding, Pelican Lake has worked diligently with the county to reach a solution regarding the continued use of the storage area on Pelican Lake's property. Pelican Lake has also already incurred significant expenses associated with application fees and professional services provided by engineers and attorneys in order to obtain the requisite approvals from both the District and the County. This code enforcement matter is not a repeated offense nor is it irreparable or irreversible in nature. We submit that the gravity of violation here is nominal, as we are dealing with storage in a drainage easement that does not and has not functioned. Moreover, the District and the County wouldn't approve the permits in this case and the easement-use agreement if there was some grave harm posed by the continued use of the storage -- the area for storage. Since the county's approved the continued use of the drainage easement, which was the underlying violation in this case, we don't believe the imposition of fines is warranted. Pelican Lake is, therefore, requesting that the Code Enforcement Board waive any fines levied in this proceeding. Pursuant to Article 11, Section 3 of the Code Enforcement Board's rules, this is not a trial de novo or a new hearing on the original case. We have timely presented a written motion for reduction or abatement of the fines, and we have two board members from Pelican Lake that, again, wish to present testimony to be considered as mitigating circumstances. And with the Chairman's permission, I'd like to call the first of those two witnesses, Mr. John Albert, who is an owner in Pelican Lake and currently serves as president of the association's board of August 25, 2022 Page 33 directors. He's basically going to testify concerning the violation and the Board's efforts to attain all approvals to correct the violation once it became known. Mr. Albert's testimony will be followed by that of Mr. Jim Reese, who is also an owner in Pelican Lake and serves on the association's board of directors. Without further ado, I'll turn the stage over, if you will, to John Albert. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ALBERT: Good morning, Code Enforcement Board. My name is John Albert and, as our attorney just said, I'm the president of the Pelican Lake Homeowners Association and have been the president since March of this year and was on the board and the legal working group from March of 2021. Our board inherited this drainage easement violation from prior boards. We have worked diligently to try and resolve the problem. We hired a reputable engineering firm to assess surrounding development since Pelican Lake's construction in the 1990s regarding the drainage easement function, and John English with Peninsula Engineering determined the drainage easement and ditch have not and do not now serve any purpose. We hired a law firm to submit necessary approvals and applications with the county to attain Board of County Commissioner approval for the easement-use agreement. We submitted an application for the Environmental Resource Permit modification and approval with Florida -- with South Florida Water Management District, and we met with county representatives several times during this project to ensure compliance with Land Development Code and Pelican Lake's PUD Ordinance No. 97-70. The only two parties that have an interest in this drainage easement are Pelican Lake and the county. Copper Cove has no August 25, 2022 Page 34 interest in this drainage easement. Copper Cove drains into a different drainage system than Pelican Lake. But our board still met with Copper Cove several times during this project for their -- to gather their input on screening and to assure them that no flows could enter Copper Cove's drainage system based on our extensive engineering report. They have copies of Peninsula's engineering report to show the drainage easement and ditch do not serve a functional purpose and that the easement-use agreement for current use and encroachments in this drainage easement would have no adverse impacts on Copper Cove. The engineering report also shows there is no imminent threat to public health, safety, or welfare to Pelican Lake, the county, or any surrounding properties, including Copper Cove. Through these efforts, Pelican Lake has spent considerable amount of time and money to obtain all necessary district, county, stormwater, and ultimately Board of County Commissioners' approval for the easement-use agreement. With the EUA, the encroachments subject to this code matter are no longer a violation. Fines are a method of the county and the board -- Code board to gain compliance. Pelican Lake has obtained that compliance. Fines are punitive, and Pelican Lake's owners have already paid more than the total fine amounts in engineering fees, legal fees, application fees, and costs to get approval for an easement-use agreement. If Pelican Lake's owners also must pay fines that have accrued while the community went through all the steps and checked all the boxes to obtain these approvals, Pelican Lake would have to assess owners to cover those costs, essentially making them pay twice for obtaining compliance for this code violation. At the Board of County Commissioners meeting on July 12th, 2022, Pelican Lake obtained approval and compliance via an easement-use agreement for the drainage easement. The August 25, 2022 Page 35 easement-use agreement allows Pelican Lake to continue to use the drainage easement for storage and allows all encroachments to remain in the drainage easement. This enhanced landscape -- I'm sorry. The easement-use agreement will also allow Pelican Lake to install additional encroachments consisting of landscaping in this drainage easement, specifically a 15-foot landscape buffer with canopy trees and 9-foot hedges for additional screening, which Pelican Lake has agreed to install for the benefit of Copper Cove. To address Copper Cove's screening concerns, Pelican Lake is not just installing the minimum landscaping buffer. We have approval in the easement-use agreement for landscaping screening that exceeds LDC and PUD requirements. This enha nced landscaping will be a significant expense for Pelican Lake. Once the EUA was recorded, we again hired Peninsula to submit the necessary permits and plans for the landscaping installation. We have been told that Peninsula is in the process of submitting these applications and permits. Code Inspector Joe Mucha entered an affidavit of compliance on July 12th, 2022, when Pelican Lake obtained the approval, sorry. Getting tongue tied. Pelican Lake has obtained compliance, and we respectfully request the Code board waive all fines now that we have received an easement-use agreement for these violations in the drainage easement. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. ALBERT: I'd like to introduce Jim Reese. MR. REESE: Good morning, Chairman Kaufman and Code Enforcement Board. My name is Jim Reese. I am a director of the Pelican Lake board and have served on the board and the legal working group since February 2021. August 25, 2022 Page 36 As a board member, I was involved in several meetings with Copper Cove regarding the storage area. The drainage easement is located in the storage area, but Copper Cove's concerns are not related to the drainage easement in this pending code matter. As John mentioned, our engineering report shows the drainage easement serves no purpose and that removing it would have no impact on neighboring properties, including Copper Cove. We would not have obtained an easement-use agreement otherwise. Copper Cove's main concern appears to be the screening along Pelican Lake's drainage easement abutting Copper Cove. We agreed to install a hedge along the boundary for Copper Cove. We had our attorney prepare an agreement to memorialize that agreement, and then Copper Cove changed their mind and requested a wall, but we did not have approval from stormwater to install a wall in the drainage easement. We now have stormwater approval -- an EUA approval to install a 15-foot buffer of canopy trees and an additional 9-foot opaque hedge along the property boundary which, in fact, is more than what is required by the LDC and our PUD. We've exceeded the landscaping requirements solely for the benefit of Copper Cove. No wall is required under the LDC or the PUD nor has county stormwater approved installation of a permanent wall in the drainage easement. The EUA also does not allow this encroachment, only the existing encroachments and the proposed landscaping and hedges that John referred to. If Copper Cove wants a wall, they can install a wall on their vacant land in their recreation parcel abutting the storage area. Copper Cove also requested we install drain tiles on the property. Copper Cove has never presented any engineering reports or documentation to support this. Peninsula Engineering, the firm August 25, 2022 Page 37 we hired, John referred to, report shows that Copper Cove has not been and cannot be irreparably harmed from our current use of the drainage easement, which we now have county approval for. Specifically, our 135-page engineering report from Peninsula Engineering clearly shows that Pelican Lake and Copper Cove discharge water into two different drainage systems. Pelican Lake collects stormwater from within its internal water management lake and discharges to the west of State Road 951 in the roadside swale. Copper Cove discharges into the Fiddler's Creek system which drains south into Rookery Bay. Further, Copper Cove intends to ask this board to assess the maximum fines against us, but they have interfered with our applications, they've tried to delay our easement -use agreement, and a couple points relative to that. As John mentioned, we hired professionals, and we've diligently been working with county and stormwater -- or, I'm sorry, county and the Water Management District for approval and compliance. When our EUA was placed on the Commissioners' consent agenda, Copper Cove asked county and the commissioners to have our easement-use agreement approval continued or removed from the agenda entirely. This would have meant that our EUA approval would have been pushed to the next commissioners' me eting in September after today's code hearing while fines continue to accrue due to their intentional interference. This also meant that Copper Cove was delaying the very landscaping and storage area screening they claim to want so bad. Because of that EUA approval, the landscaping can now be planted in the drainage easement. So Copper Cove complains that Pelican Lake is not zoned for storage and is using storage for commercial use. Pelican Lake is zoned TTRV. Section 3.3.B.3 of our PUD clearly allows, as an August 25, 2022 Page 38 accessory customary permitted use, this storage. Copper Cove says that the storage lots are residential and that Pelican Lake changed this at some time. This is incorrect. These lots have always -- and I repeat, always -- been approved and designated for trailer storage. This is clearly shown in Pelican Lake's 1997 approved Site Development Plan about 15 years before Copper Cove was even ever constructed. Pelican Lake storage area's only for the use and the benefit of its residents, no commercial use, and for storing of motorcoach trailers. We have never allowed commercial use of our property -- of our storage area. When Copper Cove was developed in 2011, Pelican Lake's trailer storage had been existing in same location for nearly 15 years. Copper Cove was supposed to have a recreation center clubhouse installed on its vacant lot abutting our trailer storage area to further block the storage area from the rest of the development. For reasons unknown to Pelican Lake, Copper Cove never construct ed anything on the vacant land abutting it, and Pelican Lake should not be punished for this. In fact, Copper Cove's 15-foot buffer is so substantial and opaque it effectively screens the entire storage area now without us doing anything. Of course, we will. For these reasons, it's disingenuous for Copper Cove to now only complain about the trailer storage that existed since 1997. Pelican Lake has been -- not only been working diligently with county to obtain approvals for the code violation, but has also tried to work with Copper Cove to address these concerns. Copper Cove should not use county or the Code Enforcement Board as a forum to adjucate [sic] any unrelated disputes between the communities. Hence, Pelican Lake respectively requests the Code Board waive all fines now that we have complied. August 25, 2022 Page 39 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. REESE: That concludes my comments. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anything else? MR. BOYD: Yeah. Chairman Kaufman, again, for the record, Attorney Don Boyd. And just from a housekeeping perspective, the respondent, Pelican Lake, would object to any testimony or any evidence from residents of the Copper Cove Preserve community to the extent that these individuals have never been found to be an affected party by the Code Enforcement Board in accordance with Article 12, Section 4 of the Code Enforcement Board's rules, nor is there any potential that their interests will be affected by the Board's decision since they have no interest in the underlying drainage easement which, again, is the underlying violation in this case. The only parties with an interest in this case are Pelican Lake and the county. Further, the time for residents of Copper Cove to have testified or offered other evidence would have been at the initial violation hearing. As set forth in Article 11, Section 3 of the Code Enforcement Board's rules, the imposition of fine hearing is not a trial de novo or a new hearing on the original case and, therefore, testimony is limited as to whether a fine should or should not be issued. And that's what -- I'd just like to note that objection for the record. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. RUBENSTEIN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. RUBENSTEIN: Is it possible that we see a picture of the current state of the disputed area? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any -- MR. MUCHA: I don't have it. August 25, 2022 Page 40 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Let me -- let me -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Is it in City View? I could dig one up. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Joe, while we're waiting, in English, without going through all the legalese, this started from a complaint from the adjacent development -- MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- that they were seeing things that they didn't want to see? MR. MUCHA: Correct, correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And the county went over and -- I want to know what, physically, has been done, if anything. MR. MUCHA: At this point nothing physically has been done but again, you know, they had to get this easement -use agreement fixed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So this is an exercise in moving paper around, basically? MR. MUCHA: For the past couple of years, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. It probably would be helpful to see a photo if you can show us, Helen. First of all, let me get a motion from the Board to accept the photos. MS. ELROD: Motion to accept the photos. MR. FUENTES: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. RUBENSTEIN: Aye. MS. RUIZ: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: (No verbal response.) MR. FUENTES: Aye. MR. AYASUN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? August 25, 2022 Page 41 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Okay. So can you explain to the Board what we're looking at here? MR. BOYD: Yes, Chairman Kaufman. Again, for the record, Attorney Don Boyd. What you're looking at here is the fence is on Pelican Lake's side of the fence. This is the trailer storage area going from the fence in, if you will, and the other side -- on the opposite side of the fence is Copper -- the Copper Cove community, the boundary between the two. It's separated by the fence. The near portion of the fence is the trailer storage area in question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the initial complaint was there were trailers parked in this particular site, this particular area? MR. BOYD: Correct. Because it contains a county drainage easement, yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And since -- and since that time, those trailers have been removed? MR. BOYD: Those trailers are still there, and now the issue is that we have the easement-use agreement allowing them to continue to be present, if you will. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. What -- is the structure I see in the back a trailer? MR. BOYD: Correct. That's one of the trailers that attaches to one of the owner's motorcoaches. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So that's what we're looking at. Those -- MR. BOYD: And there are some other pictures, too. Again, I brought two other photos as well if the Board would like to see those. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Helen, do you have the other photo? August 25, 2022 Page 42 MS. BUCHILLON: Yes, sir. MR. MUCHA: Can I just say something? As part of the easement-use agreement, they are going to have to cut back the pavement 15 foot and remove those trailers. MR. BOYD: About three to four feet, I think, of the pavement. But Mr. Mucha is correct that there will have to be some further modifications. And that's, again, the necessary -- the need for the other approvals that we're going to have to submit to the county for that landscaping in that area. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. Is that the pavement I'm looking at that needs to be cut back? MR. BOYD: That's correct. That's right up against the fence, yeah; it's close to it. So probably three or four feet of that will have to be probably removed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. RUBENSTEIN: Question, sir? Question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. RUBENSTEIN: What's the PUD show for the setback on an easement; 15 feet? MS. COWAN: So the PUD -- it was actually -- can you guys hear me okay? The PUD actually has this whole area as a Tract B-2. It's a landscape buffer, a drainage easement, and a maintenance easement, which county doesn't do anymore. They don't actually overlap drainage easements with landscape buffers, which is why we had to include that in the EUA. So the EUA, the encroachment that we have the violation for was trailer storage and some pavement into this drainage easement. We now have approval for that in the EUA. So that was satisfying, through the affidavit, the compliance. What we're going to do is actually cut back some of this pavement, and there will be a 15-foot landscape buffer all the way up August 25, 2022 Page 43 to the fence -- that's already been approved in the EUA -- and then there's going to be an additional 9-foot hedge just to make sure we have as much screening as possible. But that's -- that's the next step to address landscaping concerns separate than the drainage easement violation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How long do you think that will take? MS. COWAN: So, actually, the board already hired Peninsula to do that work as well. There's some other work, an ICP re-plat to adjust some of the lot lines. So it's really dependent on county. But the landscaping plans have been prepared; they just need to be submitted, permit issued, asphalt cut back. So -- and we need to make sure that the plants are available, too. So I don't have an actual estimate, but I do know Peninsula is actually submitting those applications. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The pavement that's going to be cut back -- MS. COWAN: Yep. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- have you hired someone to do that? MS. COWAN: They've hired the engineering firm to submit that application to get the permit. I don't know if they have an actual vendor right now ready to cut that back, but they ha ve submitted -- they're submitting the application for the permits for that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you're applying for a permit to cut back the encroachment? MS. COWAN: Correct, but -- yes, but we have approval for the existing encroachments through the EUA. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you don't have to cut it back. You're doing it to be Johnny Nice Guy; is that it? August 25, 2022 Page 44 MS. COWAN: No. Let me clarify. We're cutting it back to make room for that landscaping. Because the landscaping is also an encroachment, we had to get approval in the EUA for that. So to fit the 15 feet of landscaping, once that's approved in those permits, they will have to cut back some of the pavement, correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Because the trees don't grow through concrete. MS. COWAN: Exactly. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. COWAN: Yes. MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir, and the screening is actually -- is required. The screening is required. MS. COWAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Is that a Type 2, 3 buffer? MS. COWAN: It's an actual 15-foot buffer per the PUD, and it's Type A plant material. So canopy trees 30 feet on center, and then an additional 9-foot hedge that's opaque. That's what will be installed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you're going to plant a 9-foot hedge? MS. COWAN: It's going to be planted at 7 due to availability of plant heights, maintained at 9. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. God will construct the additional feet. Okay. Now, if you -- when you put all this in, will you be able to see the other development? MS. COWAN: From the Pelican Lake side, we really -- the buffer on the other -- on Copper Cove's side is a substantial Type B 15-foot landscape buffer. So it's our position that it already is effectively screening. You can see some areas where there might be some -- on their buffer some holes in the landscaping that could be August 25, 2022 Page 45 plugged on their buffer. It's our position, once we put in this enhanced buffer, there will be plenty of screening from both properties. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And that -- Joe, was that the original complaint? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Lee? MR. RUBENSTEIN: I have a question. The property owned by Copper Cove on the other side of the fence, are those residential lots that haven't been built on? MS. COWAN: It's actually -- on the other side there's a vacant almost like a baseball shape -- baseball-field-shaped lot that was supposed to be their recreation parcel. It's vacant. It remains vacant. So it's zoned for a recreation parcel, not for single-family platted lots. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. RUBENSTEIN: And one more question. The trailers that are there, who owns those? MS. COWAN: The trailers are actually all owned by owners in Pelican Lake. So it's a motorcoach resort. So, typically, with motorcoaches, they'll tow a trailer, and then they actually have storage on site, which is permitted under the PUD, which is zoned TTRV. They store those in this area, which is a secure -- three sections of lots in the corner of Pelican Lake. So they're owned by all of the owners in Pelican Lake. No commercial storage. MR. RUBENSTEIN: How many trailers will eventually go in that area? MS. COWAN: There's currently -- MR. REESE: This is a guess. I didn't count yesterday. There's maybe 20 -- MR. WHITE: If the gentleman is going to testify, he must be at August 25, 2022 Page 46 a microphone, please. MR. REESE: I'm sorry about that. To answer the question, there was approximately 25 or 27 trailers there. There will be fewer -- likely there will be fewer, because when we peel back the asphalt to make room for the buffer that attorney described, we'll probably lose a few parking places. There's 289 lots in there. That's all the room we have, and these are highly allocated lots for people that got on a list to get a trailer. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can you give me the approximate height of a trailer. MR. REESE: They vary. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The tallest ones? MR. REESE: The tallest one would be somewhere around 12 feet, and we have subsequently moved all the tall trailers to the interior wall of our property so they could not be easily seen from the road or from elsewhere. So we parked -- in fact, we worked on this again yesterday to make sure that it was that way. We parked the lowest trailers up against this fence and the tall trailers actually up against our wall on the inside of our property. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you have a question? MR. REESE: Average height, by the way, is about eight feet. MS. RUIZ: I do have a question. How many environmental permits do you need to complete this violation? MS. COWAN: So the violation, actually, we've obtained all of the permits already to abate and correct this violation so we -- MS. RUIZ: To the departments. MS. COWAN: So we had to get -- initially, before county and stormwater would sign off on anything, we had to submit a State 404 permit to the depart -- I'm sorry -- the South Florida Water Management District. So that was the first process. Once we August 25, 2022 Page 47 obtained that permit, which was the ERP modification -- MS. RUIZ: How long did that take? MS. COWAN: Okay. That date was October of 2020, and then we submitted that immediately to county to get the stormwater approval. MS. RUIZ: Okay. What other enviro permit? MS. COWAN: That was the only Environmental Resource Permit that was needed. MS. RUIZ: Okay. And you have that? MS. COWAN: We have that, and we also -- MS. RUIZ: How long do you have it for? MS. COWAN: Five years from the date of issue. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Based on the paperwork that we have, it says the violation has been abated. So whatever it took to do, without getting into the gory details, has been done. MS. COWAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. As far as resolving the situation, we understand, I believe, exactly what you have done. Now, I have two more slips, and they're probably from the folks at Copper Cove; is that correct? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And I understand our rules, but ordinarily we let anybody speak that wants to speak that fills out a speaker form. They could read the newspaper; it doesn't bother me. But I would like to hear from them to see if all that you've done has been helpful to them, et cetera. So, Ron and Karen, why don't you come up a nd address the Board. MS. BUCHILLON: Sir, you can come over here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We don't want you to get in a fist fight with them. August 25, 2022 Page 48 MR. BLOOMQUIST: Just for the record, I have a -- THE COURT REPORTER: Can you speak into the microphone, please. MR. BLOOMQUIST: For the record, my name is Ron Bloomquist, and I'm the president of Copper Cove and have been for the past two years. I was also president in 2015 and 2016. In 2015 it was actually turned over from Lennar to our HOA, and I think that's important to note because there's some notes earlier about 2011 and all this. So I'm going to -- I want to give some pictures to Joe. He's seen these. These are -- if they want to use them. They're taken as late as Monday and Wednesday of this week, and some were taken in May for our last meeting. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Is the -- they have not seen these pictures? MR. BLOOMQUIST: I don't know. I have them. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't you show them the pictures, and if they have no objection, we will entertain a motion to include that. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman and Board Members, my understanding is that the photos you saw previously from respondent will be sought to be moved into evidence once we get a little further into the process. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we voted to that effect. MR. WHITE: Uh. MR. BOYD: I thought they were admitted. MS. COWAN: They were. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You were outside hiding. MR. WHITE: I'm sorry. I conferred with their counsel, and we miscommunicated. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. WHITE: My error. August 25, 2022 Page 49 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The questions I have, while you review the pictures, are those actual pictures of the area? MR. ALBERT: They are old pictures of the area. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. COWAN: Yeah. So it appears that they are pictures, but some of these look actually very old. Some of these items have been removed for months. So to the extent that they aren't up to date, we would object. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So you have no objection to those being entered? MR. BOYD: We would object to, again, any testimony from Copper Cove or any evidence, just for the record. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. BOYD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. MR. BLOOMQUIST: Allow me to submit my iPhone, which were pictures taken yesterday, not in May. Some of those were in May and some were in June. But these were taken yesterday and, as you can see, those trailers are still there. And -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They're not -- they're not saying that the trailers are gone, okay. The whole deal here, if I can do it in simple language, is there was an objection by Copper Cove to -- viewing these trailers was an eyesore; am I correct? MR. BLOOMQUIST: Correct, correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Since that time -- and to resolve that, you filed a complaint. Not you, but Copper Cove filed a complaint. Since that time, the respondents have done several things to come into compliance. Some of them are still to be done, not to come into compliance, because according to the paperwork that I have from Joe Mucha is that they are in compliance now. What we're here to discuss is the fines that have accrued, and that's August 25, 2022 Page 50 what we're here to do, to impose the fines or not impose the fines or modify the fines. But the photos that you have, if you give them to Helen, she can put them up. Your phone, that's a problem. We can't see it. MR. BLOOMQUIST: Okay. And let me just read a prepared statement that I made. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. BLOOMQUIST: Letting the code violation go and totally dismissing the fine is like rewarding bad behavior. This has been going on since 2014 and before. The way Pelican works remains the same: They are in violation of a boundary buffer, and the asphalt parking lot remains in the buffer, as does the trailers. Pelican Lakes always breaks with code and then asks for forgiveness. We have submitted several complaints besides the drainage. The fence was never permitted on their internal wall, that was never permitted, and now the buffer and the asphalt stand is not completed and sits on the boundary buffer, which the trailers are parked and not tagged. I heard earlier that these trailers are put on the back of their RVs. Well, if that be the case, they would need tags on them, and I would say that the majority of those trailers in that lot do not have tags. And they're very clearly noted if you look at the pictures that I sent. But those are -- those were not acceptable. Why do they continue to get away with this? When will the county hold them accountable? Quite frankly, we should not have to work this hard to get Pelican Lake to step up and do what they should have done in the first place, and we need your support. There are two cases addressing open unpermitted fences and walls that are still violations and stand in the easement-use agreement as written in Case CELU -- that's the one -- this -- for today, and they August 25, 2022 Page 51 are -- there's two cases. One is for the internal wall, and one is for the external fence. They were never permitted. Copper Cove never gets the respect it deserves. When I listened to John Albert says that Pelican Lakes [sic] is twice the size of Copper Cove during the easement agreement meeting with the County Commissioners, I was very upset. They said they were twice our size. Well, geographically they're not. And the last I heard, 289 RVs are smaller than 217 homes that are anywheres from 1,800 to 4,200 square feet. They tried to take our property back in 2019. That fence that you see there, that was moved back to the boundary line. It used to be 15 feet on our buffer. They tried to take our well, and they used it for irrigation, which was for our recreation parcel. We've been holding off on that recreation parcel because nothing makes sense, and we've been waiting for this thing to be settled so we can move forward and do what we want to do. But in all due respect, Lennar canceled the building that was -- and the structure and the pool that was supposed to be there back in 2010 when they submitted their plans, and they -- there's no longer going to be a pool or a rec center. But we have things that are allowed there, which we are trying to get from our people what they'd like us to do, because no matter what we do, it's going to cost us money. Those hedges that they referred to or the screening that we put up there, those were some oaks trees, and they were 3-, 4-foot cocoplums that we let grow to where they are today so it would cover the eyesore we left [sic] -- every day when we left and came into the community of those trailers and that fence. We did not ask them for a wall around the entire thing. We thought it would be nice, but we asked them to please put it to the end of the boundary -- or the end of the lot, their boundary line. That's August 25, 2022 Page 52 another 10 feet. That would at least have hidden the trailers from the road, and they refused to do that, and that's fine. They got permission. We worked with the county, too. We met with the Commissioner, and we agreed that, you know, an opaque hedge -- and we agreed to it. I mean -- and so I did not show up at that meeting. And I listened to these guys talk, and I listened to John over the -- he was in Arizona over the phone. And when he said what he said, I was quite aggravated, because it's not true. And what Jim just said before, we worked hard to do this, we didn't work hard. We met twice. We had tried to patch and make amends with these folks because we thought it was better to communicate than take it to court. And so I made the -- I made -- when I came back as president, I asked if we could get together. And they've had how many changes in their board since this whole thing's gone? We're not impeding, and we're not trying to stall them from getting what they want. We want them to get what they want, but why do they do everything they want to do and then later on come back and ask for forgiveness? To me, that's rewarding irresponsible behavior, and that only creates more irresponsible behavior. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me slow things down. We're not here as a board to be the intermediate between the Hatfields and the McCoys, what happened in 2006, '10, whatever. We're here on this one case. And this one case, according to what I'm reading -- and Mr. Mucha is next to you -- has now been abated. So any complaints that you had when this was filed and brought before us have been fixed. Now -- that's what it says. How they were fixed, that's a different story. What's going to be done in the future, another different story. MR. BLOOMQUIST: Well, that one has been -- that one, August 25, 2022 Page 53 according to this abatement, has been -- the drainage has been fixed, but they haven't -- what they created was another issue, because the buffer's not fixed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What I'm -- MR. BLOOMQUIST: And the other thing is is that they have two other permits that have -- or two other requests for permits now they would never have done. They just go ahead and do these things, and then later on -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We are -- we are hearing the code that was in violation and, if I'm not mistaken, the code [sic] has been abated. The only thing that we have in front of us now is what are we going to do with the fines, which is $113,200. MR. FUENTES: I would love to hear Rubenstein's opinion on this one. I'd love to hear your motion. MR. WHITE: Well, I don't know that you've heard all of those individuals who wish to speak. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have one more. MR. WHITE: We can certainly make a motion at any point in time. That's the Board's prerogative. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't we give Karen the opportunity to speak, and then we will close the public hearing, and we will deliberate. MS. FANNIN: Thank you. My name is Karen Fannin. I do live in Copper Cove, and I'm on the board of directors and have been involved with the community since 2014. I'm here today to ask you to either modify these fines or not to release them completely. We have been dealing with Pelican Lakes [sic] since 2016 starting with things that you don't even need to know about. Just like you said, we're here about whether they're going to pay fines or they're not going to pay fines. And I'm here to ask you that you either modify their fines, but you do not allow them to just August 25, 2022 Page 54 be scot-free and not pay these fines. It's something that we have been dealing with since 2019. Pelican Lakes never fulfilled their stipulated agreement that they signed with us in 2019. From that time, we have been stalled and stalled and stalled until we've gotten to this point where everything has finally been abated because they had to give everything back to us because they could not fulfill their obligation under the contract. Under that stipulated agreement, they also never performed under the timeline that the courts had set for them. So, again, what we're faced here with is a community who has just prolonged and prolonged for a number of years. In 2021 their lawyers sent us numerous agreements that we thought we could work with them to do all in lieu of being able to get this abatement with the Southwest and everything. They just stalled for time, stalled us for time, stalled us for time. So I'm here to say to you that it isn't fair to just let these fees go. They have not worked in good faith from the time that we signed a stipulated agreement with them. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. As far as any agreement that you have between you and them, that's part of the legal profession, if you will. Unless it's a violation of code, we don't hear it. Any comments from you, Jeff, on this? MR. RUBENSTEIN: It's a civil matter. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Correct. MR. LETOURNEAU: The only comment I have is the county's position is the violation has been abated, and we're here to impose fines or not to impose fines. Anything else seems to be, like, a civil matter between the two parties. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Sir, we'll hear you, and August 25, 2022 Page 55 then I'm going to close the public meeting. MR. BOYD: Thank you, Chairman Kaufman. And, again, we'll waive our right to cross-examine any of the witnesses from Copper Cove. Again, just -- and to sum up briefly, the underlying violation in this case is the drainage easement. It's the paving and storage of items in that drainage easement. The county's permitted Pelican Lake to continue using the drainage easement for storage as set forth in the easement-use agreement. An affidavit of compliance has been issued by the code enforcement investigator in this case. Again, we're not talking about the landscaping buffer or whatever other issues that are out there between the two communities. As previously stated, these residents from Copper Cove are not affected parties, and Pelican Lake, essentially, should not be penalized for going through all of the proper channels to obtain all the required approvals from the relevant government entities to comply with this board's order. And with that, I'll thank you for the time. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So I'm going to close the public hearing now, and we can discuss this amongst fellow board members. MR. RUBENSTEIN: I'd like to make a motion, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. RUBENSTEIN: After listening to both sides and dealing with the penalties being abated -- I'm not quite sure they are because you show pictures with the trailers still on there but yet you say it's abated, and I'll just accept that, that it is abated. But this gentleman's picture from a day or two ago showed that it's not been abated, so... MR. LETOURNEAU: Can I just speak to that real quick? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. MR. LETOURNEAU: The trailers aren't the violation. It was August 25, 2022 Page 56 that they were parking the trailers in an unpermitted spot which was designated as a drainage easement. The county agreed that the drainage easement wasn't required and has allowed them to continue parking in that area. So the trailers right now never -- MR. RUBENSTEIN: It's a moot point. MR. LETOURNEAU: And there are two things to -- they could have took the trailers and just said, we're not going to park there anymore, or they got the agreement with the county, and that's the path they chose. MR. RUBENSTEIN: All right. Well, that clears that up. Thank you. So on my motion, I'd like to make a motion to reduce the fines from the posted amount of 113,260 to $75,000. This has been going on for four years, and I hope that this puts an end to i t today. MS. RUIZ: I second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and second. Anyone want to discuss it? MS. ELROD: They have already paid a ton in all of the permits, all of the engineering, and everything else. I think this is too punitive. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you have a suggestion as to -- MR. FUENTES: Lee, may I make a suggestion? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. FUENTES: How do you feel about from the 75-; would you do 30-? MR. RUBENSTEIN: Are we negotiating? MR. FUENTES: No, just -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're talking. MR. FUENTES: You know, we're talking. MR. RUBENSTEIN: Well, they've accrued 113,000 in fines, August 25, 2022 Page 57 not counting all the time and effort from the county that we'll never recover. And I could have said, I think the fines of 113- should be imposed, but I see they're making a good effort to get this resolved, and I think that's important. If they came here today and weren't interested in doing anything, I would go that route. But they are trying to resolve it, which I think is the important part, because it's costing Pelican Lake money to retain them. They have attorney fees that the clock just keeps running. So in order to resolve it, as far as code is concerned, the rest is a civil matter that they could pursue -- to pursue their -- to collect their monies that they've spent out. MR. FUENTES: That's true. MR. RUBENSTEIN: I'll modify my motion to reduce it to 60,000. MR. FUENTES: Okay. Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So you need to agree to the lower amount, since you were the person who seconded Lee's motion, to 60,000. MS. RUIZ: Of course, I agree to the modification. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So 60,000, which is about almost half of what it was. Okay. Any more discussion on that? Tarik, do you have any idea? MR. AYASUN: No, I think there's a motion and a second, and unless there is a reversal, I think we should go and vote. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. All those in favor? MR. RUBENSTEIN: Aye. MS. RUIZ: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: (No verbal response.) MR. FUENTES: Aye. MR. AYASUN: Aye. August 25, 2022 Page 58 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. It passes. So the fines have been -- all but 60,000 have been abated. So from 213- [sic] down to 60,000. MR. WHITE: 113-. MR. AYASUN: 113-. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'm sorry. 113- down to 60,000. Okay. We're done. MS. ELROD: Can they still go before the county commissioners? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're going to take a 10-minute break. (A brief recess was had from 10:29 a.m. to 10:48 a.m.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board back to order. Helen? MS. BUCHILLON: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What's up? MS. BUCHILLON: We have a change on the agenda. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. BUCHILLON: Under imposition of fines No. 9, CESD20200007975, Jessica Doyle and Marc C. Doyle, has been withdrawn and will be rescheduled for the September hearing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Get a motion from the Board to accept the change to agenda. MS. ELROD: Motion to accept. MR. RUBENSTEIN: Second. MR. AYASUN: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. August 25, 2022 Page 59 MR. RUBENSTEIN: Aye. MS. RUIZ: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: (No verbal response.) MR. FUENTES: Aye. MR. AYASUN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MS. BUCHILLON: Okay. Next case, No. 8, under impositions, CESD20190008994, Nelson Hernandez Castellanos, Lissette Veloso, and Greta Restano. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? MR. HOLMES: I do. MS. RESTANO: I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Who is that masked man? MR. FUENTES: Oh, this is the garage, I think, in Golden Gate. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Could you state your name on the microphone for us, plea se. MS. RESTANO: Greta Restano. MS. VELOSO: Lissette Veloso. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This is Noah's Ark Church, and you're -- MR. WHITE: No. MR. AYASUN: This is No. 8. MR. FUENTES: This is No. 9, Helen? Eight. MS. BUCHILLON: Eight. Last name Castellanos, Veloso, and Restano. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Okay. Yeah, I have them here. Excuse me while I shuffle paper. I'll find it. Got it. August 25, 2022 Page 60 Okay. Oh, who is that stranger there? Okay. You want to -- MR. HOLMES: Do you want me to read it in? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- read it into the record for us, and then we will talk to the respondents. MR. HOLMES: Yes, sir. For the record, Bradley Holmes, Collier County Code Enforcement. Past orders: On February 24th, 2022, Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See attached order of the Board OR6155, Page 3028, for more information. The violation has not been abated as of August 25th, 2022. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Part 1, fines have accrued at a rate of $300 per day from the period -- for the period from February 22nd, 2022, to August 25th, 2022, 181 days, for a fine -- for a total fine amount of $54,300.00. Part 2, fines have accrued at a rate of $150 per day for the period from March 7th, 2022, to August 25th, 2022, 172 days, for a total fine amount of $25,800.00. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of $59.28 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing: $59.28. Total fine amount: $80,159.28. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Good morning. MS. RESTANO: Good morning. MS. VELOSO: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Almost afternoon. You are here for what purpose? MS. RESTANO: Well, I'm here because I received a notice that I have to be here and, also, last time we came you guys requested us to do the inspections, and we did. We didn't pass the plumbing August 25, 2022 Page 61 inspection, and they're holding on the framing and the final inspection until the plumbing passes. We're working on hiring someone to make all the changes we need to do for the plumbing. It's just getting very expensive, and right now we don't have the funds for it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, this whole thing was done because you didn't get a permit. MS. RESTANO: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the first money that you should spend whenever you do something like this is for the permit because it does get very expensive. I mean, the fines that we have in front of us -- and we only can do two things now. We can impose the fine, which is $80,000 -- $80,159, or if you have some compelling reason, we could possibly do a continuance on this. But the fines will continue to accrue. In other words, they'll get bigger and bigger . What are you asking the Board to do now? MS. RESTANO: If you can give us at least six months for us to figure out how to pay for all of this that we have to remove and do and redo in order to pass all the inspections and the permit, et cetera, that would be what we'd be asking for. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is anybody living in this garage? MS. RESTANO: No. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: This was a two-part order. Can you tell me, Bradley, what the two parts were to this. MS. RESTANO: Part 1 had to do with the cease of use and powering off, and Part 2 was in reference to the permitting. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Was Part 1 done? MR. HOLMES: Part 1 was not done, because fines accrued up to today or they're on here up to today. So we hadn't done an inspection on that. I'm presenting this on behalf of the investigator that was in charge of this. He stated that they've been attempting August 25, 2022 Page 62 contact, but it wasn't until yesterday we -- or that I had contact with these individuals following dropping off a door tag when I got a return call. So we discussed, and here we are. MR. FUENTES: So I have a question. MR. HOLMES: Contact's been difficult. MR. FUENTES: You guys have managed to investigate the garage or not really? MR. HOLMES: In what way? MR. FUENTES: Well, last time we were here, I believe the conversation was with William Shanahan, if I'm mistaken, pretty much, he couldn't obtain access to the property because apparently the reason was they were busy at work. So the conversation was pretty much, you know, we've got to get him access. So as of right now, has anybody been able to set foot into that garage to determine -- MS. RESTANO: Yes. MR. FUENTES: -- whether or not it's being utilized? MS. RESTANO: The answer is yes. MR. FUENTES: Yes, okay. MS. RESTANO: We had someone went in -- if it wasn't the very same day that we were here, it was the day after, and he checked on the breakers. He went in the garage; he checked around. I'm not always at home, so let me ask her. And then we request the inspection. They went in. They said they couldn't do anything because the plumbing was covered. We opened them. We requested again. We opened it up, requested again. And that's when they went and said, no, the inspection doesn't pass. And we have to wait until this one pass in order to continue. The other inspections are good. The other ones are done. So, yes. MR. FUENTES: Okay. August 25, 2022 Page 63 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the way the building permit works is -- and this violation, until you get a complete CO, you're in violation. MS. RESTANO: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you're in violation because you never applied for a permit, which is not fair to the other taxpayers in the county. MS. RESTANO: And I understand. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the Board? MS. RUIZ: Yes. I'd like to ask a question. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MS. RUIZ: Is this a zoning violation and a building violation, or just one? MS. RESTANO: I'm not sure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: From the way I read it, it is just a violation because they have no permit to do what they're doing. Not zoning. MS. RUIZ: Okay. But just does the violation involve any zoning? In other words, are they encroaching in the side -- in the setback, anything like that in addition to? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That has not been cited. MS. RUIZ: No? MR. HOLMES: My understanding is this was within an existing structure. MS. RUIZ: You don't consider that? MR. LETOURNEAU: Excuse me. What this is is a permitted garage that was turned into living area without a Collier County permit. MS. RUIZ: Oh, I understand. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. August 25, 2022 Page 64 MR. RUBENSTEIN: Question: What's going on in the garage today? MS. RESTANO: It's empty; has nothing in it. MR. RUBENSTEIN: Nobody's living there? No cars are parked there? MS. RESTANO: We don't even go in there. We don't have electricity in the garage. It's unbearable. We can't use that area anymore. MR. RUBENSTEIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, as I said to the Board, there's only two things that can be done: Impose the fine or grant a continuance. MR. FUENTES: Make a motion to grant the continuance. MS. RUIZ: I'll second that -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hold on. MR. FUENTES: -- for five months, five months. MS. RESTANO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do we have a second? MR. AYASUN: Second. MS. RUIZ: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. MR. WHITE: In order to make my job as easy as possible, would it be possible for staff to ask to withd raw the imposition, amend the agenda, and allow the respondents to request a motion to continue so I only have to deal with a motion to continue rather than try to stuff two orders together and -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, that's up to the county. Jeff? MR. LETOURNEAU: So the county will withdraw it, and then they would ask for the continuance, it would be okayed by the Board, and would save you -- about a week's worth of paperwork -- August 25, 2022 Page 65 MR. WHITE: Yes. MR. LETOURNEAU: -- about a week's worth of paperwork right there. MR. WHITE: At least an hour. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. The county wishes to withdraw this case at this time and allow them to seek their continuance. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we need a motion from the Board to modify the agenda. MS. ELROD: Make a motion to modify the agenda. MR. RUBENSTEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. RUBENSTEIN: Aye. MS. RUIZ: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: (No verbal response.) MR. FUENTES: Aye. MR. AYASUN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. WHITE: And you have the prior motion and second for the continuance request pending. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Let me just say this: In five months, if you come back here and you can't show us any progress, irrespective of money, we're going to impose the fine. MS. RESTANO: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay? So you've got to get going on this thing. MS. RESTANO: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And it should serve as an alarm for August 25, 2022 Page 66 those people who try to do building without permits. Okay? Thank you. MS. RESTANO: Thank you. MS. BUCHILLON: Next case, No. 11, CESD20210011230, 2190 Kirkwood LLC. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? MR. JOHNSON: I do. MR. MUNOZ: I do. MR. BAIRD: I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, John. And could you both identify yourself on the microphone for us, please. MR. MUNOZ: Good morning. My name is Anthony Munoz. MR. BAIRD: Richard Baird. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This was 2180 Kirkwood Avenue. MR. BAIRD: Yes. MR. JOHNSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: John, do you want to give us a once-over on this and read it into the record for us? MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. For the record, John Johnson, Collier County Code Enforcement. Past orders: On March 24, 2022, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the Board, OR6148, PG3499, for more information. The violation has been abated as of August 24th, 2012. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a August 25, 2022 Page 67 rate of $200 per day for the period from May 24, 2022, to August 24, 2022, 93 days, for a total fine amount of $18,600. Previously assessed operational costs of $59.28 have been paid, operational costs for today's hearing are $59.28, giving a total amount of $18,659.28. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: When I look at the order, it says structures on the property. What were the structures? MR. JOHNSON: The structure, you may remember this, was a prefab shed that was placed on this C-5 zoned parking lot, if you will, over by the Gateway -- the Bayshore Triangle, and they were struggling to get permits for that. And, eventually, I gave them over 18,000 reasons to take the shed out of there and come into compliance, and they chose to do that. So they were in compliance. I have issued an affidavit of compliance. They are still working toward getting that permit, because they need a -- they need a building there, but it's not going back there until they get it, so they're in compliance, and you can see it was at the buzzer, if you will, yesterday. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Gentlemen, would you like to comment, request something, or whatever? MR. BAIRD: He's the owner. I'm the contractor. I took this over from another contractor. We're talking about a shed on a commercial C-5 property. The shed was there. I applied for the permit back on June 5th, 2022. There was a gal in Permitting by the name of Tiffany that was taking care of this. She got moved to HR. I've got 40 permits open in the county right now. I don't know who dropped the ball on it, but yesterday Brooke opened the case, saw that Pages 2, 3, and 4 needed to be separated, and the folio number needed to be put on the index page, which was done back in June. So she took care of it. She opened it. I have the paper trail August 25, 2022 Page 68 for the open permit, the affidavit in lieu, the spot survey. Everything is -- if you'd like to see, you know. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're not here to hear the case. We're just here -- MR. BAIRD: Okay. MR. MUNOZ: We submitted the paperwork, and it's under review. MR. BAIRD: We moved the shed yesterday, in reality, but at the end of the day, we should have never had to take the shed out of there. I have the paper trail from June to now that shows the permit application, all of the proper docs. There was a lot of stips that went with this file for a shed for a C-5 property. But I'm totally within compliance. And he had to touch base with the Permitting Department, which we went back and forth. Finally, I was able to get ahold of Brooke yesterday. She took care of it. She separated those pages on her own. Now we have a permit in review at the county for the shed that we removed yesterday just to comply for the hearing. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you have any comments on that, John? MR. JOHNSON: No. He's essentially correct; however, the -- you know, to get these permits approved, it's not Code Enforcement's responsibility to do it. It's not even Permitting. You know, they need to be on top of it. But there was another issue. He didn't even mention the issue before. There was an addressing issue that really bogged them down. It was a different address, a different folio -- am I right, it's a different folio. There was an addressing issue -- MR. BAIRD: There was before me. MR. JOHNSON: -- before he even came on board. So it's been a bit of a mess. August 25, 2022 Page 69 Honestly, I can't tell you if that permit's going to be approved, but I know it's being reviewed right now. So it's been accepted, the application has been accepted, and it may be approved. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So I assume that you're asking that the fines be removed? MR. BAIRD: Yes. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that correct? Okay. MS. ELROD: I make a motion to deny the county the imposition of fines. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have a second? MR. AYASUN: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. Okay. Comments on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: If what respondent is saying is correct, it should have gone through. It sounds like a paper foul-up at one place or another, so I just want to put my two cents on the record. MR. AYASUN: I think that they removed the shed. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They removed the shed. It has -- it has been abated. Okay. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. RUBENSTEIN: Aye. MS. RUIZ: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. FUENTES: (No verbal response.) MR. AYASUN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. August 25, 2022 Page 70 Okay. Fines have been abated. MR. BAIRD: Thank you so much for your time. MR. MUNOZ: Thank you. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Next case, No. 12, CESD20210007357, Laura Carr. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? MR. CONETTA: I do. MS. CARR: I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Let me go through my paperwork here. Okay. John, do you want to read this into -- and, ma'am, could you state your name on the microphone for us. MS. CARR: Laura Carr. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I think I remember this from way back when. John? MR. CONETTA: For the record, John Conetta, Collier County Code Enforcement. Past orders: On October 29th, 2021, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinance and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the Board, OR6045, Page 1344, for more information. The violation has been abated as of August 22nd, 2022. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of $100 per day for the period from January 28th, 2022, to August 22, 2022, 207 days, for a total fine amount of $20,700. Previously assessed operational costs of 59.28 have been paid. August 25, 2022 Page 71 Operational costs for today's hearing: $59.28. Total amount of $20,759.28. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CARR: Okay. I didn't know I needed a permit for my own building. After COVID -- well, during COVID, the tenant didn't pay any money. When she finally left, I decided I'd move in and build a little lanai, and then I realized that my neighbor didn't like it and that rules and -- we then had to get a survey. Didn't get somebody to do the survey until December. And when we did it, we couldn't tell if there was an existing lanai there, which I thought there was. And so we went back to -- I work with different people at community growth, and we went back to property cards and pictures. And I thought there was a building there, and they're like, nope, no building. So what do I do? And he said, you have to get a variance. I said, that means that at least 500 feet everybody has to say yes? And he said, yes. I said, then it won't happen because the neighbor would not allow it, even though she couldn't see it. So I immediately started taking it down, and that happened -- I talked to a gentleman I think it was July 11th, and I immediately started taking it down. Then I was in here, and I explained to you guys it was raining and hot, and you could only work so long, or at least I could only work so long. And I called different people that -- the last one was Cathey, Officer Cathey. And luckily I was there when he showed up, and he said, one more thing; if you take this down, you're good. And I said, okay. Done. When? Within an hour. And within an hour, I took a picture, and it was down. August 25, 2022 Page 72 And he came back maybe and took another picture. I don't know. But I followed all the rules, sort of. And so I didn't even know fines were accruing, because I was working with community growth. I thought it would be okay. It was sort of this harmless little, you know, 8-foot screened-in lanai. And so I have taken it down, cleaned it up. Everybody in the area's happy. So I'd like you to waive the fees. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments or motions from the Board? MS. ELROD: I'll make a motion to deny the county the imposition of fines. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Can I get a second? MS. RUIZ: Second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MS. RUIZ: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. FUENTES: Aye. MR. AYASUN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MR. RUBENSTEIN: Nay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. CARR: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It passes. MS. CARR: I can see again. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Don't build any more lanais there till you get your neighbor to like it. MS. CARR: No, no, I won't. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you. MS. BUCHILLON: Next case, No. 13, CESD20200002094, August 25, 2022 Page 73 Jose Valdes and Olga L. Benitez. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? MR. AMBACH: I do. MS. BENITEZ: I do. MR. TRUJILLO: I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name on the microphone for us, please. MS. BENITEZ: Olga Benitez. MR. TRUJILLO: Joel Trujillo. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you want to read this into the record for us? MR. AMBACH: I do, sir. For the record, Chris Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. Past orders: On July 22nd, 2021, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the Board, OR5996, Page 2975, for more information. The violation has not been abated as of August 25th, 2022. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of $200 per day for the period from January 19th, 2022, to August 25th, 2022, 219 days, for a total fine amount, $43,800. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of $59.35 have been paid. Operational costs for today hearing: $59.35. Total amount: $43,859.35. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. This is multiple unpermitted structures on the property. You probably heard what I said. We only have two choices here, to impose the fine or -- August 25, 2022 Page 74 MR. TRUJILLO: What we're asking for is that we're asking for an extension for finishing the structure. We actually have four permits for the structures, and the base -- the main problem was getting a DEP approved by the state, and we have spent more than a year and a half, almost, getting the exception from the state. Finally, we were able to get the permits approved and were able to pass two -- already two -- close two carports that were on without permits, and we do have already completed with the permits, and we're waiting for the CO on those, and then we only have one structure that we're doing -- asking for inspection today, and then we have another structure we have decided that we're going to demo. So we're canceling that one that's abandoned, and we're going to demo it, and then we're going to ask for a demo permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any comment from the county? MR. AMBACH: That's exactly what happened. They've worked on it. All permits are in good standing. All inspection are completed. They just have to do some final touches. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any idea when this will be completed? MR. TRUJILLO: Approximately between five to six months to be able to finish the last structure. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Because this dates back quite a while. MR. TRUJILLO: This date, just on the DEP Department. We had a case. They only approved one item out of four, and then, actually, the guy that we're working with, actually they fired him, and then we had to actually claim and then start all over again with the state. It took almost a year and a half just to get the DEP department [sic], from the State of Florida, not from here. So it's been a long term, you know, just trying to get the DEP. If we go back to the corrections, you will see that vegetation removal August 25, 2022 Page 75 and the environmental has been the issues from day one. So we have been able to work on that, and that's where we're actually -- we finally were able to get the carports and get the CO. We're getting the CO on those, and then we're only -- waiting only for one more structure, and we should be in good shape. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How many structures are out there? MR. TRUJILLO: There's four. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Four structures. Is this on an Estate lot? MR. TRUJILLO: Yes, an Estate lot. MR. FUENTES: I'd like to make a motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. FUENTES: I'd like to make a motion to give them a continuance for five months. MR. AYASUN: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second for five months. Continuance? MR. FUENTES: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any comments? MS. RUIZ: Yes. I'd like to second it, but with a condition. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's been seconded already. MS. RUIZ: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you can keep your condition. Thanks for the doughnuts. Okay. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. RUBENSTEIN: Aye. MS. RUIZ: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: (No verbal response.) MR. FUENTES: Aye. August 25, 2022 Page 76 MR. AYASUN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. Five months. MR. TRUJILLO: Thank you so much. Greatly appreciated. MS. BUCHILLON: Next case, No. 16, CESD20210007329, Esteban Vargas Ayala and Esperanza Ramirez Reyes. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? MR. MUCHA: I do. MS. RAMIREZ: I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name on the microphone for us. MS. RAMIREZ: My name is Estella Ayala Ramirez. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And you are? MS. RAMIREZ: The daughter of Esteban and Esperanza. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you have the permission of -- MS. RAMIREZ: I have their permission. I was here last time. I remember speaking to you saying I was too short to be at the microphone. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You still have permission. They didn't take it away from you? MS. RAMIREZ: Unfortunately not. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, Joe. MR. MUCHA: Okay. For the record, Joe Mucha, supervisor, Collier County Code Enforcement. Past orders: On January 27th, 2022, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and August 25, 2022 Page 77 ordered to correct violation. See the attached order of the Board, OR6095, Page 3278, for more information. Violation has not been abated as of August 25th, 2022. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of $200 per day for the period from July 27th, 2022, to August 25th, 2022, for 30 days, for a total fine amount of $6,000. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of $59.28 have not been paid, operational costs for today's hearing is $59.42, for a total fine amount of $6,118.70. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And now that you're taller -- MS. RAMIREZ: Well, it's the heels. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- so the microphone works, why don't you tell us what's going on. MS. RAMIREZ: So I heard the other -- two other cases that are similar to mine, so I'm asking for two things; asking a lot, I know that. So I'm asking for an extension. I'm asking for an extension of one year and a half. I know that's a lot, and I'm asking for a reduction of fees. I would say reduce -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me stop you right there. We can only do two things. MS. RAMIREZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We can abate the fine -- MS. RAMIREZ: All right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- or a continuance. This thing was a -- let me just -- for the benefit of the Board, was a two-bedroom, one-bath residence that was built. This is a trailer? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't you give us a little background on why you need so much time, et cetera. August 25, 2022 Page 78 MS. RAMIREZ: Okay. So it's a family of five: Three kids, two parents. My parents work -- well, my father works six days a week, so that leaves him only one day to really work on the mobile home. We could hire more help. That's going to inquire [sic] more fees. On top of it I have to pay the 6,000 plus permitting fees, which I'm sure is going to be a lot more. So I would be -- I would love to hire more help so I can get this over with, because it's not fun coming here, but that's not really an option, so we have to do it on our own for the most part, you know. Of course, that -- you know, general contractors were hired, but again that inquires more fees, so that's not really an option. So it's just limited on amount of time to do these items that you guys want done, which I understand. You're within your right, you know, and I understand that, but I need more time. MR. FUENTES: So just to clarify, Mr. Chairman, previously you had mentioned abate the violations. We can only impose the violation fines at this point, not abate. We can't abate right now. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you have a trailer. Why don't you give us a quick summary, Joe. MR. MUCHA: Yes. So there's -- there was a trailer that was added without permits, it looks like there was also an exterior electrical outlet that was added, and then there's also a demolition permit that was expired. So I'm assuming they took something out after the hurricane and didn't take care of that permit as well. So there's really three items. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So there was -- I don't quite understand "addition." There was something on the property, and then this was added to that? MR. MUCHA: No, no. This is a separate. What I'm saying, it says exterior outlet. I think they added an electrical outlet outside that didn't have a permit. August 25, 2022 Page 79 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: On the trailer? MR. MUCHA: On the property somewhere. MR. RUBENSTEIN: You got a picture, Joe? MR. MUCHA: I don't have any. MS. RAMIREZ: I have a picture, but it's on my phone, unfortunately, but I can explain the situation. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you? MS. RAMIREZ: Okay. So it's a property. It has three things on it that I think are the issues here. So there's a mobile home, the one that that's currently affected that I pulled a permit for, demo. That's the first thing. That's in the very front of the property that you can clearly see. On the back of that mobile home, there's two things. There's an RV, and then there's that small 21 -by-24 structure that's -- it's a home, but it really looks like a shed, but those are the three things. The outlet that they're mentioning is for the RV, which no one lives in. It just powers on the RV, but nobody lives in it. We mostly use it as, like, a storage for our things, because 21-by-24 four people or five to live in is just too much. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Where do the people live? MS. RAMIREZ: They live in the structure behind the mobile home. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the mobile home has to go, or you pulled a demo permit on it? MS. RAMIREZ: I understand that. It has to go because it has mold. I can show you pictures, so it's not livable really, so -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. RAMIREZ: -- I understand that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So what you intend to do is to remove that? MS. RAMIREZ: Not exactly. I called an inspection. It was supposed to be scheduled for tomorrow, but somehow it got August 25, 2022 Page 80 scheduled for today. I got a message on it on my phone right now. So what I intend to do is we were going to demo the whole thing, but now what we plan to do we are intending to -- the mobile home in the front, by previous owners, not by my parents, it has, like, two structures, one mobile home, one mobile home, but they were joined together. So we intend to get rid of the first portion in the front of the property, get rid of that, keep the other structure, the second structure that attaches to that mobile home in the front, keep that one but redo it. Like, work on it, bring it up to livable conditions. So we're going to demo the first portion and keep the second structure and frame it and do all that other stuff so we can -- they can -- we can live in that structure, and just use the small home where my parents are currently living maybe, like, as a shed or whatever the county decides is okay with. It's that one over there. T hat's where they currently live in. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that structure CO'ed? MS. RAMIREZ: No. MR. MUCHA: No, sir. That's the one that's unpermitted. MS. RAMIREZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So nobody's allowed to live in it? MR. MUCHA: Not technically. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, that's what we're all about. So we have a problem here, that your parents are living in a structure that, as far as the county is concerned, from a safety perspective, has not been permitted. So there's been -- I don't know if any inspections for plumbing or electrical -- MR. MUCHA: There's been nothing done. There's not a permit on it. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So that probably was part of the original order to have that removed -- August 25, 2022 Page 81 MR. MUCHA: Or permitted. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- or permitted. MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So in order to permit that -- was this purchased recently? MS. RAMIREZ: This structure? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. MS. RAMIREZ: No, this was not purchased. This was built. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Without a permit? MS. RAMIREZ: Correct, without a permit. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, I believe that your parents are living there. They're going to have to find someplace else to live. MS. RAMIREZ: And I understand that, and, you know, we were hoping to build that structure so we can work on the one on the front. That was -- this is just temporary. That is too small for them. But I understand what you're saying. I understand that, you know, it doesn't have a permit. They shouldn't be living there. But that's what we had to work with at the time when the structure was built without a permit. Like I said -- MR. RUBENSTEIN: I'd like to make a motion. MS. RAMIREZ: -- the other condition -- the other mobile home is filled with mold. It's just unlivable. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Since this structure was built by your parents -- MS. RAMIREZ: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- that means that you can't even go to an architect and get an affidavit and have it CO'ed that way. This has to be demoed. MS. RAMIREZ: And that's been part of the issue that, you know, I've tried several architects, and it's just -- it's been hard to find August 25, 2022 Page 82 someone who wants to take on that type of project. And I really don't want to demo it, because that costs money. And I understand that, you know, you want a permit, but that did cost money, and I really don't -- I want to keep it if possible, but if, you know -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me give you -- and I probably shouldn't say this, but I'll say it anyhow. They can deduct this from my salary. So you have a structure that you're paying no taxes on. So the people who live in Collier County are paying the taxes for you, and that's not right. It's not right to the citizens of Collier County, and that's why you have to have a permit. When you have a permit, that's how it all flows through the Building Department, and you get assessed taxes, et cetera, et cetera. When you build something without a permit, it doesn't get taxed. So I'm paying the taxes for you like everybody else on the Board. It's a problem. Okay. I don't know off the top of my head how to resolve this problem. I understand -- MR. RUBENSTEIN: I'd like to make a motion when -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. But that is a concern, so -- and you said you'd need, like, a year and a half to resolve this situation? MS. RAMIREZ: I do need a year and a half. I know it seems excessive. I know you guys always do six months for the most part. But, like I said, it's something that my parents and I are working on, and we're limited to time that we have to spend on this without taking time off from work, and we need to work in order to pay these fines for -- you know, these fines and permitting and all that stuff, so... CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, until it gets CO'ed, one way or the other, the fines will continue to go up. MS. RAMIREZ: Right. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I listen to the Board. August 25, 2022 Page 83 MR. RUBENSTEIN: I'd like to make a motion, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. RUBENSTEIN: Okay. To reduce the fine of 6,180.70 -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. MR. FUENTES: We are either imposition or continuing. MR. RUBENSTEIN: Why? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Because it's not in compliance. It's not in compliance. The fines will continue to flow because -- MR. FUENTES: Until next time, let's say. MR. MUCHA: And just for the record, too, the operational costs have not been paid. I explained that to her today, that -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. Without the operational costs, we don't even discuss it. We just generally impose the fine. MR. RUBENSTEIN: All right. I withdraw, but I have a question for Joe. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Go ahead. MR. RUBENSTEIN: Since people are living in there and they're not paying taxes and it's not a safe healthy structure, that we know of, what happens now? Does the county go in there and remove these people? Is the utilities shut off? What do we do -- what does the county do at this point? MR. LETOURNEAU: Right now we're dealing with an unpermitted structure. That would be a question for our County Attorney's Office. I would say that based by her testimony and previous testimony, it's pretty much they're either living here or they're out on the street at this point, correct? MS. RAMIREZ: (Nods head.) MR. LETOURNEAU: So that's what we're looking at. I don't think the county -- I don't know if it's homesteaded. I don't know the whole -- you know, there's all sorts of legal questions to ask with that. But at this point, no, the county would not go in there and have these August 25, 2022 Page 84 people physically removed. We would do what we did: Bring this before you guys, ask for fines, a nd you guys make the decision on whether to impose or not. MR. RUBENSTEIN: Do you have insurance on that building? MS. RAMIREZ: I do not, sir. MR. RUBENSTEIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You can't insure. It's never been CO'ed. MS. RAMIREZ: Yeah. MS. RUIZ: I have a question -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Go ahead. MS. RUIZ: -- Mr. Chairman. Are we able to reduce the fine, the daily fine? MR. FUENTES: We can't do that. This is -- MR. WHITE: You'd have to amend your order. The existing order does not compel removal. It's not listed as a use violation. It is simply a permitting case. MS. RUIZ: I'm trying to do something in the middle to allow her, perhaps, not a year, but perhaps, you know, seven, eight months but with the reduction -- MR. WHITE: Certainly that would be appropriate. MS. RUIZ: -- in the daily fine. MR. WHITE: No. The fines are imposed by the prior order. If you made a motion for some lesser period of time and the respondent had to come back and explain the status of where they are, certainly the Board has done things like that in the past. MR. FUENTES: I'd like to make a motion that we go ahead and impose the fines for now, and hopefully when you rectify the issue, we can come back and we can discuss the adjustment of anything that we're -- MR. LETOURNEAU: You can't come back -- after you guys August 25, 2022 Page 85 impose the fines, it's out of your hands. Then it's up to the Board of County Commissioners whether or not they want to deal with future reductions. MS. ELROD: I'd like to make a motion. MR. WHITE: You have a motion pending, but I don't know that there was a second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: John, do you want to repeat your motion? MR. FUENTES: To impose the fines. I make the motion to impose the fines. We have operational costs that have not been paid. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I second your motion. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none, all those in favor? MR. RUBENSTEIN: Aye. MS. RUIZ: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: (No verbal response.) MR. FUENTES: Aye. MR. AYASUN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries. You're going to need to get ahold of somebody at the county level to give you some assistance on what you can do, because it's not safe for anybody to be living in that building and, generally, safety and health is our number-one concern. So that's unfortunate, but that's the way it is. Jeff, are you leaving? MR. LETOURNEAU: I'm going to talk to this young lady. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. RAMIREZ: Thank you. August 25, 2022 Page 86 CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you. MR. RUBENSTEIN: I have a question for counsel. MR. WHITE: Yes, sir. MR. RUBENSTEIN: Now that we know that people are living in an unpermitted, unsafe structure, does the county assume contingent liability knowing the fact that -- MR. WHITE: No. MR. RUBENSTEIN: -- this is going on? MR. WHITE: I don't believe so. I don't mean to speak for the county. But in order to try to give you a subjective answer, I do not believe there would be liability. There are many layers of law that would insulate the county. MR. RUBENSTEIN: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have time constraints, so let's move ahead. MS. BUCHILLON: Next case, No. 17, CESD20200013730, Peggy L. Mills. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? MR. MUCHA: I do. MS. MILLS: I do. MR. APUZO: I do. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Could you state your name on the microphone for us, please. MS. MILLS: Peggy Mills. MR. APUZO: And I am Frank Apuzo. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Joe, do you want to read this into the -- MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. For the record, Joe Mucha, supervisor, Collier County Code Enforcement. August 25, 2022 Page 87 Past orders: On February 24th of 2022, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the Board, OR6102, Page 1046, for more information. Violation has not been abated as of August 25th, 2022. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of $100 per day for the period from May 26th of 2022 to August 25th of 2022, for 92 days, for a total fine amount of $9,200. Fines continue to accrue. Previously assessed operational costs of $59.28 have been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing is $59.35. Total fine amount is $9,259.35. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So tell us the status of what's going on. MR. APUZO: Do you want me to jump in? MS. MILLS: Yeah, go ahead. MR. APUZO: All right. I'm Peggy's neighbor in the same building, so I've been kind of helping her with this. She doesn't live in the condominium full time. I've been through this process myself, so I'm just kind of guiding her. We just got a text message from the contractor saying that they're trying to get a meeting with the fire company to come out, help us so we can see what they want to get this abated. This thing's been going on for a little while because the first contractor that had the permit went AWOL on Peggy and wasn't responding to phone calls, wasn't returning messages, anything. So we were forced to do one of the transfers to a new contractor for an open permit, and that process itself takes a little bit of time. There's quite a bit of paperwork. It's a little bit on the confusing side. We had submitted it. It got lost. It wasn't received by August 25, 2022 Page 88 Renald. We then got the paperwork again. We got everything notarized. We got everything signed. We met with Renald Paul in the county office. He guided the contractor, Dadid (phonetic) Corporation, on what to do, what was required. That's been happening. That's been going on. Drawings, pictures. I've got text messages dating back to March. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let me make this quick for you. MR. APUZO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: How long do you think it's going to take, or has the contractor said how long until they get it done? MR. APUZO: Well, I actually texted her because I knew we were going to be coming up. I said was 120 days enough, and she felt it would be if we can meet with the fire company soon enough to find out what is required to get this thing closed out, because I feel like we're almost there. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So you need 120 days? MR. APUZO: That's the best guess. I mean, six months would be even better, because you know these things typically take longer than you expect. And if you'd be willing to give us six months, and if it happened sooner, that's our objective. She wants it over. MS. MILLS: I want it over. MR. APUZO: I certainly want this over. You know, I'm just trying to help my friend here. MR. FUENTES: I'd like to make a motion. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Go ahead. MR. FUENTES: For a continuance for six months. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One hundred and eighty days. MR. RUBENSTEIN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? August 25, 2022 Page 89 MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. RUBENSTEIN: Aye. MS. RUIZ: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. FUENTES: Aye. MR. AYASUN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. APUZO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you have to wait six months to take a bath. MR. APUZO: Thank you very much. MS. MILLS: Thank you a lot. MR. APUZO: Thank you. MS. BUCHILLON: Next case, No. 18, CELU20200010724, Craig Carlisle, care of E. James Kurnik. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What number case is this, Helen? MS. ELROD: 10724. MS. BUCHILLON: 18, the last one for imposition. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? MR. CONETTA: I do. MR. CARLISLE: Yes, sir -- yes, ma'am. Excuse me. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Excuse me while I run through the paper. Okay. You're becoming too familiar -- MR. CARLISLE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- to not recognize you. The only difference is, it has been abated. John, do you want to read this into the record for us? August 25, 2022 Page 90 MR. CONETTA: Sure. For the record, John Conetta, Collier County Code Enforcement. Past orders: On January 28th of 2021, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the refe renced ordinances and ordered to correct the violations. See the attached order of the Board, OR5896, Page 3111, for more information. On June 23rd of 2021, the Board granted a continuance for 120 days. See the Documents and Images for more information. On January 27th of 2022, the Board granted a continuance for 60 days. See Documents and Images for more information. On June 23rd of 2022, the Board granted a continuance for 30 days. See Documents and Images for more information. On July 28th of 2022, the Board granted a continuance for 30 days. See Documents and Images for more information. The violation has been abated as of July 28th of 2022. Fines have accrued at a rate of $150 per day for the period from April 29th of 2021 to July 28th of 2022, for 456 days, for a total fine amount of $68,400. Previously assessed operational costs of 59.28 have been paid, operational costs for today's hearing, $59.77, for a total amount of $68,459.77. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I see that you did get it done. You needed 30 days the last time we saw you. MR. CARLISLE: And I appreciate that. The original reason I'm here was because of -- do you want me to restate the case or -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No. MR. CARLISLE: Okay. I did everything I could as quick as I could, but it did take a lot longer than I thought it would. So I'm asking if you can -- the property, I think I made you aware, is under contract. I'm waiting to see what we can do, you know, if you'll August 25, 2022 Page 91 abate any of the fines, to close -- so I can close on it. MR. FUENTES: All right. I'd like to make a motion to reduce the fines to $1,500 -- MR. CARLISLE: Thank you. MR. FUENTES: -- and to pay the operational costs for today of $59.77. MR. CARLISLE: That's very fair. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. AYASUN: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. MS. RUIZ: Yeah, second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. RUBENSTEIN: Aye. MS. RUIZ: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. FUENTES: Aye. MR. AYASUN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously. MR. CARLISLE: Thank you for -- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So I won't see you anymore? MR. CARLISLE: No, sir. You will see me on another case, but I'm working on that. Thank you. MR. FUENTES: Is Brad your investigator? MR. WHITE: Off the record. I'm assuming it was within 30 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. FUENTES: Within 30 days. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Where are we, Helen? August 25, 2022 Page 92 MS. BUCHILLON: We have three more cases; respondents are not here. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. FUENTES: Here he comes. MR. HOLMES: You won't want to see me after this. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's okay. MR. FUENTES: I close my eyes. All I see is Bradley Holmes. MS. BUCHILLON: Next case -- next case is No. 6, CEPM20210004962, Sarah Scialabba Estate. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? MR. HOLMES: I do. All right. For the record, Bradley Holmes, Collier County Code Enforcement. Would you like me to start reading? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Go ahead. MR. WHITE: Fast. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. HOLMES: Past orders: On July 22nd, 2021, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See attached order of the Board, OR6011, Page 3699, for more information. The violation has been abated as of July 14th, 2022. Fines and cost to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a rate of $250 per day from the period of August 22nd, 2021, to July 14th, 2022, 327 days, for a total fine amount of $81,750.00. Previously assessed operational costs of $59.28 have not been paid. August 25, 2022 Page 93 Operational costs for today hearing, $59.28. Total amount: $81,868.56. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any idea why the previous operational costs have not been paid? MR. HOLMES: I would love to have an answer for that, but I have been met with nothing but roadblocks when I try to make contact with property ownership. We've been restricted to speaking with the management company. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Ordinarily, when the operational costs have not been paid, we don't grant any reduction in the fine. So if the county would like to withdraw this until the next time; otherwise, probably impose a fine of $81,000 for a pool problem. MR. HOLMES: We did last month for that exact intention, to attempt to find a resolution to it, but we were unsuccessful. So at this point, we're roadblocked. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has someone passed away on this case, or is this -- MR. HOLMES: It's an estate ownership now, and I believe that -- due to the fact that there's property management that's controlling the property and maintaining to a degree, that this is due to a deceased. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is the pool still in violation? MR. HOLMES: Violation has been abated. It's covered from rain intrusion and safe from the exterior. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: Mr. Chairman, I do believe that -- even though the operational costs aren't paid, the violation is abated. I don't see any reason, if you deem it, to not reduce it. I would agree that $81,000 for this violation is a bit excessive. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. FUENTES: So you are saying we can reduce it? August 25, 2022 Page 94 MR. LETOURNEAU: I do -- yeah. Do you concur, Mr. White? MR. WHITE: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. FUENTES: I'd like to make a motion, then, that impose -- or we reduce the fines to $2,200 and pay the past operation costs of $59.28 and today's cost as well for 59.35 within the next 30 days. MR. AYASUN: Second. MR. RUBENSTEIN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and second. MS. RUIZ: Second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. RUBENSTEIN: Aye. MS. RUIZ: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. FUENTES: Aye. MR. AYASUN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. It passes. We have 13 minutes, Bradley. MS. BUCHILLON: Next Case, No. 7, CEPM20210011514, Robert A. Young Estate. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? MR. HOLMES: I do. For the record, Bradley Holmes, Collier County Code Enforcement. Past order: On March 24th, 2022, the Code Enforcement Board August 25, 2022 Page 95 issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See attached order of the Board, OR6110, Page 3951, for more information. The violation has not been abated as of August 25th, 2022. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Part 1, fines have accrued at rate of $200 per day for the period of April 1st, 2022, to July 19th, 2022, 110 days, for a total fine amount of 22,000 and -- $22,000.00. Part 2, fines have accrued at a rate of $200 per day for the period from April 1st, 2022, to August 25th, 2022, 147 days, for a total fine amount of $29,400.00. Fines continue to accrue. County boarding costs of $300.00 have not been paid. Previously assessed operational costs of $59.21 have not been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing: $59.35. Total fine amount: $51,818.56. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is this a drug house? MR. HOLMES: I don't believe so. I believe this is a similar situation to the last where it was a deceased individual. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. FUENTES: I'd like to make a motion to impose the fines of $51,818.56 and to pay the operational costs today of 59.35. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Paid within 30 days? MR. FUENTES: Thirty. MR. RUBENSTEIN: I'll second, and I have a question, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. RUBENSTEIN: If the motion passes, does the county go back out and start a new file on this and new accrual? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Since it has not been abated, it August 25, 2022 Page 96 continues. MR. RUBENSTEIN: Even though the fines are imposed as of today? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's right. They continue. MR. RUBENSTEIN: Okay. Thank you. I second. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. RUBENSTEIN: Aye. MS. RUIZ: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. FUENTES: Aye. MR. AYASUN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? MS. ELROD: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. It passes. And then our last -- MS. BUCHILLON: Last case, No. 10 CENA20210010881, Nelson Martinez and Ada M. Diaz. THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? MR. HOLMES: I do. For the record, Bradley Holmes, Collier County Code Enforcement. Past order: On February 24th, 2022, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See attached order of the Board, OR6120, Page 3343, for more information. The violation has not been abated as of August 25th, 2022. Fines and costs to date are as follows: Fines have accrued at a August 25, 2022 Page 97 rate of $300 per day from the period from March 27th, 2022, to August 25th, 2022, 152 days, for a total fine amount of $45,600.00. Previously assessed operational costs of $59.21 have not been paid. Operational costs for today's hearing: $59.28. Total amount: $45,718.49. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Let the record show respondent is not present. Anybody want to make a motion? MR. FUENTES: Yeah, I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion to impose the fines of 45,718 where the individual also needs to pay the operational -- sorry, the previous operational costs incurred of $59.21. MR. WHITE: Those are included. MR. FUENTES: Okay -- within 30 days. MR. RUBENSTEIN: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MS. ELROD: Aye. MR. RUBENSTEIN: Aye. MS. RUIZ: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: (No verbal response.) MR. FUENTES: Aye. MR. AYASUN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Anybody opposed? MS. ELROD: I didn't this time. This is a live person. It's okay. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That was the last case. MS. BUCHILLON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Next month's meeting is going to be a longer one. August 25, 2022 Page 98 MR. FUENTES: Does Brad have a big caseload? CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're going to have our -- MS. ELROD: Training. MR. WHITE: Workshop. CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- our workshop after. And I'd like to commend the Board for finishing with eight minutes to spare. It keeps Jeff out of trouble, and it makes all of us happy. Okay. We are adjourned. ******* August 25, 2022 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :52 a.m. OD - y ORCEMENT BOARD aiiiii-afirik‘ RO : ER , : rerAN, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on , W ,4 21)2,4zas presented )( or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF FORT MYERS COURT REPORTING BY TERRI L. LEWIS, REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTER, FPR-C, AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 99