Agenda 10/11/2022 Item #16K7 (To approve the litigation settlement between Collier County and Pelican Lake and accept payment of $11,320 from Pelican Lake in exchange for a release of lien)10/11/2022
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to approve the litigation settlement between Collier County and Pelican Lake
Property Owners Association of Collier County (“Pelican Lake”) and recommendation to approve
the acceptance of $11,320 from Pelican Lake Property Owners Association of Collier County in
exchange for a release of lien with a value of $60,000 in the code enforcement action entitled Board
of County Commissioners v. Pelican Lake Property Owners Association of Collier County, Case
No. CELU20190011289.
OBJECTIVE: To approve the litigation settlement between Collier County and Pelican Lake and accept
payment of $11,320 from Pelican Lake in exchange for a release of lien.
CONSIDERATIONS: As a result of a code violation, the Code Enforcement Board (CEB) issued an
Order pertaining to encroachments in a drainage easement on February 27, 2020. Pelican Lake stipulated
to this violation of Sections 1.04.01(a) and 2.02.03 of the Land Development Code. The encroachments to
the drainage easement included paving of asphalt into the easement, as well as trailers, wood, signs, sign
poles, and items being stored within the drainage easement. The Order allowed for the abatement of the
violations by obtaining all Collier County approval and/or use agreements to use the drainage easement
for storage or remove all items being stored before August 25, 2020. Pelican Lake worked with Collier
County staff, the South Florida Water Management District, and Pelican Lake’s engineer, Peninsula
Engineering, over the course of two years to finalize an Easement Use Agreement (EUA). The EUA was
approved by the Board of County Commissioners on July 12, 2022, satisfying the abatement requirements
of the Order. Pelican Lake incurred approximately $118,000 in attorney fees relating to the negotiation of
the EUA and $37,725 in expenses relating to the engineering costs associated with the EUA. The
underlying execution of the EUA constituted the abatement of the violation and Pelican Lake, through
the EUA, is allowed to continue to use the drainage area as it has since the original code violation. No
affirmative steps were needed to physically alter the property in question to abate the underlying violation
as the approval of the EUA itself abated the violation.
Pelican Lake filed a Motion for Reduction or Abatement of Fines on August 9, 2022, based upon the
Affidavit of Compliance issued by Code Enforcement as the EUA was approved by the Board of County
Commissioners. Pelican Lake’s Motion was heard on August 25, 2022. During the pendency of the
hearing, representatives from the neighboring development, Copper Cove Preserve Community
Association, were allowed to speak at the CEB Hearing over the objection of Pelican Lake’s attorneys
and, according to Pelican Lake’s attorneys, in violation of law. Copper Cove’s commentary focused on
portions of the EUA regarding landscaping and buffering between the two communities, which was
outside the scope of the underlying violation in question. The CEB reduced the $113,200 in incurred daily
fines to $60,000 in fines at the August 25, 2022 hearing; however, Pelican Lake maintains the CEB
departed from the essential requirements of law when it allowed the Copper Cove representatives to
testify at the imposition of fines hearing and claims CEB did not properl y evaluate the factors to be
considered on a Motion for Reduction / Abatement of Fines. Pelican Lake argues CEB did not (1)
properly evaluate the lack of gravity of the violation, (2) that Pelican Lake worked with County staff and
the Water Management District to obtain the EUA over the course of two years, (3) the lack of prior
violations, and (4) Pelican Lake’s monetary expenditures to obtain the EUA.
On September 22, 2022, Pelican Lake served the County Attorney’s Office with a Notice of Appeal to
Circuit Court to challenge the amount of the underlying lien. Upon review of the materials, the County
Attorney’s Office, along with Code Enforcement, recommends accepting the reduced settlement amount
of $11,320 to avoid protracted litigation on this matter.
FISCAL IMPACT: If approved by the Board, accrued fines totaling $48,680 would be waived and
$11,320 would be accepted as full and final settlement of the Code lien.
16.K.7
Packet Pg. 988
10/11/2022
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no growth management impact associated with this
action.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: The terms of the settlement have been reviewed and approved by Code
Enforcement and the County Attorney’s Office. In the event that the recommended settlement is not
approved, the County can expect to incur additional costs associated with litigation through Pelican
Lake’s appeal to the Collier County Circuit Court and a positive result can never be guaranteed with any
degree of certainty. This settlement is reasonable based upon the totality of the circumstances. This item
is approved as to form and legality and requires majority vote for Board approval. -CAK
RECOMMENDATION: To waive the remaining fines in the amount of $48,680 accept payment
amount of $11,320 and authorize the Chair to sign the attached release and satisfaction of liens for
recording in the Official Public Records.
Prepared by: Colleen A. Kerins, Assistant County Attorney
Michael Ossorio, Code Enforcement Director
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Notice Of Filing appeal (PDF)
2. RECORDED ORDER (PDF)
3. executed release of lien (PDF)
4. 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (PDF)
16.K.7
Packet Pg. 989
10/11/2022
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 16.K.7
Doc ID: 23531
Item Summary: Recommendation to approve the litigation settlement between Collier County
and Pelican Lake Property Owners Association of Collier County (“Pelican Lake”) and recommendation
to approve the acceptance of $11,320 from Pelican Lake Property Owners Association of Collier County
in exchange for a release of lien with a value of $60,000 in the code e nforcement action entitled Board of
County Commissioners v. Pelican Lake Property Owners Association of Collier County, Case No.
CELU20190011289.
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022
Prepared by:
Title: – County Attorney's Office
Name: Madison Bird
10/04/2022 2:53 PM
Submitted by:
Title: County Attorney – County Attorney's Office
Name: Jeffrey A. Klatzkow
10/04/2022 2:53 PM
Approved By:
Review:
County Attorney's Office Colleen Kerins Level 2 Attorney Review Completed 10/04/2022 4:21 PM
Code Enforcement Michael Ossorio Additional Reviewer Completed 10/05/2022 9:04 AM
Office of Management and Budget Debra Windsor Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Completed 10/05/2022 9:20 AM
Office of Management and Budget Susan Usher Additional Reviewer Completed 10/05/2022 12:34 PM
County Attorney's Office Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Completed 10/05/2022 1:01 PM
County Manager's Office Amy Patterson Level 4 County Manager Review Completed 10/05/2022 3:52 PM
Board of County Commissioners Geoffrey Willig Meeting Pending 10/11/2022 9:00 AM
16.K.7
Packet Pg. 990
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA APPELLATE DIVISION
PELICAN LAKE PROPERTY OWNERS
ASSOCIATION OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC.,
Appellant,
Appellate Case No.:
cEB case No.: cEt-u2olgool1289
BOARD OF COLJNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
Appellee.
NOTICE OF APPEAL
NOTICE IS GIVEN that pursuant to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.1 l0(c)(1)(A) and
9.190OX3) and Section 162.ll, Florida Statutes, PELICAN LAKE PROPERTY OWNERS
ASSOCIATION OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC. appeals to the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial
Circuit in and for Collier County the Order of the Collier County Code Enforcement Board rendered on
August 25,2022, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". The nature of the
order appealed is a final administrative order of an enforcement board imposing fines.
Dated this22nd day of September,2022.
ADAMCZYK LAW FIRM, PLLC
By lsl Donald S.Esq.
Mark E. Adamczyk, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 12226
Donald S. Boyd, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 14186
9130 Galleria Court, Suite 201
Naples, FL 34109
Telephone: (239) 631-6199
Facsimile: (239) 294-361 5
Email : mark@adamczyklawfi rm. com
donald@adamczyklawfi rm. com
brittany@adamczyklawfi rm. com
service@adamczykl awfi rm. com
Attorneys for Appellant Pelican Lake Property Owners
of Collier County, [nc.
Filing # 157970871 E-Filed 09/22/2022 03:34:49 PM 16.K.7.a
Packet Pg. 991 Attachment: Notice Of Filing appeal (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners Association)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 22nd day of September, 2022the foregoing was electronically
filed with the Clerk of Court using the Florida E-Filing Portal which will electronically serve a copy of
the foregoing to the following:
Colleen A. Kerins, Esq.
Office of the Collier County Attorney
3299 Tamiami Trail East, Ste. 800
Naples, FL 34112-5749
Telephone: (239) 252-8400
Facsimile: (239) 252-6300
Email: colleen.kerins@colliercountyfl .gov
ADAMCZYK LAW FIRM, PLLC
By:/s/Donald .s.Esa.
Mark E. Adamczyk, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 12226
Donald S. Boyd, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 14186
9130 Galleria Court, Suite 201
Naples, FL 34109
Telephone: (239) 631-6199
Facsimile: (239) 294-3615
Email: mark@adamczyklawfi rm.com
donald@ ad amcryHawfi rm. com
bittany @adamczykl awfi rm. com
service@adamczykl awfi rm. com
Attorneys for Appellant Pelican Lake Property Owners
of Collier County, Inc.
16.K.7.a
Packet Pg. 992 Attachment: Notice Of Filing appeal (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners Association)
col-r.ll]R cou\TY coDu r.N ! oRCt:i\t UNT
cot)[: r:\r'oRc I]}IENT ROART)
Case No. - CEl.U20l900l1289
BOARD O! COUNTY CO]It}TISSIONERS
COl,t-IER COUN*TY, I.LORIDA,
Pctilioner,
PELICAN LAKE PROPERTI' O\1'NERS ASSOC
O}' COLLIER COUNTY. INC.,
R€spondent.
coNc
ORDER OF THE CODE ENFORCEIITENT BOARD
THls cAUsE came before the code Enforcemenr Board (thc "Board") for public hearing on August 25,
2022, upon the Petilioncr's Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens, and thc Board, having trcara tesim-ony und'ei oath,
reccivcd evidence and hcard argumcnt rcspcctive to all appropriate matrers, hereupoi issues is Findings of Facr,Conclusions ofLaw, and Order ofthe Board as follows:
FINDINCS OF FACT
I . on February 27 ' 2ozo, the code Enforcement Board issued a Findings of Facr, concrusions of Law, andordcr, rccorded at oR BK 5742, PAGE 116. The Respondcnr, PELICAN LAKE pRopERTy or+NtRsAssoc oF coLLIER couNTy, r\c., was found guilty of violating Sections r.04.01(A) and 2.02.03 oithc Collier County Land Dr.velopment Code, Ord. No. Ol4l, as ur"n&d, on *,. ,uti""r prop"rty *itiifOslrE ADDRESS locared in Naples, FL 34n4, Folio No. 66679s0r040 (Lcgar Description: igr_tceNLAKE R v RESORT UNIT FouR TRAcr B-2), hereinaficr referrcd to as rhe ;propeny.: in *," rrrro*ligpaniculars:
Observed p.ring of siphrla iilao ahe drrhag€ easemcnt ss trcll rs trsilerr, p.vcrs, wood, sigtr!. tigr|poles rnd othcr misccllrneous ltems being rtored ln the drdr.ge e.semenl.
2. Thc violations havc been abated as of.luly 12, 2022.
3. Respondent, having been norificdof$e dare of hearing by cenificd mair. posring and,,or pcrsonal service,were represented by counser Donard Boyd, Esq. and Brinany co*an, Esq., and hai Respondent,s president,
,ohn Alben' along $irh irs Dircctor, Jam.s Rees, a[ appear snd testimony was reccived ofrhe Respondenr'scontinuing dilige[t efforrs ro pursue abotement of rhe viorations, the financiar harm irporing i;", *;;rJ
cause, and their request that fines and costs be waived.
.1. All operational costs previously incurred by petitioner in the prosecution of this casc have been paid.
I,USIO\S O LA$'
Based upon the forcgoing facts, thc Board makcs thc following Conclusions of Law:
I Alr norices were properry and timery-issued,
-and
the Board hasjurisdiction punuanr ro chapter r62. FloridaSratutcs, and Chapter 2, Anicle IX, Codc ofLaws and Ordinances ofCollier Counrl. Floririi.
I Respondcnr has demonsrated by the preponderance ofthe evidence thrt mitigatiog circu1stanccs exist undcrsecrioo 162.09(2)' Frorida starures, ro aberc some ofthc fines and costs accrueti igainsr Respondent.
EXHIBIT
InAu
Pagc I of2
16.K.7.a
Packet Pg. 993 Attachment: Notice Of Filing appeal (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners Association)
ORDER
Based upoo thc forcgoing Findings ofFact and Conclusioos of Law, and pursuant to thc authority granted in
Chapter 162, Florida Satutes, snd Chapter 2, Aniclc IX, Codc ofLaws end Ordinances ofCollier County, Florida. ir
is hercby ORDERED that:
A. Petirioner's Motion for Imposhion of Fineyliens is DEMED
B Accrucd fincs ofONLY 560,000.00 shall bc imposed againsi Rcspondcnt, and Rcspondent is ordcrcd to pay
that amount on or before September 24. !022.
DONE AND ORDERED lhi, 4S d,Y
^ __L
or Ant l'.(,2022 .l Collicr County, Florid..f
CODE ENFORCEI\IE}.T BOARD
, t'Lo
STATE OF FLORIDA
COTJNTY OF COLLIER
lr
t \t ils
of .202?, by Roben Kaufman. Chair oftic Collicr County Codc Enforccmenr
Board Collier County,Florida.
Signarurc of Notary Public - Statc ofFlorida
PAYMENT OF FINES: Any fines ordered to be paid pursuanl to this Ordcr may be paid ar the Collier County Codc
Enforcement Depanmenf 2800 Nonh Horscshoc Drivc, Naples. FL 341(x. Phonc: (lfg) 252-2,140, Wcbsitc:
www.collicrcountyfl.sov. Any rcleasc oflien or confirmation ofcompliance or confirmation ofthe satisfaction ofthc
obligations ofthis Order may also be obtained at this location.
AlE4[n Any aggricvcd party may appeal a final order ofthe Board to the Circuit Coun wirhin thirty (30) days of
lhe exccution of6e Order appcaled. An appcal shall not bc a hearing dc novo, but shall bc limited ro appellare rcview
ofthe record creatcd within rhe original hearing. lt is thc res?onsibility ofthc appcaling parry ro obrain a transcri6
rccord ofthe hearinS fmm thc Clerk ofCouns. Filing an appral will not auromatically slay rhis Ordcr.
CERTIFICATE OF SER}'ICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a rrue and conect copy ofrhis ORDER hos been sent by U.S. Mail ro: pELICAN
The forcsoins
rhis .2 da;
nowledgcd before me by mcans of,{plysical Presencc or O online notarizarion,
Commissioned Namc ofNotary Public
(PrinuType/Stamp)
Code En Oficial
LAKE PROPERTY OWN,ERS ASSOC OF COLLTER COUNTY, INC. 4555 SOUTHERN BREEZE DR., Naplcs;
FL31tt4 on <(* 4(ri- 2- .2022.
Page 2 of 2
,( Personally Known OR O Produccd ldentific.tion
Typc of ldcntification Produccd_
-{rr,lo Haal EucHuon*{-ir cdnradoo, HH lo5rl9
;fIf": E4''t'u'rr5 nn5
"c*-^&'- uotrrter*rrt
16.K.7.a
Packet Pg. 994 Attachment: Notice Of Filing appeal (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners Association)
16.K.7.b
Packet Pg. 995 Attachment: RECORDED ORDER (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners Association)
16.K.7.b
Packet Pg. 996 Attachment: RECORDED ORDER (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners Association)
16.K.7.cPacket Pg. 997Attachment: executed release of lien (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners Association)
Re
ADAMCZYK
LAW FIRM, PLLC
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION LAW
September 15,2022
VIA HAIID DELIVERY AIT{D EMAIL:
(colleen.kerins@colliercountvfl .gov)
Colleen A. Kerins, Esq.
Orrrcr oF THE Cor-rrrR Corxrv Arronxrv
3299 Tamiami Trail East, Ste. 800
Naples, Florida 34112-5749
Board of County Commissioners Collier County Florida v. Pelican Lake Property
Owners Association of Collier County,Inc.z CEB Case No. CELU201900I 1289
Dear Attorney Kerins:
Our law firm serves as general counsel for the Pelican Lake Property Owners Association of
Collier County, Inc. (hereinafter "Pelican Lake"). On February 21, 2020, the Code Enforcement
Board (hereinafter the "CEB") issued a Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order in connection
with the above-referenced code enforcement case pertaining to encroachments in a drainage
easement.
Pelican Lake stipulated to this violation of Collier County Land Development Code ("LDC"),
Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended, Sections 1.04.01(A) and2.02.03, on the subject property located
at NO SITE ADDRESS, Folio No. 66679503040 (Legal Description: PELICAN LAKE RV
RESORT UNIT FOUR TRACT B-2) in the following particulars: "[o]bserved 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."
The CEB's Order dated March 13,2020, ordered Pelican Lake to abate the violations Dy
obtaining all required Collier County approval and,/or use agreements to use the drainage easement
for storage, or remove all items being stored in the drainage easement and return it to a permitted
state on or before August 25,2020, and unless an additional extension is granted, a fine of $200.00
per day would be assessed for each day the violations remained thereafter until abatement was
confirmed. Pelican Lake obtained all required Collier County approvals and/or use agreements on
July 12, 2022 when the Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC") approved an Easement Use
Agreement (the "EUA"). The EUA expressly allows Pelican Lake to continue to use the drainage
easement for storage, and it further allows all encroachments, including asphalt and trailers, to
remain and exist within the drainage easement. Because the EUA allows the trailers, pavement, and
other miscellaneous item, to exist in the drainage easement, Pelican Lake does not have to "cut back
the pavement fifteen foot [sic] and remove those trailers" as part of the EUA as presented by the code
enforcement officer at the August 25,2022 CEB hearing. See CEB Hearing Transcript from August
25,2022 at Pg. 27;Ln.3-6 (copy enclosed). As of J:uly 12,2022, Pelican Lake has complied with
CEB's March 13,2020 order.
9130 GALLERIA COURT, SUITE 201 I NAPLES FLORIDA 34109
239.637.6799 I WWW.ADAMCZYKLAWFIRM.COM
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 998 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
I.
ADAMCZYK
LAW FIRM, PLLC
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION LAW
PELICAN LAKE HAS WORKED DILIGENTLY TO OBTATN ALL NECESSARY
APPROVALS
Shortly after CEB's March 13,2020 order, Pelican Lake engaged Peninsula Engineering to
evaluate whether or not the drainage easement and ditch along the east side of Pelican Lake's property
was necessary or functional, and therefore, whether an EUA or Easement Vacation should be pursued.
As part of its due diligence, Pelican Lake asked Peninsula Engineering to evaluate the surrounding
watershed and subsequent developments since Pelican Lake's construction and prepare a detailed
analysis and report regarding the need for the previously permitted interior property line drainage
ditch at issue (the "Engineering Report"). Peninsula Engineering completed this thorough
investigation and issued its findings in a Final Report in July 2021. This Engineering Report contains
135 pages of background, analysis, and supporting documentation to demonstrate why the drainage
easement and ditch along the east side of Pelican Lake is no longer functional, and therefore, not
necessary. The Engineering Report further demonstrates that the violation was not grave. If the
violation was grave, or even moderately grave, the Engineering Report would not have determined
that the ditch does not function, and that the drainage easement serves no purpose. Moreover, Pelican
Lake would not have been able to obtain all approvals from the various governmental authorities.
On or about November 5,2020, Pelican Lake submitted an Easement Use Agreement and/or
Easement Vacation application to Collier County Growth Management Department (Collier County
GMD Ref. No. PL20200002253). After discussing optionsr for the drainage easement with the
County Attorney's Office and Collier County Growth Management Department, Pelican Lake elected
to pursue an EUA so that it could continue using the drainage easement for storage purposes. County
representatives requested South Florida Water Management District (the "District") permits before
the County's Stormwater Section within the Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees & Program
Management Division ("Stormwater") would provide a written letter of no objection so that Pelican
Lake's EUA could be sent for approval with the Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC").
As stated above, Pelican Lake was first required to obtain District permits for the drainage
easement. On December 3, 2020, Pelican Lake attended a pre-application meeting with the District
to discuss obtaining an environmental resource permit modification to remove the ditch from the
drainage easement as well as for the filling and grading of the drainage easement. Beginning
December 22,2020, Florida became one of the first states to implement a Clean Water Act, section
404 program, which required additional research and investigation in the District's and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's permitting process, exemptions, and permitting requirements
under the new section 404 program implementation.
On March 18,2021, Pelican Lake supplemented its EUA application, seeking to have the
County confirm that the subject drainage easement may continue to be used by Pelican Lake for
storage purposes as had been the case prior to the commencement of the code enforcement case.
I Specifically, Pelican Lake discussed pursuing a reconveyance of lands pursuant to $255.22, Florida Statutes, an
easement vacation, or an easement use agreemsnt for the subject drainage easement'
9130 GALLERIA COURT, SUITE 201 I NAPLES, FLORIDA 34109
239.63'1..6199 I WVVW.ADAMCZYKLAWFIRM.COM
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 999 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners Association)
ADAMCZYK
LAW FIRM, PLLC
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION LAW
Pelican Lake attended several meetings with County representatives after the March 18, 2021
submittal to discuss the requisite approvals and process, and County representatives requested Pelican
Lake first obtain District permits and approvals before Stormwater would provide a letter of no
objection for the EUA to be finalized for approval by the BOCC. Based on this Engineering Report,
the District approved Pelican Lake's permit to remove the ditch.
On or around July 7, 2021, Peninsula Engineering completed its Engineering Report and
submitted the application and supporting documents to the District (ERP Application No. 210707-
6738). After submitting additional requested exhibits and construction plans, on October 12, 2021,
Pelican Lake obtained an individual environmental resource permit from the District, Permit No. 1l-
105571-P (the "District Permit"). The District Permit serves to eliminate the drainage ditch on
Pelican Lake's east property line within the drainage easement, and permits the existing use of platted
lots 35, 36,37 and a portion of Tract B-2 for paved trailer storage for its residents, and reflects the
reahzed limits of fill within Tract P. Based on the District permit and approval, on November 22,
2021, Stormwater provided itslirst letter of no objection for the EUA application for the purposes of
allowing the existing encroachments to remain in the drainage easement. On December 14, 2021,
County provided its review and comments on Pelican Lake's EUA application, which required
additional review and approval with County Landscape Reviewer, Mark Templeton, to ensure the
encroachments were adequately buffered from a planning and compatibility standard. As stated
above, any landscaping or screening installed within the drainage easement is considered an
encroachment, which would subject Pelican Lake to fuither code enforcement violations if such
encroachments were installed without County approval.
After meeting with County staff again on May 16,20222, Pelican Lake proposed installing a
fifteen-foot (15ft) landscape buffer consisting of type A plant materials within the Tract B-2
"Landscape Buffer Drainage and Maintenance Easement". In addition to the fifteen-foot (15ft) type
A plant material buffer, and in accordance with section 4.02.12 of the LDC, Pelican Lake also
proposed installing an opaque landscaped hedge to be installed at and maintained at seven feet (7ft)
in height above ground level to address further County review comments and concerns with adequate
screening. At the conclusion of this meeting, Pelican Lake obtained verbal approval from County
representatives that the proposed buffer and plant materials described above could be installed within
the drainage easement, as contemplated in the Pelican Lake PUD. However, as stated above, since
the plant materials and buffer were to be installed within the drainage easement, County required a
second letter of no objection from Stormwater be provided3.
On May 37, 2022, Stormwater provided its second letter of no objection for the EUA
application for the purpose of allowing the landscaping and buffer to encroach into the drainage
2 Those in attendance from Collier County were Jamie Cook, Derek Perry, Marcus Berman, Joseph Mucha, and Nancy
Gundlach.
3 There were several personnel changes in Stormwater around this time, which delayed progress on the second letter of
no objection.
9130 GALLERIA COURT, SUITE 201 I NAPLES, FLORIDA 34109
239.631.6799 I WVVW.ADAMCZYKLAWFIRM.COM
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1000 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners Association)
A ADAMCZYKfLA\M FIRM, PLLC
COI\I i\I U N ITY ASSOC I A1-ION I.AW
easement4. On June 3, 2022, Pelican Lake submitted its responses to the County review and
comments letter, along with the proposed landscaping plans and Stormwater's second letter of no
objection for EUA approval. On July 12, 2022, Pelican Lake's EUA was placed on the consent
agenda for approval by the BOCC. The BOCC approved the EUA with a note that the landscaping
hedge be maintained at a height of nine feet (9'). On August 1,2022, Code Enforcement Official,
Joseph Mucha, issued an Affidavit of Compliance finding that the corrective action ordered by the
CEB was in compliance with the EUA from the July |2,2022BOCC meeting.s
At a public hearing held on August 25,2022, the CEB levied fines against Pelican Lake in the
amount of $60,000.00. The Association maintains that the CEB failed to consider relevant factors
when determining whether to reduce a fine, displayed a complete misunderstanding as to whether
Pelican Lake had obtained compliance with its prior order and failed to follow its own procedural
rules by allowing unaffected parties to not only testiff but introduce evidence at the imposition of
fine hearing.
II.PELICAII LAKE HAS EXPENDED CONSIDERABLE TIME AND RESOURCES TO
OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY APPROVALS
The expenses Pelican Lake incurred to obtain approvals for the violations related to
C8LU20190011289 total approximately $158.093.70.6 Although it is unrelated to the subject code
enforcement matter, CELU20190011289, Pelican Lake expects to incur an additional $26,000.00
from Peninsula Engineering, $10,000.00 in legal fees, and $25,192.00 for the landscaping, screening,
and partial asphalt removal, totaling approximately $61.192.00 in order to ensure the storage area is
properly screened from the neighboring community, which has repeatedly and improperly raised
landscaping concerns that are unrelated to the subject code matter. These fees and costs incurred by
the Pelican Lake did not appear to have been considered by the CEB when imposing the fines.
Pelican Lake worked diligently to address the continued use of the drainage easement with
the relevant governmental entities and to obtain all required County approvals and/or use agreements
to use the drainage easement for storage. Code enforcement fines are intended to provide local
governments with leverage to ensure compliance with the applicable code of ordinances, and as of
Jr;Jy 12,2022, Pelican Lake obtained compliance for all of the violations related to this case through
the EUA. The practical effect of the statute is to induce a property owner to maintain all real property
he or she may own in compliance with the code. Based on the foregoing, the fines imposed by the
CEB were not intended to induce compliance with applicable codes and ordinances and only serve to
a It should be noted that there were three (3) different Stormwater supervising reviewers during this period, and Pelican
Lake had to follow up with Stormwater on several occasions and also had to resend previously submitted documentation
and background on the pending EUA and District Permit.
s Joseph Mucha confirmed with County Attorney, Derek Perry, that the approvals obtained in the EUA satisfied the issues
of the CELU2O1900l1289 code enforcement case.
6 The following expenses are itemized for ease of reference: $37,725.00 for Peninsula Engineering; approx. $l18,000.00
for Adamczyk Law Firm legal charges related solely to any EUA and Code Enforcement legal matters; $2,000.00 County
application fee for the EUA; $250.00 District application fee for the ERP modification permit; and $118.70 in CEB
operational costs.
9130 GALLERIA COURT, SUITE 201 I NAPLES, FLORIDA 34109
239,631.6799 I WVW.ADAMCZYKLAWFIRM.COM
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1001 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners Association)
ADAMCZYK
LAW FIRM, PLLC
COMMUNITY ASSOCIT\TION LAW
punish Pelican Lake despite its good faith and diligent efforts to obtain the requisite approvals from
the District and County.
III.THE CEB IMPROPERLY CONSIDERED TESTIMONY FROM MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC AND FACTORS NOT LISTED IN 5162.09, FLA. STAT.
Pelican Lake was not before the CEB based on a violation of an LDC provision pertaining to
landscaping or screening violations. Despite this, and in contravention to the Collier County Code
Enforcement Board Rules and Regulations ("CEB Rules") and Advisory Legal Opinion (AGO 2017-
0l) rendered by former State of Florida Attorney General, Pam BondiT, the CEB allowed testimony
from the public related to landscaping and screening between the two neighboring communities. Not
only did this testimony serve to confuse the CEB, but this testimony included various
misrepresentations and involved alleged violations pertaining to landscaping and screening that were
not noticed for the pending imposition of fines hearing.
Specifically, at the August 25,2022 hearing before the CEB, residents from a neighboring
community, Copper Cove Preserve Community Association, Inc. ("Copper Cove") advocated for the
imposition of fines against Pelican Lake. tt should be noted that there were no findings entered in
any prior CEB orders determining that Copper Cove was an "affected party" in accordance with
Article XII, Section 4 of the CEB's Rules. Therefore, Copper Cove should not have been permitted
to intervene as a non-party or present evidence at a hearing on the imposition of fines. As set forth
in Article XI, Section 3 of the Board's Rules, the imposition of fine hearing is not a trial de novo or a
new hearing on the original case, and testimony is therefore limited to whether or not a fine should
be imposed. The testimony and evidence considered by the CEB went far afield of the underlying
violations in the case or the statutory factors enumerated in $162.09, Florida Statutes, that the CEB
is to consider when imposing a fine. As stated above, Copper Cove was permitted to discuss
landscaping buffer requirements along its boundary with Pelican Lake, which is not relevant to the
underlying violations in this case. Moreover, Pelican Lake would not be permitted to install any
additional landscaping in the easement area without additional approvals from the County. Although
it is inelevant to the pending code enforcement matter, now that Pelican Lake has obtained an EUA,
which addresses and allows for the landscaping to be installed within the drainage easement,
Peninsula Engineering is submitting a PPL-ICP and replat application which will address the
additional landscaping buffer and ensure that existing site plans match the current conditions of the
property.
Based on the improper public testimony that was allowed during the imposition of fine
hearing, it became clear that several CEB members were concerned over the landscaping and
screening for the neighboring community. At the hearing on the imposition of fines, Pelican Lake
was asked how long it would take them to "cut back the pavement" and put in the landscaping. Not
only is this irrelevant to the pending violations, but Pelican Lake has approval for the pavement to
7 Pursuant to AGO 2017-01, $ 286.0114, Florida Statutes, does not require that members of the public be given a
reasonable opporunity to be heard at quasi-judicial code enforcement hearings. Florida Op. Atty. Gen., 2017-01 , March
23,20t7 (2017 WL 1318424).
9130 GALLERIA COURT, SUITE 201 I NAPLES, FLORIDA 34109
239.631.6199 I \^/\AryV.ADAMCZYKLAWFIRM.COM
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1002 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners Association)
ADAMCZYKILAW FIRM, PLLC
CO N't l\'1 U N I TY AS SOC I r\Tl O N [.A\V
remain in the drainage easement as an encroachment. Furthermore, the landscaping and screening
was not part of the violation in the pending code enforcement case. In fact, if Pelican Lake were to
install landscaping and screening within the drainage easement, without approval from County8, it
would be subject to a code enforcement violation for placing encroachments into a drainage easement
without approval.
Pelican Lake has also become aware the Copper Cove residents have met with County and
Code Enforcement representatives during the pendency of these proceedings to discuss various issues
unrelated to the pending violationse. Notably, Pelican Lake has not been afforded this same
consideration to rebut Copper Cove's concerns and correct the historical and factual representations
when requesting similar meetings with representatives at code enforcement. As a result, the hearings
became an opportunity for Copper Cove and the CEB members to inquire as to when Pelican Lake
would be removing asphaltlo and installing landscaping on its property, none of which is relevant to
the code matter at hand. The hearing transcript evidences a clear misunderstanding of the underlying
violation and the efforts undertaken by Pelican Lake to address the violation with the County.
Specifically, Mr. Rubenstein openly questioned whether Pelican Lake was even in compliance despite
the testimony from Collier County Code Enforcement Official, Joseph Mucha, and a verified affidavit
of compliance to that effect. Mr. Rubenstein continued to question how much Pelican Lake had cost
the County in connection with the proceeding. The cost to the County would not be one of the factors
set forth in $ 162.09 , Florida Statutes, that the CEB should be considering when imposing a fine. It
should be noted that Pelican Lake has promptly paid all operational costs in connection with the Code
Enforcement Proceeding, not to mention the various application fees which Pelican Lake has paid to
the County in connection with the EUA. Thereafter, Mr. Rubenstein proceeded to make a motion to
impose a fine against Pelican Lake in the amount of $75,000.00 - which was later reduced during the
CEB's deliberations to $60,000.00.
In light of the failure to follow its own Rules as well as the statutory factors when imposing a
fine, Pelican Lake maintains that in an appeal to the circuit court, the appellate panel of circuit court
judges will ultimately vacate the CEB's Order dated September 2,20221r. Pelican Lake's Board of
Directors has authorized our office to file an appeal of the CEB Order in question. Even with the
deferential standard of review on appeal, there were clear errors made by the CEB. In reviewing a
8 Pelican Lake included landscaping and screening in the EUA so that it would have approval to install these
encroachments within the drainage easement.
e These meetings are also evidenced in the detailed case file for CELU2O1900l1289.
l0 Per the terms of the EUA, Pelican Lake has approval for the asphalt, and any other encroachments, to remain in the
drainage easement.
,t Notibly, the CEB Order was signed by Chairman, Robert Kaufman, ot August 25, 2022. Chairman Kaufman's
signature was notarized by Helen Buchillon on September 2, 2022. Ms. Buchillon also signed the following statement:
..iHEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this ORDER has been sent by U.S. Mail to: PELICAN LAKE
PRoEPRTY owNERS ASSOCIATION OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC.,4555 SOUTHERN BREEZE DR., NAPICS, FL
34114 on September 2,2022." (Emphasis added). However, the CEB Order was not mailed to Pelican Lake until
September li,21z2,nineteen days after it was executed, as reflected on the post-marked envelope enclosed herein that
peiican Lake receive d on September 14, 2022. Pelican Lake is hopeful this error was inadvertent and not intended to run
out the deadline to file an aPPeal.
9130 GALLERIA COURT, SUITE 201 I NAPLES, FLORIDA 34109
239,637.6199 I WWW.ADAMCZYKLAWFIRM'COM
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1003 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
AT\AMCZYKILAW FIRM, PLLC
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION LAW
local administrative agency's quasi-judicial order, the circuit court must determine: (1) whether
procedural due process was accorded, (2) whether the essential requirements of law were observed,
and (3) whether the administrative findings and judgment were supported by competent substantial
evidence. City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant,4l9 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1982);Kelly v. Dep't of Health
and Rehabilitative Servs.,617 So. 2d756 (Fla. lst DCA 1993). A ruling constitutes a departure from
the essential requirements of the law when it amounts to a violation of clearly established law
resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Miami Dade County v. Omnipoint Holdings, lnc.,863 So. 2d
195,199 (Fla. 2003).
Pelican Lake maintains that the CEB departed from the essential requirements of law when it
allowed residents of Copper Cove to testiff at the imposition of fine hearing. This would serve to
violate the CEB's own rules when it comes to the evidence it is to consider at an imposition of fine
hearing. Specifically, the two residents of Copper Cove that testified at the hearing were never found
to be an "affected party" by the CEB in accordance with Article 12, Section 4 of the CEB's Rules.
Further, the time for residents of Copper Cove to have testified or offered evidence would have been
at the initial violation hearing which occurred back on February 27 ,2020. As set forth in Article 1 1,
Section 3 of the CEB's Rules, the imposition of fine hearing is not a trial de novo or a new hearing
on the original case and testimony is therefore limited to whether a fine should be imposed. We made
each of these arguments to the CEB prior to Copper Cove offering any evidence at the imposition of
fine hearing which would serve to preserve the issue for appellate review. As noted above, CEB
member Mr. Rubenstein was openly reciting factors that should not have been considered by the CEB
when determining the amount of the fine. This would constitute an additional basis for the circuit
court to overturn the CEB's Order.
IV PELICAI\ LAKE WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS WHEN TIIE CEB CONSIDERED
TESTIMONY AI\D EVIDENCE AT THE IMPOSITION OF FINES HEARING
RELATED TO ALLEGED VIOLATIONS THAT WERE NOT NOTICED FOR
HEARING OR PART OF THE INITIAL VIOLATIONS
To the extent that Pelican Lake was going to need to substantially address the landscaping
buffer on the boundary of its property with Copper Cove, there was no violation issued for the
landscaping buffer nor was any notice provided to Pelican Lake that the landscaping buffer would be
considered at the imposition of fine hearing. The fact that the landscaping buffer was even considered
by the CEB violates Pelican Lake's procedural due process. Procedural due process imposes
constraints on govemmental decisions that deprive individuals of liberty orproperty interests. County
of Pasco v. Riehl,620 So. 2d229,231 (Fla.2d DCA 1993). It serves as a vehicle to ensure fair
treatment through the proper administration ofjustice where substantive rights are at issue. Keys
Citizens for Responsible Gov't, Inc. v. Fla. Keys Aqueduct Auth.,795 So. 2d 940, 948 (Fla.
2001) (citingDep't of Law Enforcementv. Real Prop.,588 So. 2d957,960 (Fla.199l)). Procedural
due process requires both fair notice and a real opportunity to be heard "at a meaningful time and in
a meaningful manner." Keys Citizens,795 So. 2d at948 (citing Mathews v. Eldridge,424U.S.3l9,
333,96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976)). The specific parameters of the notice and opportunity to
be heard required by procedural due process are not evaluated by fixed rules of law, but rather by the
,130 GALLERIA COURT, SUITE 201 I NAPLES, FLORIDA 34109
239.631..6199 I WWW.ADAMCZYKLAWFIRM.COM
A
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1004 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
ADAMCZYK
LAW FIRM, PLLC
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION LAW
requirements of the particular proceeding. Keys Citizens,795 So. 2d at 948(citingGilbert v.
Homar,520 U.S. 924,717 S.Ct. 1807, 138 L.Ed.2d 120 (1997)); see also Borden v. Guardianship of
Borden-Moore,8l8 So. 2d 604,607 (Fla. 5th DCA2002). The fact that the CEB is considering an
immaterial issue which may have factored into its decision to impose fines against Pelican Lake is
concerning.
With the above noted, Pelican Lake would like to extend a settlement offer to Collier County
in an effort to resolve the fines without the need for a protracted appeal of the CEB's Order. To that
end, Pelican Lake is willing to pay Collier County the sum of eleven thousand three hundred twenty
dollars and 00/100 cents ($l1,320.00) in full and final settlement of the fines levied against it by the
CEB. Upon acceptance, Pelican Lake will agree to submit payment to the County within ten (10)
days. Please let us know if the above referenced settlement proposal is agreeable to the County at
your earliest possible convenience. Should you have any questions or wish to discuss anything
further, please do not hesitate to contact our office.
Thank you in advance for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
S. Boyd, Esq.
DSB/bjt
Enclosures (0812512022 CEB Hearing Transcript, Envelope and Order mailed to Pelican Lake and
Draft Notice of Appeal)
cc: Pelican Lake Property Owners Association of Collier County, Inc.
9130 GALLERIA COURT, SUITE 201 I NAPLE' FLORIDA 34109
239.631,,6199 I UAATVV.ADAMCZYKLAWFIRM.COM
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1005 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
Collier County Code Enforcement Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
t2
13
l4
15
a6
L7
18
l-9
20
2t
22
23
Page I
CODE ENFORCEMENT - COLLIER COUNTY, FIJORIDA
Code Enforcement Board
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER
COUNTY, ELORIDA,
Plaint.i f f (s) ,
Case No. CELU2019000L1289
PELICAN LAKE PROPERTY
OWNERS ASSOC OF COI,LIER
COUNTY, INC.,
Respondent (s) .
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE
COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
August 25, 2022
9:35 a.m 10:30 a.m
Col]ier County Government Complex
3299 Tamiami Trail East.
Building F
Naples, FL 3 4112
Reported Remotsely by Ke11ey Marie NadoEti, RPR, CCR
NAPLES COURT REPORTING
&
LEGAL SERVICES
www. NapfesCourtReporting . com
25
ll\\ll
liAl'l,L'j
Naples Court Reporting & Legal Services Page: I
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1006 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners Association)
Collier Countv Code Enforcement Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
16
t7
18
19
2L
23
24
PaEe 2
APPEARANCES:
Code Enforcement Board:
Robert F. Kaufman, Chairman
Kat.hleen El-rod, Member
Lee Rubenstein, Meniber
ZULLy Ruiz, Member
,fohn Fuentes, Member
Al- so Present :
Pat.rick Whit.e, Esquire
,Jef f Letourneau. Manager
Helen BuchiIlon, Administ.rative Secretary
rfoe Mucha, Code Enforcements Officer.
For the Respondent:
Donald Boyd, Esquj-re
Britt.any Cowan, Esquire
ADAMCZYK LAW FIRM, PLLC
913 0 Gal-leria Court
Suite 201
Naples, FI-, 34109
239 . 53]- . 6t99
25
l$[ qi:'l'.r,gg*
Naples Court Reporting & Legal Services Page:2
t-
3
5
5
7
I
9
20
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1007 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners Association)
Collier Countv Code Enforcement Collier County Cornmissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
t-
)
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
1-2
13
t4
15
t6
l7
18
19
20
27
))
)1
24
Page 3(Previous agenda
(Agenda item was
items were heard. )
ca11ed at 9:35 a.m )
*****
MS . BUCHf LI-rON: No. 2 . , CELU 201,90077289 ,
Pelican Lake Property Owners Assocj-ation of Collier
County, Inc.
CHAfRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And on this case we
have four slips for people who would like to ta1k.
But Iet's start out with -- ,Joe, can you give
us a -- you broke the 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 is goj_ng to
testify, would you please stand and raise your right
hand.
(Participants were sworn in by the court reporter. )
(Chorus of "I do". )
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay.
MR. MUCHA: A11 right. For the record, ,Joseph
Code Enforcement.Mucha, Supervisor, Collier County
Past orders: On February 27Lh, 2020, the Code
Enforcement Board issued a finding of facts,
conclusion of 1aw, and order. The Respondent was25
Page:3T[lssLsTs-rl Naples Coud Reporting & Legal Services
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1008 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
Collier Countv Code Enlorcement Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
l-
2
a
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
l2
13
1-4
15
16
1-7
18
19
20
21-
))
found in violation of
ordered to correct the
order of the Board, OR
information.
On September 24ti:,, 2020,
Board granted an extensi-on of
attached order of the Board,
more information.
CHATRMAN KAUFMAN:
time or a continuance;
Page 4the referenced ordinances and
violation. See the attached
5742, Page 236 for more
MR. MUCHA: It says
sheet, so...
CHAfRMAN KAUFMAN:
the Code Enforcement
time. See the
OR 5831, Page 3985 for
Was that an extension of
do you know?
extension of time on my
I'm looking through this
about 50 pages here.
MR. MUCHA: As it looks like the fines started
from Decembet 24th. So September 24th would have
been an extension of time. It sounds like for three
months.
CHAI RMAN KAUFMAN: Excuse me. We have a 1ot 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, on page 5 of
the Respondent's motion, under No. 22, f believe are
the relevant factors for your consideration that are1tr
ltN[
N^!l-E5
Naples Court Reponing & Legal Services Page: 4
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1009 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
1
)
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
Collier County Code Enforcement Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
10
l- l_
t2
13
1-4
15
1-6
17
18
19
20
21-
22
z3
24
25
IiNiL Naples Court Reporting & Legal Services Page: 5
artj-culated by Respondent,s counsel- as to wtry theP;s"
5
believe the request is warranted.
CHATRMAN KAUFMAN: What I'm looking for --
He1en, 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 -- probably.
(A discussion was held off the record. )
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, i-n 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.
CHAfRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Fines have accrued at
$200 a day from December 24Lh of 2O2O Lo July of
2022, $l_L3,200.
Okay. And then it says: On May 26th, 2022,
the Code Enforcement Board granted a continuance.
So it wasnrt -- it was a continuance.
MR. WHITE: It was originally an extension of
time that was granted back in Septeniber of '20,. and
subsequently in ilanuary of ,21_, a continuance;
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1010 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
Collier County Code Enforcement Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
October of t2L, a continuance. And, as you ,rot"dtu'"
6
May of this year, a further continuance.
CHAI RMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The reason werre
going through this is when you have a continuance,
the fines contj-nue 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 in order to correct the violation. See
the attached order of the Board for more
information.
Septemlcer 24Xh of 2020, the Board granted an
extension of time. So any fines that were accruing
prior to that date, September 24th, they go away.
On ifanuary 28th, .202L, and after that, they
were all continuances. So the fines added up after
that; okay?
How am I doing, ilef f ?
MR. LETOURNEAU: You're doing good.
CIAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay.
MR. LETOIIRNEAU: WeII.
CHAfRMAN KAUFMAN: Well .
MR. LETOURNEAU: Yourre doing very we11.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: English.
ll\!]
Page:6
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
L2
13
1-4
l-5
1_5
17
l-8
L9
20
2)-
2Z
23
24
25
Naples Coun Reporting & Legal Services
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1011 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Collier Countv Code Enforcement
okay. so the problem has been abated. yor, t"*"'
want to give us a little quick 1ow-down, ,Joe, and
then we'11 go from there.
MR. MUCHA: So, yes. Obviously, I think they
submitted some paperwork that'11 show the processes
of why it took so 1ong. Ttrs very detailed. I
mean, these meetings go back for -- f believe since
2020 t}:,ey started with the County.
And I think originally they tried to vacate
this drainage easement. And that. took awhile and
then it ended up not working out.
So they had to go a different route getting the
easement use agreement. And that took -- just
things j-n the County just seem to take a lot of
time. There's a lot of meetings. Therers a lot of
approvals. And, I mean, she can probably explain it
a lot more .
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So that's -- that's
the story.
MR. MUCIIA: But I do have the folks here from
Copper Cove, the affected partj_es, 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 1ot of years, as well, and
they would like to have their opportunity to speak.
10
11
72
13
1-4
15
76
1-7
18
19
20
2l
))
24
25
Iffi tttureuu
Page: 7
Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
Naples Court Reporting & Legal Services
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1012 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
l-
)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Collier Countv Code Enforcement Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
10
11
L2
13
1-4
15
16
1-7
18
19
20
2t
t)
,1
24
CHA]RMAN KAUFMAN:
Page 8
Okay.
don't know if it's appropriate
or you want to hear from them
MR. MUCHA: SO I
for them to speak now
first .
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'11 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-examinat. j_on of staff they may
have.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay.
MR. WHITE: And reca1I that after al_I 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 t.he 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 is Don Boyd. f'm one of the attorneys
for Pelican -- the Respondent, pelj_can Lake propert.y
[\It N^llrr q,{rm EE}ott Jc
Naples Coufi Reporting & Legal Services Page:8
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1013 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Collier County Code Enforcement Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
10
7'7
11
L2
13
1-4
15
1-6
18
19
20
2t
22
)1
24
owners Association. r'm joined today by AttorneyPus"
e
Britt.any Cowan and two members from Pelican Lake,s
board of directors, Mr. ,fohn Albert and Jim Rees.
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 the -- everything
that we -- that Pelican Lake has gone t.hrough in
order to get the requisite approvals needed for this
easement use agreement .
The underlying violation in this case concerns
Pelican Lakers use of a portion of a property
containing a drainage easement for storage. pelican
Lakes is a motor coach resort and t.he area in
question is where Pelican Lake stores trailers,
which owners attach to their motor coaches.
Based upon an extensive engj_neering study,
which Pelican I-,ake had performed on the property by
Peninsula Engineering, the drainage easement -- it
was determined not to be functional_ and it didn't
serve a purpose and it. wasnrt necessary.
The Code Enforcement's order in thi-s case dat.ed
March 13th of 2020 st.ates that pelican Lake must25
s[ ueetuanlu
Page: 9Naples Court Reporting & Legal Services
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1014 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
1
,
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Collier County Code Enforcement Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
10
11
t2
13
1-4
l-5
1-6
1-'7
18
19
20
2L
))
z)
24
Page l0abate 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 t.hat 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 a11ow 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)E
Naples Court Reporting & Legal Services1S e,rureut
Page: l0
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1015 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
l_
2
3
4
5
6
7
o
9
Collier Countv Code Enforcement Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
obtained alf necessary approval-s for a continuedtli::
of the drainage easement for its storage.
On ,Ju1y 12th of 2022, rje]-ican Lakers easement
use agreement was approved by the Board of county
Commissioners. And then on July 21st of 2022, ttre
easement use agreement was recorded in the Collier
County public records.
Pelican Lake believes that a reduction or
abatement of fines in this case is warrant.ed because
it has obtained a1l- necessary approvals from the
South Florida Water Management District and CoLlier
County to continue usj-ng the drainage easement for
storage.
Throughout this proceeding, pelican Lake has
worked dilj-gently with the County to reach a
solution regarding the continued use of the storage
area on Pelican Lakers propert.y. Pelican lJake 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 irrepairable or irreversible in
nature. We submit that the gravity of violation
l-0
11
T2
13
t4
15
t6
1-7
18
1-9
20
21-
22
,1
24
25
iN['wrs:nt *"*u
Naples Court Reporring & Legal Sewices Page: l l
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1016 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Collier Counw Code Enforcement Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
10
11
t2
13
t4
15
1-6
71
18
19
20
27
))
24
here is nominal-, as
a drainage easement
functi-oned.
we are dealing
that does not
with storage
Page 12
and
and has not
Moreover, the District and the County woul-dn't
have approved 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 has approved the continued use
of the drainage easement, which was the underlying
violation in this case, we donrt 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've
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 would
like to call the first of those two witnesses,
Mr. ,John Albert, who is an owner in pelican Lake andatr
iN[ uurs...^-t.::rl:lr
Naples Coun Reporting & Legal Services Page: 12
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1017 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
1
2
2
4
5
6
7
I
9
Collier Countv Code Enforcement Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
Page 13currently serves as president of the association's
board of directors. He's basically going to testify
concerning the violation and the board's efforts to
obtain all approvals to correct the violatj-on once
it became known.
Mr. Albert's testimony wj-l1 be followed by that
of Mr. alim Rees, who is also an owner in Pelj-can
Lake and serves on the associat.ion's board of
directors.
So without further ado, I'l-1 turn the stage
over, if you wi11, to ,John Albert.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay.
MR. ALBERT: Good morning, Code Enforcement
Board. My name is lTohn Albert. And as our attorney
just said, I'm the president of the Pelican I-.,ake
Home Owners Association and have been the president
si-nce March of this year, and was on the board and
the 1ega1 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
developments since Pelican Lake's construction in
the 1990s regardj-ng the draj-nage easement function.
And .lohn English, with Peninsula Engineerj_ng,
10
11
L2
13
74
15
16
1-7
18
19
20
2t
a)
24
25
ll\lI Naples Court Repoting & Legal Services Page: 13
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1018 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
1
2
3
4
tr
6
7
I
9
Collier Countv Code Enforcement Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
10
l-1
72
t-3
L4
15
1-6
77
18
19
20
2I
22
23
24
25
ll\\ll Naptes Court Reporting & Legal Servtces Page: 14
Page 14determined the drainage easement and ditch have not
and do not have -- now serve any purpose.
We hired a law firm to submit necessary
approvals and applications with County to obtain
Board of County Commj-ssioner approval for the
easement use agreement.
We submi-tted application for the envj-ronmental
resource permit modification and approval with
Florida -- with South Florida Water Management
District. And we met with County represenLatives
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 I-,ake and the
County. Copper Cove has no j-nterest in this
drainage easement. Copper Cove drains into a
different drainage system than Pelican Lake.
But our board sti1I 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
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1019 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
1
)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Collier Countv Code Enforcement Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
not serve a functional- purpose and that tt" ..".,i3i'J
use agreement for current use and encroachments in
this drainage easement would have no adverse impacts
on Copper Cove .
The engineerj-ng report al-so shows there is no
imminent threat to public health, safety, or welfare
to Pelican Lake, the County, or any surrounding
properties, includlng Pelican -- including Copper
Cove.
Through these efforts, Pelican Lake has spent
considerabl-e amount of time and money to obtain all_
necessary District, County, Stormwater, and
ultimately Board of County Commissioners' approval
for t.he 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 t.hat
compliance.
Fines are punitive. And Pelican Lakers 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
10
11
1-2
13
L4
15
1-6
II
18
1-9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
JNll_Naples Cout Reporting & Legal Services Page: 15
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1020 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners Association)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Collier Countv Code Enforcement Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
10
l-1
l2
13
1-4
15
1-6
L7
18
1-9
20
2a
22
24
25
lE[ ""i:',:i'i.Naples Cowt Reporting & Legal Services Page: t6
that have accrued while the community went tfrrorrfii"'u
all the steps and checked all the boxes to obtain
these approvals, Pelican Lake would have to assess
owners Lo cover those costs, essentially making them
pay twice for obtaining compliance for this code
violation.
At the Board of County Commissioners' meeting
on ,Tu1y 1,2Xh, 2022, Pelican l-,ake obtained approval
and compliance vj-a an easement use agreement for the
drainage easement. The easement use agreement
a11ows Pelican Lake to continue to use the drainage
easement for storage and alIows all encroachments to
remain in the drainage easement.
This enhanced landscapj-ng -- Irm sorry. To --
the easement use agreement wiLl- also a11ow Pelican
Lake to install- additional encroachments consisting
of landscaping in this drainage easement,
specifically a 15-foot l-andscape buffer with canopy
trees and 9-foot hedges for additional screening,
which Peli-can l-,ake 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
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1021 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners Association)
t-
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
Page 17that exceeds LDC and PLID requirements. This
enhanced landscapj-ng will be a significant expense
for Pelican Lake .
Once the EUA was recorded, we again hired
Peninsul-a to submit the necessary permits and plans
for the landscaping installati-on. We have been told
that Peninsula is in the process of submitting these
applications and permj-ts .
Code Inspector Joe Mucha entered an affidavit
of compl-iance on ,JuIy 12th, 2022, w}:rerr Pel_ican Lake
approved -- obtained the approval . Sorry. Irm
geLting tongue-tied.
Pelican Lake has obtained compliance and we
respectfully request the Code Board waive afl fines
now that we have received an easement use agreement
for these violatj-ons j-n the drainage easement.
Thank you,
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay.
MR. ALBERT: I woul-d like to introduce .fim
Rees.
MR. REES: Sorry about that.
Good mornj-ng, Chairman Kaufman and Code
Bnforcement Board. My name is Jim Rees. I am a
director of the Pel-ican Lake Board and have served
on the board and the 1egal working group since
l_0
11
72
13
t4
l-5
l6
LI
18
19
20
27
))
z5
24
)q
Ei ry++r++t
Naples Coult Reporting & Legal Services Page: 17
Collier County Code Enforcement
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1022 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
l-
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Collier Countv Code Enforcement Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
February 2021. Page 18
As a board member I was invol-ved in several
meetings with Copper Cove regarding the storage
area. The drainage easement is located in the
storage area, but Copper Covers concerns are not
related to the drainage easement in this pending
code matter.
As ,fohn 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 any easement use agreement otherwise.
Copper Cove's main concern appears to be the
screening along Pelican Lake's drainage easement
abutting Copper Cove. We agree to install- a hedge
along the boundary for Copper Cove.
We had our attorney prepare an agreement to
memorialj-ze that agreement and then Copper Cove
changed their mind and requested a walf. But we did
not have approval from stormwater to install a wall
in the drainage easement.
We now have stormwater approval and EUA
approval to j-nsta11 a 15-foot buffer of canopy Lrees
and an additional 9-foot opaque hedge along the
property boundary, which, j-n fact, is more than whaL
10
11
1-2
t-3
t4
15
1-6
17
18
19
20
21-
))
)1
24
25
XNi uE_ur:=r Naples Court Reporting & Legal Services Page: l8
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1023 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
Collier County Code Enforcement Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
is required by the LDC and our PUD. We,ve "*"""5tL''
the landscaping requirements soleJ-y for the benefit
of Copper Cove .
No wa11 is required under the LDC or the PUD,
nor has County Stormwater approved installation of a
permit wal-I in the drainage easement. The EUA also
does not a11ow this encroachment, only the existing
encroachments and the proposed landscaping and
hedges that ,.Tohn referred to.
ff Copper Cove wants a waIl, they can install a
wa11 on their vacant land in the recreation parcel
abutting the storage area.
Copper Cove also reguested we install drain
til-es on the property. Copper Cove has never
presented any engineering reports or documentation
to support this.
Peninsula Engineering, the firm we hired that
,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 l-35-page engineering report
from Peninsula Engineering clearly shows that
Pel-ican Lake and Copper Cove discharge water into
two dif f erent drainage systems. Pelican l-,ake
NA}LES CO{'TT f,.ER]RATM.J
ll\\ll Naples Coud Reporting & Legal Servtces Page: 19
l-
3
4
5
6
7
8
v
10
1l_
L2
13
1,4
l_5
75
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1024 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners Association)
Collier Countv Code Enforcement Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
1
2
a
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
t2
13
1-4
15
16
1-7
18
19
20
21
22
)1
24
collects stormwater from within i-ts internal Page 20water
management lake and discharges to the west of State
Road 951 and 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 relevant to that.
As ,John mentioned, we hired professionals and
we diligently have been working with County and
Stormwater -- I'm sorry -- County and the Water
Management Distrj-ct for approval and compliance.
When our EUA was placed on the Commissioners,
consent agenda, Copper Cove asked the County and the
Commissioners to have our easement use agreement
approval cont j.nued or removed from the agenda
entirely. This would have been meant that our EUA
approval would have been pushed to the next
Commissioners' meeting in September,
code hearing while fines continue to
their intentional interference.
This also meant that CoPPer Cove
the very landscaping and storage area
after today' s
accrue due to
was delaying
screening they25
ll\\I NAP! F.S (]OUKT EEIORTINC
Naples Court Reporting & Legal Serv'ices Page: 20
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1025 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners Association)
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Collier Countv Code Enforcement Collier County Commissioners vs Pslican Lake Property Owners
10
11_
1-2
13
74
15
16
77
18
L9
20
2l
22
12
24
claim to want so bad. Because of
the landscaping cannot be planted
easement.
Page 21that EUA approval ,
in the drainage
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 3.3.8.3 of our PUD clearly allows as an
accessory customary permitted use as storage.
Copper Cove says that the storage l_ots 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 I-,ake's 1997 approved site
development plan and about l-5 years before Copper
Cove was even ever constructed.
Pelican Lake's storage area is only for the use
and the benefit of its residents, no commercial use,
and is for storing of motor coach 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 the same
location for nearly l-5 years.
Copper Cove is supposed to have a recreation
Naples Coufi Reporting & Legal Services Page:21
lM wrutr:l:ut
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1026 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners Association)
1
a
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
Collier County Code Enforcemeot Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Propefiy Owners
center cl-ubhouse installed on its vacant lot Page 22
abutting our storage trailer area to further block
the storage area from the rest of the development.
For reasons unknown to Pelican Lake, Copper Cove
never constructed anything on the vacant land
abutting j-t. And Pelj-can Lake should not be
punished for this.
In fact, Copper Covers 15-foot buffer is so
subsLantial and opaque it ef fectivel-y screens the
entire storage area now without us doing anything.
Of course, we wil1.
For these reasons, it's disingenuous for Copper
Cove to now not -- to now onl-y complain about the
trailer storage that existed since l-997. Pelican
Lake has been not only been working diligently with
the County to approve approvals for the code
violation, but has also tried to work with Copper
Cove to address these concerns.
Copper Cove should not use the County or the
Code enforcement Board as a forum to advocate any
unrelated disputes between the communities. Hence,
Pel-ican Lake respectfully requests the Code Board
waive all fines now that we have complied.
That concludes my comments. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anything else?
10
11
t2
13
1-4
15
L6
t1
18
t9
20
21-
,)
24
NA,PLF.S COI'IT EE!(]iTIIIC
25
ltNu"Naples Cout Reporting & Legal Sewtces Paget 22
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1027 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners Association)
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Collier Countv Code Enforcement Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
10
11
t2
t-3
).4
15
l6
1-7
18
L9
20
21
))
a2
24
MR. BOYD: Yes. Chairman Kaufman -- "grir-r,
tfl'J
the record, Attorney Don Boyd.
And just from a housekeeping perspective, the
Respondent Pelican Lake would object to any
testimony or other 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 72, Section 4 of the Code
Enforcement Board's ru1es. Nor is there any
potential that their interests wil_] be affected by
the Board's decj-sion since they have no interest in
the underl-ying drainage easement, which, again, is
the underlying violation in this case.
The only parties wi-th 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 hearj-ng.
As set forth in Article 11, Section 3 of the
Code Enforcement Board's rul-es, the imposition of
fine hearing is not a trial de novo or a new hearing
on the original case. And, therefore, testimony is
1i-mited as to whether a fine should or should not be
issued.,q
ltNlLry,,*::,Page: 23Naples Court Reporting & Legal Services
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1028 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners Association)
Collier County Code Enforcement Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
1
)
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
1-2
13
74
15
16
l7
18
19
20
2t
a)
23
24
Page 24And that's what I'd just like to note that
obj ection for the record. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay.
MEMBER RUBINSTEfN: Mr. Chairman, is it
possible we see a picture of the current state of
the disputed area?
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN:Do you have any?
have it.
done.
MR. MUCHA: f don't
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Let me -- 1et me --
Joe, while werre waiting, in Engtish, without going
through all- the 1ega1ese, this started from a
complaint from the adjacent development?
MR. MUCHA: Yes -- yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That they were seeing things
that they didn't want to see?
MR. MUCIIA: CorrecL. Correct.
CHAfRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So -- and the County
went over and -- I want to know what physically has
been done, if anything.
MR. MUCHA: At this time point noth j-ng
But, again, you know,physically has been
thisthey had to get easemenL use agreement.
CHAI RMAN KAUFMAN: So this is an exerci-se i-n
mov j-ng '
MR
paper around basically?
. MUCIIA: For the past couple of years, yes,25
tNrl
N^.PLF! COU{r &EPOETlllC
Naples Court Reporting & Legal Servtces Page:24
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1029 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners Association)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
U
9
Collier County Code Enforcement Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
10
11
1-2
13
1-4
15
t6
t7
18
19
20
2L
'))
23
24
Page 25sl-r,
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. It probably would be
helpful to see a photo, if you can show us, Helen.
First of all, 1et me get a motion from the
Board to accept the photos.
MEMBER EI-.,ROD: Motion to accept the photos.
MEMBER RUBINSTEIN: Second.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: A11 those in favor?
MEMBER ELROD: Aye.
MEMBER RUBINSTEIN: Aye.
MEMBER FUENTES: Aye.
MEMBER AYASUN: Aye.
MEMBER RUIZ: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed?
(No response. )
CHAI RMAN KAUFMAN: It carries unanimously.
Okay. So can you explain to the Board what
werre looking at here?
MR. BOYD: Yes, Chairman Kaufman. Attorney
again, for the record, Attorney Don Boyd.
What you're looking aL here is the fence --
is on Pelican L,akers side of the fence. This is
trailer st.orage area going from the fence in, if
wi1I. And the other side -- on the opposite side
the fence is Copper -- the Copper Cove community '
ir
the
you
of
25
ll\\ll
l,.i'l.l:,
Naples Court Reporting & Legal Services Page: 25
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1030 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners Association)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
Collier County Code Enforcement Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
10
11
L2
13
1-4
15
16
t7
18
19
20
2l
22
)1
24
Na-rrr,fs
'
:oullT IuI,(nTt N.;
The boundary between the two is separat"a ff,t"'u
the fence. The near -- near portion of the fence j-s
the trailer storage area in question.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So the initial
complaint was there were trailers parked in this
particular site -- this particular area?
MR. BOYD: Because it contains a County
drai-nage easement area, yes.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay.
MR. BOYD: It's okay to put t.hat next one.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And since that time those
trailers have been removed?
ThoseMR, BOYD:
now that -- the
trai l-ers
is thatISSUC
are still there. And
we have the easement
use agreement allowing them to continue to be
present, if you wi11.
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 motor coaches.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So that's what we,re
looking at? Those --
MR. BOYD: And thereis some other pictures,
too. Again, I brought two other photos, as weI1, if
it the Board would like to see those.25
lt\!il
Naples Court Reporting & Legal Services Page: 26
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1031 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners Association)
1
)
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
Collier County Code Enforcement Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
10
11
1-2
13
74
t-5
1-5
t7
18
1-9
20
2t
22
23
24
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay.
the other photo?
Page 27Helen, do you have
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 3 to 4 feet, I think, of the
pavement. But Mr. Mucha is correct. That there
will have to be some further modifications in there.
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: Is that the pavement I,m
looking at that needs to be cut back?
MR. BOYD: That's correct. That,s right up
against t.he fence, yeah. Itrs close to it. So
probably 3 or 4 feet of that will have to be
probably removed.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Question, sir?
Question?
MEMBER
the setback
does the PUD show for
feet?
RUBINSTEIN: What
on the easement,.15
ir was actually canMS. COWAN: So the PUD,
you guys hear me okay?25
ll\t|l r/J,r.I-s (In r{- krR *: i}J(;
l!!!!! r!!^! nrY,cr!Naples Court Reporting & Legal Services Page:21
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1032 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
Collier Counw Code Enforcement
The puD actuarfy has this whole area as a Page 28
Tract B-2. It's a landscape buffer, a drainage
easement, and a maintenance easement, which County
doesnrt do anlrmore. They don't actually overlap
drainage easements with landscape buffers, which is
why we had to incl-ude 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 are going to do is actuall-y cut back
some of this pavement and there will be a 15-foot
landscape buffer a1l- the way up 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 -- t.hat'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, actua11y, the board already
hired Peninsula to do that work, as we11. There,s
some other work -- an IC- -- ICP repl_at to adjust
]INII Naples Court Reporting & Legal Services Page: 28
l-
z
3
4
5
6
7
U
9
10
l- l-
L2
13
1-4
l-5
l-5
1-1
l_8
1-9
20
21
23
24
25
Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1033 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
Collier County Code Enforcement Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
10
11
1-2
13
1-4
15
1-6
t1
18
t9
20
21
22
) -).
some of the 1ot lines. So it's reafly dependent
Page 29
on
County.
But the landscaping plans have been prepared.
They just need to be submitted, permit issued,
asphalt cut back. So f -- and we need to make sure
that the plants are avail-ab1e, too.
So I -- I don't have an actual estimate. But T
do know Peninsula is actually submitt j_ng those
applications.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. The pavement that's
going to be cut back - -
MS. COWAN: Yep.
CHAI RMAN KAUFMAN: Have you hired someone to do
that?
MS. COWAN: They -- 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
have submitted -- they're submitting the application
for the permits for that.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So youtre appl_ying for a
permit to cut back t.he encroachment?
MS. COWAN: Correct.But
we have
through
approval for the
the EUA.
What -- but -- yes.
existing encroachment.
IIN]I Naples Court Reporting & Legal Services Page:29
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1034 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
1
)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Collier Countv Code Enforcement Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
10
11
1-2
13
l4
15
1-6
18
l9
20
21-
))
23
24
CHAI RMAN KAUFMAN: So you donrt have to
back. You're doing it to be a nice guy; is
MS. COWAN: No. Let me clarify. We're
we ' re cutting it back to make room for that
landscaping because the landscaping is also
encroachment. We had to get approval in Lhe
that.
Page 30cut it
that it?
an
EUA for
So to fit the L5 feet of landscaping, once
that's approved in those permj-ts, they will have to
cut back some of the pavement, correct.
CHAI RMAN KAUFMAN: Because the t.rees don't grow
through concrete?
MS. COWAN: Exactly, yes.
MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. And the screening is
actually -- is required. The screening is required.
MS. COWAN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is it a Type 2-3 buffer;
what --
MS. COWAN: ft'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 wi1l be
installed.
CIAIRMAN KAUFMAN: you,re going to plant a
9-foot hedge?)q,
il\\il Naples Court Reporting & Legal Services Page: l0
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1035 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Collier Counw Code Enforcement Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
10
11
1-2
13
1-4
15
1-6
71
18
1-9
20
27
22
23
24
MS. COWAN: It's going
due to avaifabil-ity of plant
nine,
Page 3lto be planted at seven
heights, maintained at
CHAIRMAN.KAUFMAN: God will- construct the
additional feet.
Okay. Now, if you -- when you put all this in,
will you be able to see the other deve lopmenL ?
MS. COWAN: From the Pelican Lake's side, we
really -- the buffer on the other -- on Copper
Covers side is a substantial Type B, l-5- -- 15-foot
landscape buffer.
So itrs 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 plugged on their
buffer.
It's our position once we put in this enhanced
buffer, there will be
properties.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN:
original complaint?
MR. MUCHA: Yes,
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN:
plenty of screening from both
And that ,foe, is that the
sl-r.
MEMBER RUBINSTEIN:
property owned by copper
Okay. Lee.
I have a guestion. The
Cove on the other side of25
[\\ll Naples Court Reporting & Legal Services Page: 3l
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1036 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
Collier County Code Enforcement Collier County Commissioners vs Pelicao Lake Property Ownels
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
t4
15
t6
1-1
18
19
20
27
22
a)
24
!],{!LEt (:OlrRT ll}lnalM;
25
ll\\ll Naples Court Reporting & Legal Services Page:32
the fence, are those residential lots that h"rr"r,lt" 32
been built on?
MS. COWAN: It's actually -- on the other side,
therers a vacant -- almost like a baseball-shaped --
basebal l - field- shaped 1ot that was supposed to be
their recreation parcel. It t s vacant. It remains
vacant. So itrs - - it's zoned for a recreation
parcel, not for single-family platted lots.
MEMBER RUBINSTEIN: And one more question. The
trailers that are there, who -- who owns those?
MS. COWAN: The trailers are actual-Iy all owned
by owners in Pelican Lake. So it's a motor coach
resort. So t1picaIly with motor coaches they'11 --
they'11 tow a trailer. And then they actually have
storage on-site, which is permitted under the PUD,
which is zoned TTRV.
They -- they store those in this area, which is
a secure -- three sections of lots i-n the corner of
Pelican Lake. So they're owned by all of the owners
j-n Pelican I-.,ake. No commercial storage.
MBMBER RUBINSTEIN: How many trailers will
eventually go j-n that area?
MS. COWAN: There's currently --
MR. WHITE: If the gentleman i-s going to
testify, he must be at a microphone, please.
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1037 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
MR. REES: Oh, sorry about that. Pase 33
To answer the question, there's approximately
25 or 27 trai-lers there. There will be -- or likeIy
there will be fewer. Because when we peel back the
asphalt to make room for the buffer that the
attorney described, we ' 11 probably lose a few
parking places.
There's 289 lots in there. That,s aI1 the room
we have. And these are highly allocated lots for
people that got on a list to get a trailer.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Will you give me the
approximate height of the trailer.
MR. REES: They vary.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The tallest ones.
MR. REES: The tallest one would be somewhere
around 12 feet. And we have subsequently moved all
the taII trailers to the int.erior waII of our
properLy 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 wa1I
on the inside of our property.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you have a
10
11
t2
13
l4
15
1-5
17
18
19
20
21-
22
23
24
il\\lr
lr,Li,t t:s (l{)llli* iri:l!(r:a:}l(i
Naples Court Reporting & Legal Services Page: 33
Collier Countv Code Enforcement Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owlers
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1038 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
1
3
4
5
6
'1
I
9
Collier Counw Code Enforcement Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
Page 34question?
MR. REES: The average height, by the way, is
about 8 feet.
MEMBER RUIZ: I do have a question.
How many enviro permits do you need to complete
this violation?
MS. COWAN: So the violation -- actual1y, we've
obtained all of the permits afready to abate and
correct this violation. So we --
MEMBER RUIZ: How many permits?
MS. COWAN: So we had to get -- initially
before County and Stormwater would -- would sign off
on anything, we had to submit a State 404 permit to
the Department -- I'm sorry -- the South Florida
Water Management District. So that was t.he first
process.
Once we obtained that permit, which was the ERP
modification --
MEMBER 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 .
MEMBER RUIZ: Okay. What other enviro permit?
MS. COWAN: That was the only environmental
resource permit that was needed.
10
1t-
72
13
l4
15
t6
7'7
18
79
20
21-
'),
23
24
,tr
INI Naples Cout Reporting & Legal Sewtces Page: 34
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1039 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Collier Counw Code Enforcement Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owne$
page 35
MEMBER RUIZ: And you have -- you have that?
MS. COWAN: We have that. And we also --
MEMBER RUIZ: How long do you have it for?
MS. COWAN: Five years from the date of issue.
CHAI RMAN KAUFMAN: Based on the paperwork that
we have, it. says: Violation has been abated.
So whatever it took to do -- hre I re not getting
into the gory details -- has been done.
MS. COWAN: Correct.
CHAI RMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. As far as resol_ving
the situation, we understand, I believe, exactly
what you have done .
Now, I have two more sl-ips and theyrre 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 1et anybody speak that
wants to speak thaL fills out a speaker form.
They could read the newspaper. ft doesntt
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 and
address t.he Board.
MS. BUCHILLON: Sir, you can come over here.
10
11
L2
13
1-4
15
15
1-7
18
1-9
20
2t
22
z)
24
NTJI.IJ COI,iT iTIIIITIM;
ll\\l Naples Court Reporting & Legal Services Page:35
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1040 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
l_
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Collier Counw Code Enforcement Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: we don'r want you to nuatTf;u
a fistfight with them.
MR. BLOOMQUIST: ,Just for the -- for the
record, I have a -- for the record, my name is Ron
BloomquisL. And f'm the presj-dent of Copper Cove
and have been for the past two years. f was also
president in 2015 and 201-6.
In 201-5, it was actually turned over from
Lennar to our HOA. And I think that's important to
note because there's some note -- notes earlier
abouL 20L1 and -- and all this.
So I'm going to -- I want to give some picLures
to ,Joe. He's seen these. These are -- if they want
to use them. They're taken as -- as late as Monday
and Wednesday of this week. And some were taken in
May for our last meeting.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They have noL seen these
pictures ?
MR. BLOOMQUTST: 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 them.
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
10
11
t2
13
1-4
15
15
1-1
18
79
20
21-
22
23
24
25
]\tl Page:36Naples Court Reponing & Legal Services
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1041 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
Collier County Code Enforcement Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
evidence once we get a littl-e further into the Pase 37
process.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We voted to that effect.
You were outside hiding .
MR. WHITE: I'm sorry. I conferred with their
counsel and we miscommunicated. My error.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The questions I have, while
you review the pictures, are those actual pictures
of the area?
Okay.
MS. COWAN: Yeah. So it appears that these are
pictures, but some of these look -- look actually
very o1d. Some of these items have been removed for
months.
So to the extent that they aren't up-to- --
up-to-date, we r/\rould obj ect .
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 -- any evidence,
just for the record.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I understand.
MR. BOYD: Thank you.
MR, BI-,OOMQUIST: Allow me to submit my iPhone,
which were pictures taken yesterday, not in May,
10
11
1-2
13
1-4
15
15
1-7
18
19
20
21-
))
23
24
25
fifi u:srlreuu
Naples Coud Reporting & Legal Services Page: 37
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1042 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
Collier County Code Enforcement Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
l_0
11
1-2
13
74
15
1-6
t7
18
L9
20
a1
22
23
24
when -- some of
ilune. But these
And, as you
there and --
those were in May and some fage 38were l_n
were taken yesterday.
can see, those trailers are st j-11
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They're not -- they're
saying that the trailers are gone; okay?
MR. BLOOMQUIST: Okay.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The whole deal here, if f
can do it in simple language, is there was an
objection by Copper Cove to -- vj.ewj-ng these
trailers was an eyesore; am I correct?
MR. BLOOMQUIST: Right. Correct.
CHAfRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Since that time
and -- to resoLve that, you filed a complaint. Not
you, but Copper Cove filed a compl-aint.
Since that time, the Respondents have done
several things to -- to come into compliance. Some
of them are sti-Il to be done. Not to come into
compliance because, according to the paperwork that
I have from Joe Mucha, is t.hat they are in
compliance now.
What we're here to discuss i-s the fines that
have accrued. And that's what werre here to do. To
impose the fines or not impose the fines or modify
the fines.,q
lNi teu:rrtu:ll
Naples Court Reporting & Legal Services Page: 38
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1043 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
1
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
Collier County Code Enforcement Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
But the photos that you have, if you give a;:t;"
to Helen, she can put them up. Your phone, that's a
problem. We can't see it.
MR. BLOOMQUIST: Okay. And then Iet me just
read a prepared statement that I made.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: SuTe.
MR. BLOOMQUIST: Letting the code violation go
and totall-y 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 wa11 that was never permitted, and
now the buffer and the asphalt stand is not
completed and sits on the boundary buffer, which t.he
trailers parked and not tagged.
f heard earlier that these trailers are put in
the back of their RVs. We1l, if that be the case,
they would need tags on them. And I would say that
the majority of those trailers in that 1ot do not
10
11
1-2
l-3
1-4
15
16
r'7
18
l9
20
2t
22
24
25
ll\\ll Naples Court Reponing & Legal Services Page: 39
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1044 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners Association)
Collier Countv Code Enforcement Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
l-
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
1-2
13
I4
15
16
\7
18
19
20
21
))
23
have tags. And they,re very clearly noted if yo,l"'"
oo
look at the pictures that I -- that f 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 -- to get Pelican Lake to step up and do
what they should have done in the fj-rst place. And
we need your support .
There are two cases
fences and walls. There
addressing
are sti1l
open unpermitted
violations and
written in Casestand in easement use agreement as
that ' s forCELUthat ' s the one
are therers two cases. One is
wa1] and one is for the external
today.
for the
fence.
And they
i-nternal
They were
never permitted.
Copper Cove never gets the respect it deserves.
When I listen to ilohn Albert say that pelican Lakes
is twice Lhe size of Copper Cove during the easemenL
agreement meeting with the County Commissioners, I
was very upset. They said they were twice our size.
We11, 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.
ll\\ll
lE!(xT$rc
Naples Coun Reporting & Legal Services Page:40
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1045 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners Association)
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
I
9
Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
That fence that you see there, that was moved U"iii"ot
to the boundary 1ine. It used to be l-5 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 al1 due respect, I-,ennar canceled the --
the building 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 fike us to do. Because no matter what. we do,
it's going to cost us money.
Those hedges that they refer to or the screen
thaL we put up there, those were some oak t.rees and
they were 3-, 4-foot coco plums that we let grow to
where they are today so it -- it would cover the
eyesore we left every day when we left and came into
the community of those trailers and that fence.
We did not ask them for a waII around the
10
11
1-2
13
t4
15
16
77
18
19
20
2L
))
a1
24
25
il\\il Naples Court Reporting & Legal Services Page: 4l
Collier Countv Code Enforcement
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1046 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners Association)
1
)
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
Collier County Code Enforcement Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
10
11
1)
13
74
15
16
1-'7
18
19
20
21-
'))
11
ent.ire thi-ng. We thought it would be nice, but
asked them to please put it to the end of the
boundary or the end of the lot. Their boundary
line.
Paga 42
we
that would have at least
road. And they refused
That's
hidden the
to do that.
another
trailers
10 feet
from the
fine.And that's
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.
f mean -- and so I did not show up at that
meet j-ng and f listened to these guys talk. And I
listened to ,.Tohn 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
ilim 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 -- f 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
has gone .
j\tr
Naples Court Reporting & Legal Services Page: 42
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1047 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
1
a
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Collier County Code Eoforcement Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
Page 43We're not impeding and werre not t.rying to
stal-l them from getting what they want. We want
them to get what they want, but why do they do
everythi-ng 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 .
CHAI RMAN KAUFMAN: Let me -- let me slow things
down. We're not here as a Board to be the
intermediate bet!'reen the Hatfields and the McCoys,
what happened in 2005, '10, whatever. Werre 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,
thatts 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, according to thi-s abatement, has been --
the drainage has been fixed, but they haven't --
what they created was another issue because the
buffer is not fixed.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What Itm --
10
11
I2
13
L4
15
16
l7
18
19
20
2t
22
22
24
25
.ltNll Naples Coun Reportiog & Legal Services Page:43
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1048 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
1
3
4
5
6
7
9
Collier Countv Code Enforcement Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
10
11
1-2
12
t4
15
1-6
1-7
18
19
20
27
22
23
MR. BLOOMQUTST: And then the other thing i:ut"*
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
code that was
mj-staken, the
The only thing that we have
we going to do with
in front of us now
KAUFMAN: We are -- werre hearing the
in violation. And, if I'm not
code has been abated.
What are the fines, which
$113,200?
MEMBER FUENTES:would love to hear
this one. I would love toRubinstein,s opinion on
hear your motion.
MR. WHITE: Wel-I, I don't know that you've
heard all of those individuals who wish to speak.
You can certainly make a motion at any point in
time. That's the Board's prerogative.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why -- why don't we give
Karen the opportunity to speak and then we will
cl-ose the public hearing and we will deliberate.
MS. FINN: Thank you.
My name is Karen Finn and I do live in Copper
Cove. And I'm on the board of directors and have
been involved with the community since 2014.
I
25
Page: 441ffi urture"ryu
Naples Court Repoding & Legal Services
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1049 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
l-
.)
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
Collier County Code Enforcement Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
10
11
1-2
13
74
15
L6
t1
18
19
20
21-
))
)1
24
Page 45I'm here today to ask you to either modify
these fines or not to release them completel-y. We
have been dealing wj-th Pelican IJake since 2015
starting with things that you donrt even need to
know about .
,fust like you said, werre 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 a1Iow them to
just 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
2079 .
From that time, we have been stalled and
thisstalled and stalled until we've gotten to point
where everything has finally been abated because
they had to give everything back to us because they
could not fuIfiII 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
wiEh is a community who has just prolonged and
prolonged for a number of years..E
Naples Court Reporting & Legal Services Page:45lffi u:l-uxltlll
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1050 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
1
)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Collier County Code Enforcement Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
rn 202L, their lawyers sent us numerous Page 46
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 everyt.hing. They
just stalled for time. Stalled us for t.ime.
Stalled us for ti-me.
So f'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 wi11. Unless
it's a violation of code, we don't hear i_t..
Any comments from you. aleff , on this?
MEMBER RUBINSTEIN: ft's a civil matter.
MR. LETOTIRNEAU: From -- the only comment I
have is the County's position is that the viotation
has been abated and we,re here to impose fines or
not to impose fj-nes. Anything el-se seems to be like
a civil matter between the two parties.
CHAfRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Sir, we'11 hear from
you now and then I,m going to close the public
meeting.
MR. BOYD: Thank you, Chairman Kaufman.
10
1l_
1-2
13
L4
15
1-6
1-7
18
19
20
2L
22
') ').
24
z5
INi eervr:r:u
Naples Coun Rsporting & Legal Services Page: 46
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1051 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Collier Countv Code Enforcement
Page 47And, again, we' l-1 waive our right to
cross-examine any of the witnesses from Copper Cove.
Again, just -- to sum up briefly, the
underl-ying violation in this case is the drainage
easement. Tt ' s the paving and storage of items in
that drainage easement.
The County has permitted Pelican I-,ake to
continue using the drainage easement for storage as
set forth in the easement use agreement. An
affidavit of compliance has -- has been issued by
the code enforcement investj-gator i-n this case.
Again, werre not talking about the landscaping
buffer or whatever other issues that -- that are out
there between the two communit.ies. 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 obt,ain all the required approvals from
the relevant governmental entities to compJ_y wi-th
this Board's order.
And, with that, I'11 thank you for the time.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So I'm going to close
the public hearing now and we can discuss this
amongst the Board.
10
11
1-2
13
t4
15
16
t7
18
19
20
2l
22
,1
24
25
Naples Court Reporting & Legal Services Page: 47
Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
lt\lt
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1052 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
1
a
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Collier County Code Enforcement Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
10
11
72
13
l4
15
16
1-7
18
1-9
20
2I
))
) ').
24
MEMBER RUBINSTE]N: T WOU}d liKC tO *"KE A P"g" 48
motion, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay.
MEMBER RUBINSTEIN: After listening to both
sides and dealing with the -- the penalties being
abated, I'm not quj-te sure they are because you show
pictures with the trailers stiII on there. But,
yet, you say it's abated and Ir11 -- I'11 just
accept that that it is abated.
But this gentlemanls picture from a day or two
ago showed that it's not been abated, so --
MR. LETOURNEAU: Can I just speak to that?
MEMBER RUBINSTEIN: Yeah.
MR. LETOURNEAU: The t.railers aren't the
violation. It was that they were parking the
trail-ers in an unpermitted spot which was designated
as a -- as a drainage easement.
The County agreed that the dra j-nage easement
them to continuewasnrt required and has allowed
parking in
MEMBER
things to --
just said:
or they got
that area. So the
RUBINSTEIN: Mute
trailers
point.
and there
took the
park
the
right now
MR. LETOURNEAU: And are two
trai-Iers and
there an)rmore,
AndCounty.
they could have
We're not going to
the agreement with,q
ll\\lt Naples Court Repoding & Legal Services Page: 48
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1053 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
l_
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Collier Countv Code Enforcement Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Prcperty Owners
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
16
1-1
18
19
20
27
22
23
Page 49that's -- that's the path they chose.
MEMBER RUBINSTEIN: A11 right. WeII, that
clears that up. Thank you.
So on my motion, I would like to make a motion
to reduce the fines from the posted amount of
173,250 to $7s,000.
This has been going on for four years. And I
hope t.hat this puts an end to it today.
MEMBER RUIZ: I second that.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion and
a second.
Anyone want to
MEMBER ELROD:
all of the permits,
everything e1se. I
discuss t.hi s ?
They have
all of the
think this
already paid a ton in
engineering, and
is too punitive.
Do you have aCHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay.
suggestion as to --
MEMBER FUENTES: Lee, may
MEMBER RUBINSTEIN: Sure.
I make a suggestion?
MEMBER FUENTES: How do you feel about from the
75 -- would you do 30?
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are we negotiating?
MEMBER FUENTES: No. We're talking.
MEMBER RUBINSTEIN: We1l, they've accrued
1L3,000 in fines, not counting all the time and25
jS[u:l.ryeu:lt
Naples Court Reporting & Legal Sewices Page: 49
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1054 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
1
3
4
5
6
7
9
Collier County Code Enforcement Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
l_0
1l_
1-2
13
1-4
15
16
1-7
18
t9
20
2t
23
24
Page 50effort from the County that we'11 never recover.
And I could have said f 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, f would go that route. But they
are tryj-ng to resolve it, which I think is the
import.ant part. Because it's costing pelican Lake
money to retain them. They have attorney fees that
the -- 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 can
collect their moneys thatpursue -- pursue to
they've spent out.
MEMBER FUENTES:That ' s true .
MEMBER RUBINSTEIN: I'11 modify my motion to
reduce it to 50,000.
MEMBER FUENTES: Second.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Second.
So you need to agree to the lower
you were the person who seconded Lee's
MEMBER RUIZ: Of course. I agree
modification.
amount since
moti-on.
to the
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So 60,000, which is,q
Naples Cou( Reporting & Legal Services Page:50E[ueersulu
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1055 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
Collier Countv Code Enforcement Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
1
.)
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
L2
13
1-4
15
16
t7
18
19
20
2L
22
24
Page 5labout almost half of what it was.
Okay. An)rmore discussion on
Tarik, do you have any idea?
MEMBER AYASLIN: No. I think
and a second. And unless there's
think we should go and vote.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. A11
MEMBER RUB]NSTEIN: Aye.
MEMBER FUENTES: Aye.
MEMBER AYASUN: Aye.
MEMBER RUIZ: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed?
MEMBER ELROD: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. It
So the fines have been -- all
been abated. So from 2l-3 down to
MEMBER FUENTES: 113 .
MEMBER AYASUN: 1l-3.
CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Irm sorry.
50, 000,' okay?
We're done.
that ?
there ' s a motion
a reversal, I
those in favor?
passes.
but 60,000 have
50, 000.
113 down to
*****
(Proceedings concluded at l-0:30 a.m.)
ll\\ll
Na?1,F"5 curRTRE of,TDrc
Naples Coun Reporting & Legal Sewices Page: 5l
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1056 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners Association)
1
3
4
5
5
7
9
Collier Countv Code Enforcement Collier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Owners
10
l1
72
13
L4
l5
16
t7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
srENocRApHER's .ERTTFT.ATE Page 52
I, Ke11ey Marie Nadotti, Registered
Professional Reporter, hereby certsify that the foregoing
pages are a Erue, accurate, and compLete transcript. of
the remote proceedings reported by me from the
live-st.ream broadcast t.o the best of my knowledge and
ability.
Dated this 31st day of August, 2022.
C
a'/1,,,
KELLEY MARIE NADOTTI, RPR, CCR
Certified Court Reporter
25
ll\\ll
}IAILlI
Naples Court Reporting & Legal Servtces Page: 52
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1057 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
1,800 +o:z+
10 qz:s qelt
11 tz:ts zg:zo
12 zg:g ge:to
12th s:ts t t:s
16:8'17:10
135-page ts:zz
13th s:zs
15 zt:'ts,zqzt:s,
23 30:8 41.,2
15- gt:to
1S-foot to:te
18:23 22:8 28:13
30:19 31:'10
1990s ts:z+
1997 zuqzztq
34,,21
2021 o:to tg:ta
18:1
2022 s:tg,zog:t
11:3,5 16:8 17:10
21 s:zs a:t
217 qo:zs
21st 11:5
22 l:z+
236 q:s
24th 4:5,16 5:18
6:1 3,1 5
25 ss:g
250 s:t t
26th s:zo
27 lss
27th s:zz a:e
289 tg:aaozs
28th 6:16
6
6 q:zs
8
8 g+:g
I
9-foot to:tg
18:24 28:17
30:22,25
951 zo:s
97-70 t4ls
9:35 s:z
9th g:z
A
?.m. 3:2
abate io:1 34:8
abated s:147'.1
35:6 43:14 44:8
45:17
abatement 9:a
11:912:19 43:21
abutting te:ts
19:1222:2,6
accept zs:s,o
acceptable +o:s
acceSSor! 21:8
accordance
23:9
accountable
40:5
accrue 6:5 20:22
accrued 5:17
16:'l 38:23
accruing 6:14
actual 5'.5 29:7,
17 30:19 37:8
add 3:12
added o:tz
additional to:ts
16:'16,1918:24
28:'16 30:21 31:5
address 1o:2t
16:22 22:18 28:19
35,,24
addressing
40:10
adjacenl 24:tz
adjust za:zs
ado 13:10
adverse 15:3
advocate zz:zo
affected z:zt
23:8,11
affidavit tz:g
28'.11
afforded a:tg
agenda 3:1,2
20:16,18
aggravated
42:16
il$r€€ 18:15
agreed 1o:14,16
16:20 42:10,11
agreement 7:13
9:1210:7 11:4,6
12:614:6 15:2,14,
24 16:9,10,15.25
17:15 18:12,17,18
20:9,17 24:22
26:15 27:4 40:12,
20 45:13,21
agreements
10.,2
ahead qq:q
Albert 9:312:2s
13:11,13,14 17:19
40:18
Albert's ts:o
allocated eg:g
allowed zt:zo
41:15
allowing zo:ts
$
1
3
2
3 tz:is zz:zo
27:7,18
3- ql:zt
3.3.8.3 zt:z
30 so:zt
3985 +:z
2 g:q
2-3 sott
20 s:zq
2006 +s:t t
2010 qttz
2011 zt:zzealt
2014 gg:g aq:zs
2015 eo:z,s
2016 so:z +s:s
2019 qo:zs qs:e,
14
2019001 1289
3:4
2020 e:zsq:s
5:18 6:13 7:89..25
4
4 zg:g 27:7,18
4,200 qo:zq
4-foot q:zt
404 u:ts
5
50 +tq
5742 q:s
5831 +:t
Collier County Code EnfGo&be(Iounty Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Ownerslndex: $l l3,200..allowing
Tffi t,..t,r.rs,luRl IrH()&TIIJ(;ill\l --;* ,r,;;];;;-Naples Court Reporting & Legal Services
$1 13,200 s:l s
44:11
$200 s:te
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1058 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
amends 42:19
amount 15:1'l
amounts'15:21
analysis 5:'lo
andlor 1O:2
anymore 28:4
anywheres
40:24
appears 18:13
37:1 1
application
11:19 14:7 15:22
29:16,19
applications
1 4t4 17 :8 20:8
29:9
applying 29:21
approval 10:20
14:5,8 15:13.23
16:8,24'17:11
1820,22,23 19t21
2O:14,18,20 21:1
28:9 29:24 30:6
34:22
approvals 7:16
9:11 1O:211il,10,
21 13:4 14:4 1613
22:16 27:'11
approve 22:16
approved 11:4
12:5.9 17:11 '19:5
21:'12.14 28:15
30:9
approximate
33:12
approximately
3312
area 9:1610:23
11:17 12:818:4,5
19:12 20.25
21:17,21 2212,3,
10 24:6 25:23
26t3,6,8 27:13
28:1 32117,22
37:9
areas 31:13
Arizona 42:14
Article'tz:rs
23:9,20
articulated 5:1
asks 39:15
asphalt 29:5
33:5 39:13,19
aSSeSS '13:22
16:3 2o:7
assistance 4:21
Association 3:5
9:1,6 13:16
association's
13:1,8
aSSUre 14:21
attach 9:18
attached 4i2,7
6:'11
attaches 26:20
attorney 8:5 9:1
13:14 18:17 23:2
25:'19,20 33:6
attorneys 8:15,
24 11:20
August 9:7
availability 31:2
average 34:2
awhile 7:10
AYASUN 25:12
Aye 25:9,i0,'t'1,
't2,13
B
B-2 2B:2
back s:24 7t7
26:18 27:5,15
28:12 29:5,1 1 ,18 ,
22 30:2,4,10 33:4
39:23 40:25 41:1 .
12 42:22 43:5
45:18
backwards 6:6
bad zt:'t 39:9
baseball-field-
shaped 32:5
baseball-
shaped 32:4
based g:t g ta:23
35:5
basically rs:z
24,24
Bay zo:s
behavior gg:g
43:6,7
believes t t:a
benefit'16:21
19:2 21:18
block zz:z
Bloomquist
36:3,5,19 37;24
38:7 ,12 39:4,7
43:20 44:1
board 3:24 4:3,6,
7 ,22 5t21 6:1 1 ,13
9:311:412.14,19
13t2.8.'14.17.19
'14:5,1915:13,'17
16:7 17:14,23,24,
25 18:2 20:6
22.20,22 23:8
25:5,17 26125
28:23 35:24 36:23
42:24 43tg M24
board's 12:16
'13:3 23:10 ,12,21
44:'18
boards tg:zo
bother 35:20
boundary r a;t o,
25 26:1 39:12,20
41:2 42:3
boxes t6:2
Boyd s:tz a:zs,
24 23:1 ,2 2519 ,
20 26:7,10,13,19,
23 27:7,16 37:19,
breaks 39:t4
brevity 9:4
Brittany s;z
broke g:t o
brought 26:24
43:16
BUCHILLON
3:4 35:25
buffer 16:18,24
18:23 22.8 2812,
'14 30:17,19 3'l:9,
'11,'14,16,18 33:5
39:12.13.19,20
41:3 43:24
buffers z8:5
building 41:11
built 32:2
c
call 12.24
called 3:2
canceled 4'l:'l o
canopy 16:18
18:23 30:2O
carries 25:16
case 3:7 4:20 9:9,
13,24'11:912:5,
'11,17 23:14,15,23
39:23 40:12 43:12
CaSeS 40:10,14
CELU 3:4 40:13
center 22:1
30:21 4'1114
celera 35.22
Chairman g:2.
12,14,20 4:9,13,
'19 5:3,14,17 6:3,
21,23,25 7:18 811 ,
5,8,',t2,21,23
13:1217 18,22
22:25 23'l 24.3,4,
7 ,9 ,14 ,'t7 ,23 2512.
8,14,16,19 26;4,9,
1'l,17,21 27t1,14,
20 28:21 29:10 .
'13,2130:1,11,'17,
24 31:4,20,23
33:11,14,25 35:5,
Collier County Code EnfcfidiiEncounty Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Ownerslndex: amends..Chairman
NArLil colni BlllllrnlJc
]INIL Naples Cou.t Reporting & Legal Services
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1059 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
Collier County Code Enfor@sltif County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Ownerslndex: Chairman's..date
communicate
42:21
communities
22:21
community
16:1 2316 25:25
41:24 44:25 45:24
complain 22:13
complains 21:4
complaint 24:12
2615 3'l:21 38t14.
15
complaints
39:16 43:15
complete 34:5
completed
39:20
completely 45:2
compliance
1411215:18.19
16:5,9 17:'10,13
20114 28i11
38:17,19.21
complied 22i23
concern 18:13
COnCernS 9:13
10:22 '16:22 18:5
22:18 28:19
concludes
22:24
conclusion
3.25
concrete 30:12
conferred 37:5
consent 20:16
considerable
15:1'1
consideration
4:25
considered
12:21
consisting
16:16
construct 31:4
constructed
21:16 22:5
construction
13:23
continuance
4:1O 5:21 ,22,25
6:'l,2,4
continuances
6t'17
corner 32:18
correct 4:2 5:16
6:10 13:4 24:16
26:19 2718,16
29:23 30:10 34:9
35:9,14 38:1 1,12
cost 41:18
costs 15:23 16:4
counsel 5:1 8:9,
18 37:6
County a:o,zz
7:8,'14 10:2,7 ,17
1'l:4,7,12,15,22
12:4,9 14t4,5,10,
'16 15:7,12,13,17
'16:7 19:5,21
20:12,'13,16
22:16.19 23:16
24:17 26:7 27:12
28:3 29:2 34:12.
22 40:5,20 42tg
county's 10:9
couple 20:9
24:25
court 3:'18 42:21
courts 45:22
continue 6:5
10:811:1216:11
20:22 26115 40:4
continued 'r1:1,
16 1217 .9 20:18
contract 45:20
copies'14;24
Copper z:zt
14:16,17,19,22
I 5:4 ,8 16:21 ,22
1 8:3,5, 1 '1 ,'1 3,'1 5,
16,18 19:3,10,13,
14,1A,24 2O:3,6,
16,24 2'1i4,9,15,
22,25 22:4,8,12,
17,19 23:6,'17
25:25 31:9,25
35:'14 36:5 37:20
38:'10,15 40:'17,19
M23
Cove 721 '14:16,
'17,'19 15:4,9
16:21 18:3,'11, !5,
'16,1819;3,'10,13,
14,'18,24 20:3,6,
16,24 21:4,9,16,
22,25 2214,'13,18,
19 23:6,17 25t25
31:25 35:14 36:5
37:20 38:10,15
40:17 ,19 M24
cross-
examined 8:15
Cove's 14:22
16:2218:5.13
22:8 31.10
covef '16:4 41:22
Cowan 5:'16 9:2
27:24 28:23
29112,'15,23 3Oi3,
13,'r 6,'r 9 3'r:1,8
3213,11,23 U:7,
1't,20,24 35:2,4,9
37:'l'l
created 43:23
creates 43:7
Creek 2o:l
cross-
examination
8110
current 15:2
19:20 24:5
customary 2'l:8
cul 27:5,',15 28:12
29:5,11,18,22
30:'1,10
cutting 30:4
date 6i1510:24
34:20 35:4
l|\\tl Naples Court Reporting & Legal Services
10.'!6 36:1.17.20.
23 37t3,7,'17,22
38:5,8,13 39:6
43:8,25 44:6,19
Chairman's
changed 18:'tg
21:1O
checked 16;2
choose 8:16
chorus 3:19
circumstances
12:22
claim 21:1
clarify 30:3
close 2717
44:21
clubhouse 22:'l
coach 9:'t 5 21:19
32:12
coaches 9:18
26:20 32:13
coco 41:21
code 3:22.23 4:5
5:21 9:24 10:24
1'l:2312113.15
13:1314:12
15:16,17'16:5
17:9,'14,2218:7
20:22 22:16,20,22
23.8,9,21 39:7,14
44:7,8
collects 20:1
Collier 3:5,22
10:2,17 11.6,1'l
comments
22:24
commercial
21:6,18,20 32:20
Commissioner
14:5 42:9
Commissioner
s 11:5 20:17 40:20
Commissioner
s' 15:'1316:7
2O:'15,21
D
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1060 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
dated g:z+
day 5:18 41:23
de 12:16 23:22
deal 38:8
dealing r2:1
45:3.'11
December 4:16
5:18
decision 23:12
delay 2o:9
delaying 20:24
deliberate a+:zt
department
1O:17 34:14
dependent 29:1
deserves 40:17
designated
21:'13
detailed z:o
details as:a
determined
9:2214:'l
developed
21:22
development
14:1221:15 22:3
24:'12 31:7
developments
13:23
diligently tt:ts
13:21 20:12 22:15
director tz:24
directors 9:3
13:2.9 44:24
discharge 19:24
discharges
2O:2.4
discuss 38:22
discussion s:g
disingenuous
22:12
dismissing 39:8
disputed z+:o
disputes 22:21
District 10r12,14,
19 11:11,22 12:4
14:10 15:12 2O,14
34:15
ditch 'ro:'r2'r4:1.
25
documentation
19:15
Oon 8:24 23:z
25:20
drain 19:13
drainage z:'to
9:15,21 '10:3,8,13,
15,21 '11:2,12
12:2,'lO 13:19,24
14i1,15,17,18,22,
25 '15:3 16:10,'11,
13,17 17:1618:4,
6,9,'14,21 19:6,20,
25 21:2 23:13
26tB 28:2,5,9,2O
39:17 43:22
drains 14:12
2015
due 20:22 31:2
41:1O
E
earlier 36:t o
39:22
easement 7:10,
13 9:'12,15,21
'1 0:3,9,'1 3, 1 5,2'l
1112,3,6,12 '12t2,
6,1013:19,24
14:1,6,15,17,25
15:1,3,'14,23'16:9,
10 ,12,'.t3,',|5,17 ,2s
17:15,16 18:4,6,9,
'12,'14,21 19:6,20
20:9,17 2'l:3
23:'13 24:22 26:8,
14 27t4.23 28:3.9.
20 40:'12,19
easements 28:5
easily 33:18
effect 37:3
effectively 22:9
3'l :'13
efforts 13:3
15:10
ELROD 25:6,9
encroachment
19:7 28:7 29:22,
24 30:6
encroachment
s 10:21 15:2,15
'16:12,1619:8
end 42:2,3
ended 7:11
enforcement
3:22,24 4:5 5:21
10:2411t23
12:13,16 13:'13
17:23 22:20 23:8.
'1o,21
Enforcement's
9:24
engineer's
10:14
engineering
9:19,21 13:22,25
'14:23,24 15:5,22
18:8 19:15,17,22.
23 29:16
engineers 1 1:20
English 6:2s
13:252410
enhanced 16:14
17.2 31:17
enSUre 14:'11
enler 14:22
entered 17:9
37:'18
entertain 36:22
enlie 22:10 42t1
enviro 34:5,23
environmental
'lO:'10 '14i7 34:24
ERP 3:17
F
faced 45:23
fact 18:25 22:8
33:20
factors 4:25 5:10
facts 3:24
favor 25:a
February 3:23
6:8 18:1
fees 't't;'lg 15:22
Collier County Code EnforcemenCollier County Cornmissioners vs Pelican Lake Prcperty Ownerslndex: dated..fees
error 37:6
essentially 9:9
16:4
estimate 29:7
EUA 'r s:'15 i7:4
18:22 '19:6 20,15,
19 2111 28:6,7,'lO,
15 29:25 30:6
eventually
32:22
evidence 23:5,
'18 37:1,20
exceeded 19:1
exceeds 17:'l
Excuse 4:19
exercise 24:23
existed 22:14
existing 19;7
21:23 29:24
eXPenSe 17:2
expenses 11:'18
explain 7:16
25:17
extension +:6,9,
11,'17 5i23 6t6,14
extensive 9:tg
'14:23
extent 23:6 37:'15
external 40:15
eyesore 38:11
41t23
TNi ""lT::?'r:'*Lu Naples court Repo ing & Legar Services
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1061 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners Association)
feet 27:7,18,23
30:8,2'1 31:5
33:16 34:3 40:24
41:2 42:5
fence 2s:21,22,
23,25 26:2 27:17
28:14 32:1 33:22
39:17 40:15 41:1.
24
fences 4o:11
fewer 33:a
Fiddler's 2o:4
filed 9:7 38:14,'15
43:'16
fills 35:18
finally as:tz
finding s:zn
findings 10i15
line tst21 2322.
24 39,8 42:7
fines 4:15 5:5.17
6:5,6,14,17 9:8
11:9 12:12,14,19
15:16,20,25 17:14
20:7,22 22:23
38:22,24,25 44:10
45:2,7,8,9,10
Finn 44:22.23
firm 13:22 i4:3
19:17 29:16
fistfight 36:2
fit 30:8
fixed 4g:to,tz,
22,24
Florida io:1i
11:11 14:9 34:14
flows 14:22
folks 7:20 35:i4
42:2O
loot 27:s
forgiveness
39:15 43:5
form 35:18
torum 2z:zo
G
gaan 15:18
gather i4:21
gentleman
32:24
geographically
40:22
give 3:9 7:2 33:11
36:12 39:144:19
45:'18
God 31:4
good 6:20 13:'13
17122
gory 35:8
grant 6:5
granted 4:6 5:2t,
24 6t13
grave 12:6
gravity 1i:25
group 13:18
17:25
grow 30:11 41:21
guy 30:2
guys 27:25 42:13
H
housekeeping
hand 3:17
happened 43:11
hard 4o:7 42:'17 ,
'18
harm 12:6
harmed i9:19
Hatfields 4s:10
health 15:6
heaf B:3,9 27t2s
35:20 44:'12,14
heard 3:1 39:22
40:23 44:16
hearing 1o:25
12:17 20122
23:19,22 4416,21
hedge 18:15,24
28:17 30:22,25
4211O
hedges 16:'19
19:9 41:19
height 33:12
Ut2
heights st:z
held s:e
Helen s:4 25:3
27:1 39:2
helpful zs:a
35.2'l
hidden +z:o
hiding sz:+
highly ss:s
hired 13:21 14:3
17:4 'l9t'17 20:11
28124 29i13,15
HOA 36:9
hold ao:s
holding +t:o
holes 31:14
Home'13:'16
homes 40:23
lC- 2a:2s
ICP 2B:2s
immediately
34t2'l
imminent '15:6
impact 18:10
impacts 15:3
impeding 43:i
important 36:9
impose 38:24
imposition
'12t12 23121
include 28:6
36:22
includes 5:9
including ts:a
18:11
incorrect 21:t t
incurred 11:18
individuals 23:7
44:'16
information
4:4.8 6:12
inherited ta:tg
initial zg:tg zo:+
initially 34:11
input 14:21
inside sg:za
lnspector '17:9
install 16:16.20
18:15,2O,23
19:10,'13
installation
17:6 19:5
installed 22:1
installing t0:zs
Collier County Code EnforcenGoflier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Ownerslndex: feet..installing
llN[Naples Court Reporting & Legal Services
forward 41:8
found +:t o:g
frankly ao:o
front 5:7 44:g
FUENTES 2s:11
44:12
fulfill 45:19
fulfilled 45:i2
function tg:za
functional 9:22
15:1
functioned i2:3
future a3:tg
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1062 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
K
'14:'13 15.20.25
18:14 21:14,17,23
25:22 31:8
Lakes 9:16 39:14
40:'18 45:12
land 'r4:12 i9:11
22ts
landscape
16:'1828:2,5,14
31:'l 1
landscaping
10:20 16t14,'17,
24,25 17:2,6 19:2,
8 20:25 2'l:2
27:12 28:19 29:3
30:5,8 31:15
language aa:9
late 36:14
law 3:25 i4:3
lays s:s
LDC 'r 7:1 19:i,4
Lee 31:23
left 4't:23
legal 13:1815:22
17 i25
legalese 24:11
Lennar 36:9
4111O
LETOURNEAU
6.20,22,24
letter 1o:ta
Letting ss:z
levied 12:'14
limited 23:24
lines 29:1
list 33:10
listen no:t 8
listened 42:13,
14
live uls
located 18:4
location 21:24
long 7:6 28:2'1
34:19 35:3
longer't5:'t6
41:14
lose 33:6
lot 4:19 7:14,15,
17,24 22:1 291
32:5 39:13.25
42:3
lots 21:9,1 1 32:'l,
8,18 33:8,9
love 44:i2,'13
low-down z:z
lowest 33:22
M
made 39:5 42:21,
main 18:13
maintained
31:2
maintenance
28:3
majority 39:25
make 28:17 29:5
30:4 33:5.21
42:19 44:17
makes 41:7
making t6:4
management
10:1211:11 14:9
2012,14 34:15
March 9:25
13:17,18
material 30:20
matter I 1:23
15i'16 18:7 41:17
maximum 2o:7
Mccoys 43:10
meant 20:19,24
meeting t6:7
20:21 36:16 40:20
4213
L
January 5:25
6:16
Jeff 6:19
Jim 9:3 13:z
17:19,23 42:17
lake 3:s 8:2s 9:6,
10.17.20.25 1Ot6.
'1O,25 1'l:8,14,'l?
12:'12,20,25 13:8,
1514:15,18'15:7,
10,'18 16:3,8,11,
16,2O,23 17:3,10,
13,2419:24,25
2O:2 2'l:4,6,1O
2214,6,15,22 2314,
16 32112,19,20
4O:7 45:3
Lake's 9:2,14
11:3.17 13:23
J
Collier County Code Enforc6oHfur County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Ownerslndex: inteods..meeting
INI Naples Cowt Reporting & Legal Services
intends z0:6
intentional
20:23
interest'14:14,16
23:12,15
interested 8:'14
interests 23:11
interfered 2o:8
interference
20:23
interior 33:'t z
intermediate
43:10
internal zo:t
39:'18 40:14
introduce tz:tg
involved 18:2
44:25
iphone 37:24
irrepairable
11,24
irreparably
19:'19
irresponsible
43:6.7
irreversible
11:24
irrigation 41:5
issue i o:16
26t14 35:4 43:23
issued 3:24 '10:6,
19 23:25 2914
item 3:2
items 3:t to:l
37:13
Joe 3:9 7:2 17:9
24:10 31:20 36:'13
38:20
John 9:3 12:25
13:1 1,14,25 18:8
1 9:9, 1 8 20:'1 1
40:18 42:14
joined 9:1
Joseph 3:2i
July 5:i5,'18'ri:3,
5 16:8 17:'10
June 38:2
Karen 35:23
44:20,23
Kaufman 3:7,12,
14.20 4:9.13.'19
513,14,17 6:3,21,
23,25 7:18 8:1,5,
12,21,23 13:'12
17:18,22 22:25
23.1 24.3,7,9,'14,
17 ,23 25:2,8,'14,
16,19 26:4,9,11,
17 ,21 27t1,'14,20
28:21 29110,13,21
3011 ,1 'l ,17 ,24
3'l :4 .20 .23 33:1 'l .
'14,25 35:5,10,16
36:'l .17 .20 37:3.7 .
17 ,22 38:5,8,13
39:6 43;8,25 44:6,
19
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1063 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
meetings 7:7,'15
.18:3
member 18:2
24:4 25:6,7,9,10,
11,12,13 27122
31 :24 32tg ,21
34:4,10,19,23
35:1,3 44:12
members 4:22
9:2 12:20 36:23
memorialize
18:18
mentioned 5:1'1
18:8 20:1'l
met 14:10,19
42:9,18
method '15:17
microphone
3:'lO 32,25
mind 18:'19
minimum 16:23
miscommunica
ted 37:6
mistaken 44:8
mitigating 12:21
modification
10:11 14:8 34:'18
modifications
27tg
modify 38:24
45:1,9
Monday 36;'14
money 15:1'1
41:'18
months 4:18
37'.14
morning 13:'13
17:22
motion 4:24 5:11
9:8 12:18 25:4,6
36:22 44:14,17
motor 9:16,18
2'l:'19 26:20
32:12,13
move 41:8
moved 33:16
36:25 41:1
movlng 24124
Mucha 3:21,22
4t'l I ,15 7 :4.20 8:2
17:9 24.AJ3,16,
20,25 27:3,8
30:14 31:22 35:15
38:20 43:13
N
nature 11:25
needed 9:11
'l0t1O.2O 34:25
neighboring
10:22181O
newspaper
35:'19
nice 3o:2 42:1
nominal 12:'1
note 24:1 36:10
noted 6:'1 4o:'1
notes 36:10
novo '12:'17 23:22
number 45:25
o
oak 41:20
object 23;4
37:16.19
objection 1o:18
2412 36:21 37:'18
38:10
obligation 45:19
obtain 1o:10
11:21 13:414:4
15:'11 16:2
obtained 11:1,
'10 15:'!8 '16:8
'17:11.1318:12
34:8,17
obtaining 'r o:1
16:5
P
Pages 4:14
paid 15:21
Paget 4:20 24:24
Paperwork 7:5
35:5 38:19
parcel 19:1'1
32:6,8 41:5,6
parked 26:5
33i2O,22 39:2'l
parking 33:7
39:13
pall 27:3
participants
3:18
parties 7:21 8:14
'14114 23:15
part! 23:8
past 3:23 24:25
36:6
Patch 42:19
pavement 27:5,
8,14 28:8,13
29:10 30:10
pay 15:25 '16:5
45:7,8,10
peel 33:4
Pelican 3:s 8:2s
912,6,'10,14,15,17,
20,25 '10:6,10,25
11:3,8,14,17
12:'12,20,25 13:7 ,
15,23 14:12,15,18
'15;7,8,10,'18,20,
25 16:3,8,11,15,
20,23 17:3.10.13,
2418:14 19124,25
2'l:4,6,10,'14,17,
22 22:4,6,14,22
23:4 ,16 25:22
31tB 32:12,'19,20
39:11,14 40:7,'18
45:3,12
pending 18:6
Peninsula 9:21
13:2517:5.7
19i17 ,23 28:24
29:8
Peninsula's
14:24
Ei*+=:+n*+*Naples Court Reporting & Legal Services
October o:t
34:20
offense 11:24
offered 23:18
on-site 32:15
opaque 18:24
22:9 30122 42:'lO
OPen 40:10
opening 9:5
opinion ++:t a
opportunity
4123 7:25 8:'19
44:2O
Opposed zs:ta
opposite 25:24
order 3:25 4:3,t
6:10,11 8:'17 9:11,
24 1016 '11:21
otdered 4:2
orders 3:23
Ordinance
14:13
ordinances 4:1
6:'10
ordinarily 3s:17
original r2:17
23:23 31:21
originally 5:23
overlap 28:4
owned 31:25
32:11,19
Ownel 12:25 13:7
owner's 26:20
owners 3:5 9:1,
1813:16'15:20.25
16:4 32:'12,19
owns 32:10
Collier County Code Edfidlbnedunty Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Ownerslndex: meetings..Peninsula'
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1064 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners Association)
people 3:8 7:23
33:10 41:16
performed 9:20
45:22
permission
12:23 42:8
permit 10:11,16,
19 14:8 19:6 29:4,
17 ,22 34:13,'17,
permits 'r2:5
17:5,8 29:20 30:9
34:5,8,1O 44:2,3
permitted 10:4
21 :8 32.1 5 39:17 ,
18 40:16
perspective
5:'13 23:3
phone 39:2
42:'15
photo 253 27:2
photos 25:5,6
26:24 36:24 391
physically
24118,2'l
picture 24:5
pictures 26:23
36:12,18,21 37:8,
12,25 4012
place 40:8
places 33;7
plan 2'l:15
plans 17:5 29:3
41 13
plant 30:20,24
3112
planted 21:2
31i1
plants 29:6
platted 32:8
pleased 1o:2s
plenty 31:18
plugged 31:15
plums 41:21
Point 8:17 24120
44:'17 45:16
points 20:10
pool 41:11,14
portion 9:14 26:2
posed 12:7
position 3'l:12,
't7
potential 23:'11
prepare 18:17
prepared 29:3
39:5
prerogative
44tl8
present 12:21
26:'16
presented 12:18
19:15
Preserve 23:6
president 13:1,
15,16 36:5.7
42:22
pretty 9:s
previous 3;1
previously
3624
prior 6:1513:20
problem 7:1
'13:21 39:3
proceeding
11:1412:14
prOCeSS 8:17
17 i7 34:'16 37 :2
prOCeSSeS 7:5
professional
'11:19
professionals
2Oi11
project 14:11,20
prolonged
45:24.25
properties '15:8
18:1131:19
property 3:5
8:25 9:14,20
1'l 17 18:2519:14
21:20 31i25
33:18,24 40:25
property's
10:22
proposed 19:8
provide 10:18
provided 1 1:20
public 11:7 15:6
44:21
PUD 'r4:13 i7:1
191 ,4 21:7 27:22,
24 28:1 30:20
32:15
punished 22:7
punitive 15:20
purpose 9:23
1O:16'14:215:1
.18:9
Pursuant 12:1s
pushed 20:20
put 8:19 26:10
31:6,17 39:2,22
41:20 42:2
question 9:17
26t3 27:20.2'l
3'1124 32:9 33t2
34:'l,4
questions 37:7
quick 7:2
R
reasons 22:4.12
rec 41114
recall 8:13
received 17:'15
record 3:21 5:8
8:2O 23:2 24:2
25:20 36:4 37:21
recorded 1 1:6
17:4
records 1 1:7
recreation
19:1'l 21125 32:6,
7 41:5,6
reduction 9:8
11:8 '12:'18
Rees 9:3 t3:z
17 :20,21 ,23 33:1 ,
'13,15 34:2
refer 9:6 41:19
referenced 4:1
6:9
referred 19:9,18
refused 42:6
related 18:6
release 45:2
relevant 4:25
20:1O
remain 16:13
remains 32:6
39:1 1,13
remarks 9:5
remove 10:3,12
27:5
removed 20:18
26:12 27.19 37113
removing 18:10
renewed 9:7
repeal 21:12
repeated 11:23
replat 28:25
report 10:25
14i2325 15:5
18:819:'18,22
o
raise 3:16
reach 't '1 :'15
read 35:19 39:5
reading 43r13
ready 29:18
reason 6:3
Collier County Code Enforcen€ollier County CommissioneB vs Pelican Lake Property Ownerclndex: people..rcport
ll\\ll Naples Court Reporting & Legal Services
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1065 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
S
safety 15:6
sake 9:4
satisfying 28:10
scot-free 45:10
Screen 41:19
screening 1o:23
14:21 16'19,22,25
18.14 20:25 2A:18
30:14,15 3'l:13,18
SCreenS 22:9
Section 12:15
21:7 23:9.20
sections 32:18
secure 32:'18
sense 5r'12 41:7
separate 28:19
separated 26:1
September a:s,
16 5:24 6:13,15
20:2'l
Serve 9:23 10:'15
14:215:1
served 17:24
seryes 13: 1.8
18:9
services 1'1:20
sel 23:20 45:23
setback 27:23
settled 41:8
sheet 4:12 5:4
short 9:5
show 7:5 14125
25:3 27:22 36120
42:12
shown 21:14
shows 5:5 15:5
18:8'19:18,23
side 25:22,24
3'1:8,10,25 32:3
sides 5:12
sign 34:12
signed 45:13
significant
'11:18'17:2
simple 38:9
single-family
32:8
sif 24:13 25:1
27.2O 30:14 31:22
35:15,25
site 21:14 26:6
sits 39:20
situation 35:1i
size 40:'19,21
slips 3:8 35:'13
slow 43:8
smaller 40:23
solely 19:2
solution 11:16
sought 36:25
Collier County Code Enforcet6odlier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Ownerslndex: reporter..stores
ll\\ll Naples Court Reporting & Legal Services
reporter 3:18
reports 19:15
representative
s 14:10
reputable 13:22
request 5:2 10:9
17:'14
requested 18:19
'19:13
requesting
'12:'13
requests 22:22
4413
required 1O:'l
'19:1,4 30:15
requirements
17:1 19:2
requisite 9:11
1'1i21
residential
21:'lO 32.1
residents 21:18
23:5,17
resolve 13:21
38:14
resolving 35:10
resort 9:16 32:13
reSOUrce 14:8
34:25
respect 40:17
41 10
respectfully
17i14 22:22
Respondent
3:25 5:13 6:9
8:15,18,25 23:4
36:25
Respondent's
4:24 5:1 ,11 8:9
Respondents
38:16
response 25:15
rest 22:3
return'10:4
review 4:23 37:8
rewarding 39:8
43:6
road 2o:3 33i19
42:6
roadside 2O:3
Ron gs:zg 36:a
Rookery zo:s
rOOm 30:4 33:5.8
route 7:12
RUBINSTEIN
24:4 25:7 ,'10
27:22 31:24 32:9,
21
Rubinstein's
M:13
RUIZ zs:t g sa:+.
10,19,23 35:1,3
rules 12:16
23:10,21 35:17
RVS 39:23 4o:2s
sounds 4:17
south 1o:11
11:11 14:9 2Ot5
34.14
speak 7:25 8:3,6,
'14 35:17,18
44t16,20
speaker 35:18
speakers 8:6
specifically
16:18 19:22
sPent 15:10
square 40:24
staff 8:10
staffs 5:10,13
stage 13:10
stall 43:2
stalled 45:i 5.i 6
stand 3:16 39:19
4012
start 3:9
started 4:'15 7:8
24:11
starting 45:4
state 1O:5 2O:2
24:5 34:13
statement 39:5
states 9:25
step 28:19 4o:7
steps 'r6:2
stipulated
45:13,21
storage 9:15
10:3,9 11:2,13,16
'12:1 ,7 ,8 16112
'18:3,5 19:'12
20:25 21:5.8.9.13.
'17,2'l,23 2212,3,
10,14 25i23 26:3
28tB 32:15,20
store 32:17
stored 1o:4
stores 9:17
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1066 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
Collier County Code Enforce6sflier County Commissionen vs Pelican Lake Property Ownerslndex: storing..wrinen
T
tab 3:13
tagged 39:21
tags 39:24 40:'1
talk 3:8 42:'1 3
talking 5:6
tall 33:17,23
tallest 33:14,1s
testified 23:'17
testify 3:16 i3:2
32:25
testimony'12:21
13:6 23:5,23
37i20
that'll z:s
thing at:a az:r,
24 44:1,9
things 7:'14
24:'14 38:17 41:'15
43:8 44:4 45:4
thought 42:1,20
threat 15:6
tiles 19:14
time 4:6,10,1i,17
5:24 6:6,14 7:15
15i1121:1'123:'16
24:20 26:'11
38:13,16 44:18
45:'15
timeline +s:zz
timely tz:te
times t4:11.20
today 9:1 40:13
4'l:.22 45:1
today's zo:zt
told 17:6
tongue-tied
17:'12
total 15:21
totally ss:a
tow 32:14
Tracl 2812
lrailet 21:13,23
22:2,14 25:23
26:3,18 28:8
321'14 33:10,12
trailers 9:'17
21t19 26:5,12,13,
19 27:6 32:10,11.
21 33t3,17,22,23
38:3,6,11 39:14,
21.22,25 41:24
U
ultimately r5:13
unanimously
25:'16
underlying 9:13
12:10 23:13,14
understand
3511 'l .16 37 :22
understanding
36i24
unknown 22:4
unpermitted
40:10
unfelaled 22:21
up-to- 37:'15
up-to-date
37:16
upsel 7:24 40:21
V
vacant 19:1'1
22:1 ,5 32:4,6,7
vacate 7:9
vary 33:13
vendor 29:'18
viewing 38:i o
violation 4:1,2
6:9,10 9:'1311:25
12:11 13:3,4,2O
15:16 166 22,17
23.14,19 28:8,20
34:6,7,9 35:6
39:7 .12 44:7
violations 1o:1
17:16 40:11
voted 37:3
w
waiting 24:10
4',t:7
waive 8:16 12:'14
17:14 22:23
wall '18:i 9.20
19:4,6,10,1'l
33:17,23 39:'18
40:15 41:25
walls 40:11
warranted 5:2
11:912:12
water 10:11
11:11 14:9 '19:24
2O:'l .13 34t15
Wednesday
36:'15
week 36:15
welfare'15:6
west 20:2
WHITE s:t s +:zt
5:9,23 8:8,13
32.24 36.23 3715
44115
witnesses '12:24
work 22.17
28:24.25 40:6
42:18
worked 11:15
13120 33:20 42:8.
17
working 7:11,22
10:7 13:'18 17:25
20112 22:15
works 39:11
written !2:'t 8
40.12
]\tL
NAPI.F.Ii COIll{T f, IPORTING
Naples Court Reponing & Legal Services
storing 21:19
stormwater
10:17,20 15:12
'18:20.22'19:5
20:1,13 34:12,22
story 5:12 7:19
43:18.19
structure 26:18
41111
study 9:19
subject 15:15
submit 1 1:25
14:3 17:5 27.12
29,16 34:13 37 :24
submitted 7:5
14:7 29:4,19
34:21 39:16 41:13
submitting 17:7
29:8.19
subsequently
5:25 33:16
substantial
22:9 31110
Supervisor 3:22
support 19:16
40:9
supposed 21:25
32:5 4'l:12
surrounding
13:2215i?
swale 2o:3
sworn 3:18
system 14:18,23
20:4
systems 19:25
42:6
trees 16:'l g i8:23
30:11,2'l 41:20
lrial i2:16 23:22
true 42:16
TTRV z't:o gz:ro
turn 13:10
turned 36:8
Type 30:r 7,20
31 :10
typically 32:13
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1067 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
Y
year 6:213:17
Years 7:22,24
2'l:15.24 24:25
35:4 36:6 45:25
yesterday 33:21
37:25 3812
z
zoned 21:5,6
32:7.16
Collier County Code Enforcemerfollier County Commissioners vs Pelican Lake Property Ownerslndex: year..zoned
trrtr Ndl'l l-rl r:OUk: rllRJllTIlJ(i-[NI *,.,*Naples Coun Reponing & Legal Services
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1068 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
HaSlef Fltcsl-{jt- r,.tr idl.\tL
,ffitr'iii"rg$000.sEi
fffiffi 0,,,J,1;',f[1ff,,.
Gru ffi Managernent Deparfnent
Code Enforcement Division
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
#55 HB PELICAN LAKE PROPERTY OWNERS
ASSOC OF COLLIER COUNW INC
4555 SOUTHERN BREEZE DR
NAPLES, FL34114 I
.::;..-t ,r.ii:i:i::i'r.'j.it.ij:.: .3,",i,, j. .,r...i. ,h,'ll,tllllltl,ll,,lllrl,lf ,llll1l,',1,f1';f ,l,"lllllllllllll,
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1069 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement -
vs.
COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT
CODE ENFORCEN,IENT BOARD
Case No. - CELU2019001f289
BOARD OF' COI.JNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COI'NTY, FLORIDA,
Petitioner,
PELICAN LAKE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC
OF COLLIER COIJNTY, INC.,
Respondent.
ORDER OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARI)
THIS CAUSE came before the Code Enforcement Board (the "Board") for public hearing on August 25,
2022, upon the Petitioner's Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens, and the Board, having heard testimony under oath,
received evidence and heard argument respective to all appropriate matters, hereupon issues its Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and Order of the Board as follows:
FINDINGS OF F'ACT
On February 27,2020, the Code Enforcement Board issued a Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and
Order, recorded at OR 8K5742, PAGE 236. The Respondent, PELICAN LAKE PROPERTY OWNERS
ASSOC OF COLLIER COUNTY,INC., was found guilty of violating Sections 1.04.01(A) and 2.02.03 of
the Collier County Land Development Code, Ord. No. 04-41, as amended, on the subject property with NO
SITE ADDRESS located in Naples, FL 34114, Folio No. 66679503040 (Legal Description: PELICAN
LAKE R V RESORT UMT FOUR TRACT B-2), hereinafter referred to as the "Property," in the following
particulars:
Observed paving of asphalt into the drainage easement as well as trailers, pavers, rvood, signs, sign
poles and other miscellaneous items being stored in the drainage easement.
2. The violations have been abated as ofJuly 12,2022.
Respondent, having been notified ofthe date ofhearing by certified mail, posting and/or personal service,
were represented by counsel Donald Boyd, Esq. and Brittany Cowan, Esq., and had Respondent's President,
John Albert, along with its Director, James Rees, all appear and testimony was received of the Respondent's
continuing diligent efforts to pursue abatement of the violations, the financial harm imposing fines would
cause, and their request that fines and costs be waived.
4. All operational costs previously incurred by Petitioner in the prosecution of this case have been paid.
CONCLUSIONS OFLAW
Based upon the foregoing facts, the Board makes the following conclusioos of Law:
I . All notices were properly and timely issued, and the Board has jurisdiction pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida
Statutes, and Chapter 2, Article D( Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida.
2. Respondent has demonstrated by the preponderance of the evidence that mitigating circumstances exist under
Section 162.09(2), Florida Statutes, to abate some of the fines and costs accrued against Respondent.
3
Page I of2
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1070 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
OR.DER
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and pursuant to the authority granted in
Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 2, Article IX, Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida, it
is hereby ORDERED that:
A. Petitioner's Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens is DEMED.
B. Accrued fines of ONLY $60,000.00 shall be imposed against Respondent, and Respondent is ordered to pay
that amount on or before September 24,2022.
DONE AND ORDERED this A{ auy of 2022 at Collier County, Florida.
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
STATE OF FLORIDA
COI.JNTY OF COLLIER
The tbregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by
this --!Lda; "t <.el<Nbtl- izozz,ayRobert
Board Collier Countf, Florida.
'means of{physical Presence or fl online notarization,
Kauftnan, Chair of the Collier Counry Code Enforcement
Signature of Public - State of Florida
Commissioned Name of Notary Public
(Print/Type/Stamp)
!'Personally Known OR E Produced Identification
Type of Identifi cation Produced_
HELEN BUCHILLON
Commlssion # HH 105119
Expires May 15,2025
Bnded Thru Budget Notary Ssvhss
PAYMENT O['FINES: Any fines ordered to be paid pursuant to this Order may be paid at the Collier County Code
Enforcement Department, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104, Phone: (239) 252-2440, Website:
www.colliercount-yfl.gov. Any release of lien or confirmation of compliance or confirmation of the satisfaction of the
obligations of this Order may also be obtained at this location.
APPEAL: Any aggrieved party may appeal a final order of the Board to the Circuit Court within thirry (30) days of
the execution of the Order appealed. An appeal shall not be a hearing de novo, but shall be limited to appellate review
of the record created within the original hearing. It is the responsibility of the appealing pafty to obtain a transcribed
record of the hearing from the Clerk of Courts. Filing an appeal will not automatically stay this Order.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I IIEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this ORDER has been sent by U.S. Mail to: PELICAN
LAKE
FL 34I
ASSOC OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC,4555 SOUTHERN BREEZE DR., Naples,
14 on 2022
,o.fLP.!-rt
lffi.,
Page 2 of2
Code Enforcernent
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1071 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
COLLIER COUNTY.RIDA TE DIVISION
V
PELICAN LAKE PROPERTY OWNERS
ASSOCIATION OF COLLIER COLINTY, INC.,
Appellant,
Appellate Case No.:
CEB Case No.: CPI-LZO1gOOt t28q
BOARD OF COTINTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
Appellee.
NOTICE O F APPEAL
NOTICE IS GIVEN that pursuant to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9. I I 0(c)( I )(A) and
9.190(bX3) and Section 162.11, Florida Statutes, PELICAN LAKE PROPERTY OWNERS
ASSOCIATION OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC. appeals to the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial
Circuit in and for Collier County the Order of the Collier County Code Enforcement Board rendered on
August 25,2022, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". The nature of the
order appealed is a final administrative order of an enforcement board imposing fines.
Dated this _ day of September,2022.
ADAMCZYK LAW FIRM, PLLC
By:
Mark E. Adamczyk, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 12226
Donald S. Boyd, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 14186
9130 Galleria Court, Suite 201
Naples, FL 34109
Telephone: (239) 631-6199
Facsimile: (239) 431-7567
Email: mark@adamczyklawfirm.com
donald@adamczykl awfi rm. com
brittany@adamczyklawfi rm. com
servi ce@adamczykl awfi rm. com
Attomeys for Appellant Pelican Lake Property Owners
of Collier County, Inc.
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1072 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day of September, 2022 the foregoing was electronically
filed with the Clerk of Court using the Florida E-Filing Portal which will electronically serye a copy of
the foregoing to the following:
Colleen A. Kerins, Esq.
Office of the Collier County Attorney
3299 Tamiami Trail East, Ste. 800
Naples, FL 34112-5749
Telephone: (239) 252-8400
Facsimile: (239) 252-6300
Email: colleen.kerins@colliercountyfl .gov
FIRM,
By:
Mark E.
Bar
No. I
199
(23e) 43
Attorneys for Appellant Pelican Lake Property Owners
Collier County, Inc.
S
20t
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1073 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners Association)
EXHIBIT 66
r\."
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1074 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
COI-LIER COUNTY CODE ENI'ORCEI}IENT
CODE ENFORCf,MENT BOARD
Case No. - CELU20l900l1289
BOARD OF COUNTY COMNIISSIONERS
COI,LIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
Petitioner,
PELICAN LAKE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC
OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC.,
Respondent.
vs.
ORDER OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
THIS CAUSE came before the Code Enforcement Board (the "Board") for public hearing on August 25,
2022, upon the Petitioner's Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens, and the Board, having heard testimony under oath,
received evidence and heard argument respective to all appropriate matters, hereupoi issues its Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and Order of the Board as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
l. On February 27,2020, the Code Enforcement Board issued a Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and
Order, recorded at OR B,K5742, PAGE 236. The Respondenr, PELICAN LAKE pROpERTy OWNERS
ASSOC OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC., was found guilty of violating Secrions I .04.01 (A) and 2.02.03 of
the Collier County Land Development Code, Ord. No. 04-41, as amendid, on the subject property with NO
SITE ADDRESS located in Naples, FL 34114, Folio No.66679503040 (Legal Description: PELICAN
LAKE R V RESORT UNIT FOUR TRACT B-2), hereinafter referred to as rhe;Prop.rty,i in the following
particulars:
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.
2. The violations have been abared as ofJuly 12,2022.
3. Respondent, having been notified ofthe date ofhearing by certified mail, posting and/or personal service,
were represented by counsel Donald Boyd, Esq. and Brittany Cowan, Esq., ind had Respondent's president,
John Albert, along with its Director, James Rees, all appear and testimony was received of the Respondent's
continuing diligent efforts to pursue abatement of the violations, the financial harm imposing fines would
cause, and their request that fines and costs be waived.
4- Al1 operational costs previously incuned by Petitioner in the prosecution of this case have been paid.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the foregoing facts, the Board makes the following conclusions of Law:
l. All notices were properly and timely issued, and the Board has jurisdiction pursuant to Chapter 162, Florida
Statutes, and Chapter 2, Article IX, Code of Laws and Ordinances of Colliei Counry-, Florida.
2' Respondent has demonstrated by the preponderance of the evidence that mitigating circumstances exist underSection 162.09(2), Florida Starutes, to abate some of the fines and costs accired igainst Respondent.
Page I of2
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1075 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners
oRDT:R
Based upon the foregoing Findings ofFact and Conclusions of Law, and pursuant to the authority granted in
Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 2, Anicle IX, Code ofLaws and Ordinances ofCollier Counry, Florida, it
is hereby ORDERED that:
A. Petitioner's Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens is DEMED
DONE AND ORDERED this 4{ day of 2022 at Collier County, Florida.
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
CO F'LO
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF COLLIER
lr
The forcsoins i
this , da;o
knowledged before me by means of{physical Presence or 0 online notarization,nstrumc
I
Board Collier Florida.
,(Personally K-nown OR tr Produced ldentification
Typc of Idcntification Produccd_
2022, by Roben Kaufinan, Chair ofrhe Collier Counry Code Enforcemenr
Si gnature ofNotary Public - State ofFlorida
iffit
HEI.ETI BUCHII.TON
Commislhn ll HH 105 119
Epi'r! l,lay I 5, 2025
8a'd.nlru &6.$btt,S.tt .
Commissioned Name of Notary Public
(Print/Type/Stamp)
PAYMENT OF FINES: Any fines ordered to be paid pursuant to this Order may be paid ar the Collier County Code
Enforcemcot Departm€nt, 2800 Nonh Horscshoe Drive, Naples, FL l4lM, Phonc: (239) 252-2440, Websirc:
wwu,.colliercountvfl.sov. Any release of lien or confirmation ofcompliance or confirmation ofthc satisfaction ofthe
obligations ofthis Order may also be obtained at this location.
APPf,AL: Any aggrieved party may appeal a ftnal order ofthe Board to the Circuit Coun wirhin thirty (30) days of
the execution ofthe Order appcalcd. An appeal shall not be a hearing dc novo, but shall be limited to appellate review
ofthe record created within the original hearing. It is the responsibility ofthc appealing party to obtain a transcribed
record ofthe hearing from the Clerk ofCouns. Filing an appeal will not auromatically stay this Order.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy ofthis ORDER has been sent by U.S. Mail to: PELICAN
LAKE PRO TY WNERS ASSOC OF COLLIER COUNTY , INC. 4555 SOUTHERN BREEZE DR., Naples,
FL 341 l4 on 2022
Code Enforcement Official
Page 2 of2
B. Accrued fires ofONLY 560,000.00 shallbe imposed agaiost Respondent, and Respondent is ordered to pay
that amount on or before September 24, 2022.
16.K.7.d
Packet Pg. 1076 Attachment: 2022.09.15 - Ltr. to C.Kerins re BCC v. Pelican Lake POA (23531 : Litigation Settlement - Pelican Lake Property Owners