Loading...
CEB Minutes 04/24/2008 R April 24, 2008 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida April 24, 2008 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: VICE-CHAIRMAN: Gerald Lefebvre (Absent) Richard Kraenbring Larry Dean Kenneth Kelly Edward Larsen Lionel L'Esperance George Ponte (Absent) Charles Martin (Absent) Jerry Morgan (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Bendisa Marlill, Code Enforcement Operations Coordinator Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA AGENDA Date: April 24, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. Location: Collier County Government Center, Third Floor, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Building F, Naples, FI 34112. NOTICE: THE RESPONDENT MAY BE LIMITIED TO TWENTY (20) MINUTES FOR CASE PRESENTATION UNLESS ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE BOARD. PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. ALL PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN THE PUBLIC HEARING ARE ASKED TO OBSERVE ROBERTS RULES OF ODER AND SPEAK ONE AT A TIME SO THAT THE COURT REPORTER CAN RECORD ALL STATEMENTS BEING MADE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - March 27, 2008 4. PUBLIC HEARlNGS/MOTIONS A. MOTIONS FOR CONTINUANCE 1. BCC vs. Robert and Jeanie Ankney CEB NO. 2007050259 B. STIPULATIONS C. HEARINGS 1. BCC vs. James Bachmann 2. BCC vs. Robert and Jeanie Ankney 3. BCC vs. Wayne Creber and Ronald Creber 4. BCC vs. Heriberto Perez and Antonio Perez 5. BCC vs. Melkys Borrego 6. BCC vs. Adalberto and Martha Garcia 7. BCC vs. Jorge M. Vidal and Alegny Vidal 8. BCC vs. Tereso Bautista and Emiliana Lopez Vasquez 9. BeC vs. 4227 Enterprise Avenue, LTD 10. BCC vs. 2319, LLC CEB NO. 2006090001 CEB NO. 2007050259 CEB NO. 2004040316 CEB NO. CESD20080000222 CEB NO. 2007080008 CEB NO. 2007100929 CEB NO. 2007040773 CEB NO. 2006100651 CEB NO. 2007030291 CEB NO. 2007040334 11. Bec vs. Mark S. Bailey 12. BeC vs. Kenneth J. and Barbara Blocker 13. BCC vs. TT of Pine Ridge, Inc CEB NO. 2007100545 CEB NO. 2007080462 CEB NO. CES20080002403 5. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. BCC vs. Yunier Ortiz 2. BCC vs. R. P. K. Enterprises of Bonita, Inc 3. BCe vs. Ricardo and Magna Munoz 4. BCC vs. Sergio Valencia CEB NO. 2007-120 CEB NO. 2007-121 CEB NO. 2007100608 CEB NO. 2006090115 B. Motion for Reduction/Abatement of Fines/Liens 6. NEW BUSINESS 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens B. Reqnest to Forward to the County Attorney's Office 8. REPORTS 9. COMMENTS 10. NEXT MEETING DATE - May 22, 2008 11. ADJOURN April 24, 2008 VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Good morning. It's 9:01 and I'd like to call to order the Code Enforcement Board for Collier County, Florida. It's April 24th. I just want to read something into the record. The respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation, unless additional time is granted by the board. Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes, unless the time is adjusted by the Chairman. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Roberts Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and, therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. I'd also like to ask that as you come up, you do speak into the microphone so that Cherie' can hear you properly. Can we have the roll call, please. MS. MARKU: Good morning. For the record, Bendisa Marku, Collier County Code Enforcement. Mr. Edward Larsen? MR. LARSEN: Present. MS. MARKU: Mr. George Ponte has an excused absence. Mr. Gerald Lefebvre has an excused absence. Mr. Kenneth Kelly? MR. KELL Y: Here. MS. MARKU: Mr. Larry Dean? MR. DEAN: Here. MS. MARKU: Mr. Richard Kraenbring? VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Present. Page 2 April 24, 2008 MS. MARKU: Mr. Charles Martin? (No response.) MS. MARKU: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Present. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Can we have an approval of the agenda. Motion for approval of the agenda? MR. DEAN: Motion to approve. MS. ARNOLD: I have changes, Mr. Chairman. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold. I have three stipulations. The first stipulation is Item No. 4-C-3, Board of County Commissioners versus Wayne Creber and Ronald Creber. That will become your 4-B-l. Item No. 4-C-9, Board of County Commissioners versus 4227 Enterprise Avenue, LTD will become 4-B-2. And thirdly, your Item No. 12, Board of County Commissioners versus Kenneth 1. and Brenda (sic) Blocker, will become 4-B-3. Also, Item 4-C-7 is being removed from the agenda. That property's been foreclosed. And I believe there is a request to bring up the attendance of Mr. Martin under new business, and so we'll add that to the agenda as well. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: That's correct. And that's item six, new business. Do we have a motion to approve the amended agenda? MR. DEAN: I'll make a motion to approve the amended agenda. MR. KELLY: I'll second it. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. Page 3 April 24, 2008 Motion carries. We reviewed the minutes of March 27th, 2008. Do we have a motion for approval of the minutes? MR. DEAN: I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of March 27th, 2008. MR. KELLY: I'll second. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Motion carries. That brings us to the public hearing motions. We have under Item A, a motion for continuance, and that's the BCC versus Robert and Jeanie Ankney. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, the individual's not here. You have a letter that should have been included in your packet. And the county has no objections to that request. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Since the county has no objections, do we have a motion for allowing the continuance? MR. KELL Y: I'll make a motion that we allow the continuance. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Do we have a second? MR. LARSEN: I second it. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? Page 4 April 24, 2008 MR. DEAN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Motion carries. We have one nay. That brings us to the stipulations. First stipulation was Item 3 and is now Item 1 for stipulations. That's the BCC versus Wayne Creber and Ronald Creber. Is the respondent here? Why don't you come up and be sworn in. (Speakers were duly sworn.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Can we hear from the county? MS. O'FARRELL: Good morning. For the record, Susan O'Farrell, Collier County Code Enforcement Environmental Investigator. We're putting the stipulation up on the overhead so you all can see it. This is in reference to Department Case No. 200404136 where fill was placed on a property on Plantation Island, which is in our special treatment overlay. The stipulation between Mr. Creber and the Collier County is that he will -- I'll just read it. In consideration of the disposition and resolution of the matters outlined in said notices of violation for which a hearing is currently scheduled for April 24th, 2008, to promote efficiency and the administration of the Code Enforcement process, and to obtain a quick and expeditious resolution of the matters outlined therein, the parties agree to -- hereto agrees as follows. Mr. Creber has agreed that the violations noticed in the referenced Notice of Violation are accurate, and he stipulates to pay the operational costs in the amount of $1,147.99 incurred in the prosecution of this case. And he will abate all violations by removing the fill from the property to restore it to the previous grade without damaging any remaining vegetation within 30 days of this hearing or a daily penalty of $100 per day will be imposed for as long as the Page 5 April 24, 2008 violation persists. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Mr. Creber, have you agreed to the stipulation? MR. CREBER: Yes, sir. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Do we have a motion to accept the stipulation? MR. LARSEN: I move to accept the stipulation. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Do we have a second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Motion carries. Sir, I think you've come to an agreement with the county and we look forward to having you comply. MR. CREBER: Thank you. MS. O'FARRELL: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: That brings us to the next stipulation, which was Item 9 and that's BCC versus 4227 Enterprise Avenue, LTD. And we have the county and respondent. Could we have them sworn in, please. (Speakers were duly sworn.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Can we hear from the county, please. MR. KEEGAN: Good morning. For the record, Thomas Keegan, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. Page 6 April 24, 2008 This is Department Case No. 2007030291. The respondent and the county has agreed -- has reached a stipulation agreement which states that -- which is for construction additions done without proper building permits. Mr. Tackett will pay operational costs in the amount of$460.85 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing, and he will abate all violations by: Obtaining after-the-fact permits for all unpermitted construction/remodeling/additions on property, and get all inspections through a certificate of completion within 120 days of this date or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed until such time as the unpermitted construction/remodeling has been permitted, inspected and C.O.'d. Or obtain a demo permit and remove any unpermitted construction/remodeling/additions within 120 days of this date and restore the building to its original permitted state, or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed until such time as the building is restored to its permitted state and all unpermitted construction/remodeling/additions have been removed to an appropriate site for such disposal. They will cease any activity that's not in compliance with and in accordance to the Land Development Code of Unincorporated Collier County. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Sir, you read and understand the stipulation and you agree to it? MR. TACKETT: Yes, sir. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Do I have a motion for acceptance? MR. KELLY: Make a motion we accept. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: A second? MR. LARSEN: I'll second that motion. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. Page 7 April 24, 2008 MR. KELL Y: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? (No response.) MR. KEEGAN: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: That brings us to the third stipulation, which was Item No. 12, and that's BCC versus Kenneth 1. and Barbara Blocker. And we do not have the respondent here today? MR. KEEGAN: No. Ready? VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay, we'll hear from the county. Oh, we need to swear you in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. KEEGAN: This is Department Case 2007080462. Mr. Blocker and the county has agreed to a stipulation agreement in which Mr. Blocker will pay operational costs of 411.46 incurred in the prosecution of this case. And he will abate all violations by: Obtaining permits for said sign with all inspections through a certificate of completion within 120 days of this date or a fine of $150 will be imposed until such time the sign is permitted or C.O.'d; or obtain a demo permit and remove sign with all inspections through certificate of completion accomplished within 120 days of this date or a fine of $150 a day will be imposed until such time as the sign is removed. Discard sign and structure to a site suitable for disposal. They did receive their permit on 4-18-08, so. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: They're in compliance then. MR. KEEGAN: They received a demo permit. They still have, Page 8 April 24, 2008 you know, the time to remove it, get the C.O. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Since we don't have the respondent here today, can we hear a motion for acceptance? MR. KELL Y: Make a motion we accept the stipulated agreement. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Do we have a second? MR. LARSEN: I'll second that motion. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Motion carries. MR. KEEGAN: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Thank you. That brings us to the hearings, Section C. And our first case is the BCC versus James Bachmann. MS. MARKU: This case is in reference to Department Case No. 2006090001. I would like to ask if the respondent is present. For the record, the respondents are present. The respondent and the board were sent a packet of evidence, and I would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Do I have a make a motion (sic) for acceptance of the packet? MR. KELLY: Motion to accept. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Second? MR. DEAN: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All those in favor? Page 9 April 24, 2008 MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Motion carries. MS. MARKU: Violation of Ordinances 2004-41 of the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 1.04.01 and 2.02.03. Description of violation: Unauthorized prohibited above-ground pool in agricultural zoned property. Location/address where violation exists: 1180 Dove Tree Street, Naples, Florida, 34104. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: James Bachmann, 110 Dove Tree street, Naples, Florida, 34104. Date violation first observed: August 31 st, 2006. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: July 6th, 2006. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: July 20th, 2007. Date of reinspection: July 23rd, 2007. Results of reinspection: Above-ground pool not removed. At this time I would like to turn the case over to Code Enforcement Board Investigator Michelle Scavone. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Cherie', could we-- MR. FLOOD: Excuse me, may I address the board? VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: One second, please, I'm just going to have you sworn in. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. FLOOD: There's been a reference to a packet. I have no packet or never received any packet for this hearing. Page 10 April 24, 2008 Peter Flood. I have no packet. I haven't had an opportunity to review it, look at it. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Well, we're going to check on that right now and see what we need to get here. MR. WRIGHT: I'm just looking at the return receipt. It was sent directly to his client. So it should have gone to Mr. Flood, I would agree with that. And I'm not sure if it went to Mr. Flood or not for -- the packet for today's hearing, I'm not sure if it went to Mr. Flood or not. So Mr. Flood did not get that packet? MS. MARKU: No. MR. WRIGHT: One moment, please. I think the best way to handle this, if Mr. Flood's okay with it, is to continue it, to give him an opportunity to look at the packet. MR. FLOOD: Yeah, I have no idea what they've submitted. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Jean, any ideas? MS. RAWSON: Well, I don't think we can proceed ifthe attorney hasn't had a chance to review the evidence. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I would ask you, did the county know that the respondent was represented by legal counsel? VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: This case has been before us. This is a continuance from a previous month. MR. L'ESPERANCE: So we were aware? MR. FLOOD: Basically what this is is just a rehearing matter that's limited to a specific issue on the rehearing. So I have no idea what's being submitted as new -- ifthere's new evidence being submitted or whatever. I'm not trying to give anybody a hard time, I'm just -- VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: No, we want to give you due process. MR. DEAN: No, you're correct. Page 11 April 24, 2008 VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Any thoughts from the board? MR. DEAN: I think he's correct. MR. KELL Y: I agree. I'd like to make a motion that we do continue this. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I agree. MR. DEAN: I'll second that. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: So we have a motion to continue and a second. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All right, sir. MR. LARSEN: I'd just like to make a comment. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Sure. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is there a possibility that we can give Mr. Flood the paperwork today while he's here? Because if!. MR. FLOOD: He'll get -- he's good about getting it to me. He'll get it to me. MR. WRIGHT: We'll have it to him today, sir. MR. FLOOD: I just don't have it. I just don't know what it is. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: So at some point we'll discuss this with Michelle or the county will set this for a later date, maybe next be month or the following? MR. WRIGHT: Yes, sir. MR. KELLY: Mr. Chair, can I-- VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Yes. Page 12 April 24, 2008 MR. KELL Y: -- make a suggestion? Mr. Flood, if you're comfortable with the packet that you maybe receive here, maybe we can put it later in the agenda after the rest of the hearings. If you're not comfortable, we can continue it for the next month or -- MR. FLOOD: I just don't know what it entails. I mean, you know it's-- , MR. KELL Y: I believe it's the charging packet that we're talking about. And I think the information is pretty much redundant. So there's a possibility Mr. Flood may feel comfortable representing his client after reviewing it for a few minutes. MR. FLOOD: That's correct. But I have an opportunity to either object to its entry or not. MR. KELLY : Yes, sir. MR. FLOOD: This is a very limited hearing, what we have today, on a rehearing in accordance with the rules. The rehearing is specifically on what was ordered to be allowed to be reheard. We're not going to rehear the whole case today. MR. KELL Y: No, you're right. And it was just a suggestion, Mr. Chairman. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Good suggestion, but I think what we're looking at probably is their favor of being continued to a following month. MR. KELL Y: Very good. MR. FLOOD: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Thank you. All right, that brings us to Item No.2 under hearings, and that's the BCC versus Robert and Jeanie Ankney. MR. KELL Y: Mr. Chairman, I think that one was continued. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Oh, I'm sorry, you're right. Let's go to number four then, BCC versus Heriberto Perez and Page 13 April 24, 2008 Antonio Perez. Do we have a respondent here today? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: It appears that there is no respondent. We do have the county, though. Can we have the county sworn in, please. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. MARKU: This is in reference to Department Case No. CESD200800000222. I would like to ask if the respondent is present. (No response.) MS. MARKU: For the record, the respondent is not present. The respondent and the board were sent a packet of evidence and I would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A. MR. KELL Y: Make a motion to accept the packet. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Do we have a second? MR. DEAN: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? (No response.) MS. MARKU: Violation of ordinances Collier County Land Development Code 2004-41, as amended, Sections 1O.02.06(B)(l)(a) and 1 0.02.06(B)(l)( e )(i), Florida Building Code 2004 edition, Section 105.1. Description of violation: Unpermitted improvements made to the rear of structure located on RMF -6 zoned property. Location/address where violation exists: 5384 Carolina Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34113. Page 14 April 24, 2008 Name and address of owners/persons in charge of violation location: Heriberto Perez and Antonio Perez, P.O. Box 684, Marco Island, Florida, 34146. Date violation first observed: January 10th, 2008. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: January 24th, 2008. Date on which violation to be corrected: February 11 th, 2008. Date of re-inspection: March 4th, 2008. Results of re-inspection: Violation remains. At this time, I would like to turn the case over to Code Enforcement Investigator Joseph Mucha. MR. MUCHA: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Joe Mucha, property maintenance specialist, Collier County Code Enforcement. This case, CESD20080000222, is in reference to a complaint, a minimum housing complaint that we received. And I actually was on -- made a site visit to the property on January 9th. I think there was an error in the initial packet. I think it said January 10th. I was actually out there January 9th. And at that time I met with the tenant of the property and she had a few complaints. And one of them was about people living in the back. And I would like to show some photos. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Do I have a motion to accept the photos? MR. KELL Y: Make a motion to accept. MR. DEAN: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 15 April 24, 2008 VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Motion carries. MR. MUCHA: Okay, this is showing a photo of the rear of the structure. As you can see, the two different rooflines that are going on there. This would be on the left-hand side if you're looking at it from the rear. That would be on the right-hand side. And this is actually showing the entrance into that back addition. Next I would like to submit some aerial pictures from the county's property appraiser website, and also a sketch that they have on there as well for the property. This is an aerial from 2004 showing basically a house and what appears to be a porch. This is an aerial photo from 2005 where -- so sometime between 2004 and 2005 this work had been done. And this is a sketch of what the property appraiser has of the structure. It's supposed to be, you know, a single-family home with an open porch. So they haven't even recognized the additions that have been done. And I just want to show two more photographs that I took yesterday. The tenant actually let me inside there, and I just wanted to show what the insides of these areas look like. This would be I guess the northwest corner of the house. That's just basically -- it looks like they're using it as kind of an extra room. Like I saw kids toys down there and stuff, so it kind of looked like a playroom, I guess. And there's a door that goes from the main house into that room. And the room on the northeast side is being used as kind of a laundry/storage area. And you can see the existing window from the existing structure there, so -- Page 16 April 24, 2008 Essentially I met with the -- one of the owners, Heriberto Perez on January 15th. Met him at the property, went through everything that I had found, and basically at that point gave him his options. He actually bought the property in 2007, so he didn't do the additions. But, you know, at that time I did tell him it would be his responsibility to either get those additions permitted or to have them removed. And up and to this point he has not been in contact with me, no permits have been applied for, and it still exists. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Thank you. Are there any questions from the board for the county? MR. KELL Y: Joe, is there any previous permits that were pulled for any alterations or additions? MR. MUCHA: Not recent. I think the last one was like in '95 or something like that. Wasn't anything done recently. MR. KELL Y: Thanks. Nothing further. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Any comments from anyone? Otherwise we'll close the public hearing portion of this case and move to the board for consideration whether a violation exists. MR. KELL Y: Well, I make a motion -- go ahead, Larry. MR. DEAN: I make a motion a violation does exist. MR. KELLY: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: The motion carries. Page 17 April 24, 2008 Can we have the recommendation of the county, please. MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. The recommendation is for the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$363.18 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing, and to abate all violations by: Engaging the services of a general contractor licensed in Collier County to obtain required permits, related inspections and certificates of completions for all nonpermitted improvements within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of$200 a day will be imposed until all permits receive certificates of completion. Alternately, the respondent may engage the services of a general contractor licensed in Collier County to obtain demolition permit for removal of all non-permitted improvements and resulting debris to a site designated for final disposal. Licensed contractor must execute demolition permit through to an issuance of certificate of completion within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 a day until demolition permit receives certificate of completion. And the respondent must notify the Code Enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Could you please put that up on the board for us. MR. MUCHA: Sure. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Thank you. MR. KELLY: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Please. MR. KELLY: Joe, just out of curiosity, why is it necessary for a GC? Is it because it's not owner occupied? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir, it's not owner occupied. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Do we have any thoughts, any motions? MR. KELL Y: I do have a thought, Mr. Chairman. Page 18 April 24, 2008 VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Please. MR. KELL Y: I would like to also add in there that the respondent be required to immediately cease and desist using the additional structures, and to trip the breakers for electrical lines going into those rooms until the inspections have been completed. I'm just concerned ifit was never inspected what kind of hazards may exist. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: I have a thought on that. I wouldn't want to be insisting that they alter anything mechanically, you know, from this vantage point. I think that if it had to be inspected first, if you're turning off that breaker that you're not affecting another part of the house. That would be my objection to that. Without actually seeing it, I wouldn't want to be telling someone to disconnect something. MR. DEAN: I just -- quick comment is the fact that when people do things without a permit and you run electrical and things like that in a property where you put an addition on, there's a safety factor. And I know a lot of us are sitting here with our books showing -- and I can show you about six articles where in Philadelphia a woman and her children died because of an electrical fire in an unpermitted condition. And it's the same thing here in Collier County. Yeah, we give them 120 days, but what if something happens in 60 days? Did we do our job? No, we didn't. That should be cease and desist right on the spot when you have a potential electrical problem in a home where people live. Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Fair enough. Would you like to put that in the form of a motion? MR. KELLY: I can. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Please. MR. KELLY: I'd like to accept -- I make a motion that we accept the county's recommendation with an added line, and we can make this I-A, if you'd like, it doesn't matter, and that be to -- within Page 19 April 24, 2008 24 hours of receipt of order, the respondent cease and desist use of the two unpermitted additions and turn off electrical breakers to such additions. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Do we have a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. Opposed? MR. LARSEN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: The motion carries. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I do have one question. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Please. MR. L'ESPERANCE: The turning off the breakers that we discussed, is there some way we can tell that the very next day they're not turned back on? Should they be sealed in some fashion, should they be inspected once a week with an on-site visit by Code Enforcement? I'm just raising some questions. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Well, I guess the thing is, that's a real possibility that they can turn them back on. But if we've given them notice that we're concerned that that electrical is a hazard, I think we've done what we can do. MR. DEAN: I agree. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you very much. MR. KELL Y: That's true. I'd like to make a comment. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Please. MR. KELLY: I think the case was well presented. I'd like to thank the investigator. MR. MUCHA: Thank you. Page 20 April 24, 2008 VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Thank you very much. MR. MUCHA: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: That brings us to item number five under hearings, and that's BCC versus Melkys Borrego. Do we have a respondent here today? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Apparently not. Can we hear from the county, please. MS. MARKU: It's in reference to Code Enforcement Board Case No. 2007080008. The respondent and the board were sent a packet of evidence, and I would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Could I have a motion to accept the packet, please? MR. KELL Y: Make a motion to accept. MR. DEAN: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Motion carries. MS. MARKU: Violation of ordinances Collier County Ordinance 04-41, Land Development Code, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(l)(a), 10.02.06 (B)(l)(e), and 1O.02.06(B)(l)(e)(i), Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Section 22, Article 2, Subsection 104.1.3.5, and 106.1.2, Florida Building Code, 2004 edition, Sections 105.1 and 111.1. Description of violation: Garage enclosure with no permits Page 21 April 24, 2008 converted into living space with full-size bathroom, kitchen, living room, laundry room and bedrooms. Location/address where violation exists: 2414 58th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Melkys Borrego, 19906 Northwest 67th Court, Hialeah, Florida, 33015. Date violation first observed: August 10th, 2007. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: September 4th, 2007. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: October 4th, 2007. Date ofre-inspection: March 4th, 2008. Results of re-inspection: Violation remains and no permits have been obtained. At this time I would like to turn the case over to Code Enforcement Investigator Christina Perez. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Can we have her sworn in please. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. PEREZ: For the record, Collier County Senior Investigator, Christina Perez. This case is a reference to Case No. 2007080008. This case initiated as a complaint. On August 10th I spoke with the complainant and made a full inspection on August 14th, 2007. The tenant granted entry of consent into the home. Upon inspection, observed that the two-story single-family home which was permitted as living quarters on the second floor and storage and garage on the first floor. The first floor was converted into a second living quarters, including a full-size kitchen, bedrooms, bathroom and a laundry room. The Notice of Violation was posted on the site and mailed to the property owner. Page 22 April 24, 2008 Several conversations with the property owner, Melkys Borrego, has resulted in the respondent advising me that she does not have any money to correct the violation and that she doesn't even have money to pay the mortgage. I did speak with the respondent this morning at approximately 9:08 a.m., and she again advised that she is not attempting to make any changes due to a foreclosure action that has already taken place. And she also mentioned that the last time that she tried to go on the property to see what remains -- she hasn't been on the property since the tenant had been evicted; she evicted the tenant, she hasn't been on the property since -- that she wasn't able to get inside. The key locks have been changed. When I found out that it was a foreclosure and the lis pendance had been issued, I did contact the paralegal at the attorney's office and I also faxed her over the notice of violation so they can make their client aware of the violation. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Any comments from the board? Any questions of the investigator? MR. DEAN: You did say it was vacant property? MS. PEREZ: At the time -- yeah, at the time that I made the inspection, it wasn't -- there was someone living on-site. But -- MR. DEAN: As of now? MS. PEREZ: As of now, no, it's vacant. MR. DEAN: And she has no key to get in the-- MS. PEREZ: She has no key to get on the property. MR. DEAN: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Any other questions? MR. KELLY: Do you have any photos from the initial? MS. PEREZ: Yes. MR. KELLY: Make a motion to accept the photos. MR. DEAN: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All those in favor? Page 23 April 24, 2008 MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Motion carries. MS. PEREZ: These are pictures of the laundry room that was made in there. And the AC handler is in one of the bedrooms. This is the boiler and the breaker that is in two other bedrooms. So each bedroom had an AC handler, a boiler. So it was obvious it was intended for that purpose. This is where the water from the laundry room was going, which was outside. The AC handler was added as well. You can see the PVC pipe by the chairs on the bottom picture where the water was just coming out to the bottom. It wasn't properly connected. This was a window that was added, and the full-size kitchen and bathroom. And the last picture on there is the door that led from the living quarters into the garage area. And one of the bedrooms there's an outlet on the ceiling. It was in the garage area. And then she added electricity and plumbing connections for the washers. These are added AC vents into the bedrooms. On the bottom where all the shoes are, the tenant said that's where the water ran throughout the house, like on the bottom section. Those are the postings of the notices. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: So we have a situation where it's in foreclosure, it's vacant, she really has no means to -- or maybe no intention of correcting these items? MS. PEREZ: Yeah, from what I gather from her this morning, she says that actions has already taken place and she doesn't even have Page 24 April 24, 2008 access to it. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Just out of her hands. Any other questions of the investigator or the county? MR. KELLY: I do. So Christina, basically you have a home that's been converted into two separate apartments. The NOV references a permit pulled in 2005. Is that a permit for the initial structure or to do these changes that have just not been approved or C.O.'d? MS. PEREZ: Yeah, that was for the initial home, yeah. MR. KELL Y: And the initial plans don't show -- or it's not approved for -- MS. PEREZ: No. MR. KELLY: -- multi. No further, sir. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: If there are no further questions, I'll close the public hearing portion of this case and turn it to the board for consideration. MR. KELL Y: Make a motion that a violation does exist. MR. LARSEN: I second that motion. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Motion carries. Can we have the county's recommendations, please. MS. PEREZ: County recommends that the CEB order the Page 25 April 24, 2008 respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$399.19 incurred in the prosecution of this case and to abate all violations by: Obtaining, if obtainable, a Collier County building permit or demolition permit for the garage enclosure and alterations, including all inspections and obtaining a certificate of occupancy for such permit obtained within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Also, that the respondent must notify the Code Enforcement investigator within 24 hours of when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Could you put that on the board for us, please. Mr. Kelly? MR. KELL Y: Can I make a couple of suggestions? I like county's recommendation, but I would add that the op. costs paid within 30 days. And then also, let me read it again, because I didn't hear any mention of demo. as an option. I think that it was just the permit to approve what changes have been made. And if it's -- I might be speaking on something I'm not very familiar with, but from what I understand you have to get a zoning approval for multi to change it into a duplex. And if they don't get the approval, then they would have to reconvert this back into a single- family residence, and that should be an option listed in the order as well. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: Well, I think her recommendation includes if obtainable. Because -- what's the zoning district? MS. PEREZ: It's Estates. MS. ARNOLD: They wouldn't be able to get a multi-unit structure in the Estates. It's a single-family residential area. So it's noted there if obtainable. Page 26 April 24, 2008 And then there is language, I believe, to obtain a demo permit, if that's what would be required. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: I don't know if this is something that the board should be addressing or not, but since this is in foreclosure, and I'm making an assumption I suppose that it's going to be turned over back to the bank, possibly, or to an investor and they're going to be responsible for the fines that are going to be accruing, is $200 reasonable? Is that just going to scare away investors or a bank that was going to want to repair this condition? MS. ARNOLD: I think the fine is probably not really the thing that we're most concerned about. What we're most concerned about is notice to perspective owners so that they're aware that this violation is there and that's something that they need to correct. And, you know, the fine could be modified. If, you know, someone else comes in and fixes the problem it can be waived altogether. So our recommendation is just a standard recommendation for similar violations such as this. So it's up to the board, whatever the pleasure of the board is with regard to the fine. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Just because with the -- I don't think we've seen this type of foreclosure case recently. And, you know, with the way things are going, we may be seeing more of them. MS. ARNOLD: You will be seeing a lot more of them. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: And I think that is a good point, that they can come always come back and ask that the fine be abated or waived. MR. LARSEN: I'd like to make a motion that we accept the recommendation of the county. MR. DEAN: I'll second that. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. Page 27 April 24, 2008 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Motion carries. MS. PEREZ: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Thank you very much. That brings us to Case No.6, that's BCC versus Adalberto and Martha Garcia. Do we have a respondent here today? MR. GARCIA: Yes. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Please, if you'd come up and be sworn in. (Speakers were duly sworn.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay, thank you. We'll hear from the county now. MS. MARKU: This is in reference to Code Enforcement Board Case No. 2007100929. The respondent and the board were sent a packet of evidence, and I would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Do we have a motion to accept the packet, please? MR. KELL Y: Motion to accept. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Second? MR. DEAN: I'll second. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. Page 28 April 24, 2008 VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Motion carries. MS. MARKU: Violation of Ordinances 2004-41, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code, Sections 1O.02.06(B)(l)(a), 1O.02.06(B)(l)(e), 10.02.06(B)(l)(e)(i), and the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Section 22, Article 2, Section 106.1.2, and Florida Building Code, 2004 Edition, Section 105.1. Description of violation: A single-wide mobile home with two unpermitted additions being used as living space, and an unpermitted storage shed in the rear yard. Location/address where violation exists: 120 Jeepers Drive, Naples, Florida, 34112. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Adalberto and Martha Garcia. Date violation first observed: October 26th, 2007. Date owner/person in charge giving Notice of Violation: November 1st, 2007. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: November 29th, 2007. Date ofre-inspection: March 19th, 2008. Results ofre-inspection: No corrective action taken. At this time I would like to turn the case over to Code Enforcement Investigator John Santafemia. MR. SANTAFEMIA: Good morning. For the record, John Santafemia, Property Maintenance Specialist for Collier County Code Enforcement. This case involves a property, as stated, located at 120 Jeepers Drive. I received a complaint from a tenant at that location on October 26th regarding conditions of the property. The tenant no longer lived at that property, had just recently moved from the property, but he Page 29 April 24, 2008 didn't want somebody else moving into the property with the conditions being the way they were. I did go out to the location on that date and looked at the exterior of the property, noted some problems with it as far as the housing code was concerned. I contacted the owner and met him out there on November 1st and did an inspection of the property, interior and exterior. Noted both Minimum Housing violations on the property and what I considered to be permit issued problems. I issued the owner a Notice of Violation with a compliance date of November 29th, 2007. Advised him that he would be best served by having a meeting with the permitting department to find out what he needed to do to take care of those issues. As far as the Minimum Housing part of it, he did take care of those problems very quickly, right away. Those are no longer an issue at this time. However, the property itself had two additions to a single-wide mobile home and an unpermitted shed in the rear yard. He did have a meeting with the Permitting Department and Zoning and the Health Department part of it on November 8th. They advised him what he needed to do to come into compliance. I had subsequent conversations with the owner, and he had retained a contractor to take care of this problem for him. But time kept getting pushed back, pushed back. I spoke to him on February 5th, and he told me that his contractor would be submitting plans by the end of the week. I checked two weeks later and there were no plans submitted, no permits applied for. I prepared the case for CEB. I do have photographs, and I have an aerial photograph and -- photographs that I've taken that I'd like to submit as evidence. MR. KELL Y: Make a motion to accept the packet. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Do we have a second? MR. DEAN: Second. Page 30 April 24, 2008 VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Motion carries. MR. SANT AFEMIA: The first one is an aerial of the property -- MS. ARNOLD: Can I interrupt? MR. SANT AFEMIA: Please. MS. ARNOLD: Do we want to ask the respondent whether or not he's viewed the photograph and has any objections? MR. GARCIA: Okay, I don't know in can give my version of the whole kind of -- MS. ARNOLD: No, no, just -- I don't know if you want to ask him that. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Have you seen the photographs that they're going to present to us? MR. GARCIA: Because I have the photos here. You want to see it? I don't have any problem. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay. So you have no problem with us viewing them, thank you. MR. SANT AFEMIA: The first one I've labeled Exhibit A is an aerial of the property. As you can see in the -- outlined in yellow in the center is the original single-wide mobile home. And the two additions to the east and west in red are the additions to the property that I noted. The shed in the rear to the north of the property is also in red. MR. KELLY: What year was this taken? MR. SANTAFEMIA: That was taken I believe last year -- 2006. Page 31 April 24, 2008 The other photographs I've labeled composite B, which is a composite of25 photographs of the property. In the first photograph, that's just a view of the front of the property facing the -- that's from the street facing north. The bottom photograph would be the addition that was put on the west side of the structure. Photograph three just shows some debris in the rear yard. Next photograph is also the west side addition from the rear, facing south. That photograph is the rear of the single-wide mobile home. The one below it would be the east side addition from the rear. That is also the east side addition from the rear. That photograph is the shed that was at the location at the time of my inspection. Some more litter and debris on the property. Speaking to the -- what you had already touched on previously about safety issues, that is an electrical wire conduit that is running to the underside of the addition on the west side. As you can see -- well, it's hard to see in that photograph, but the conduit has broken away from the connector, and the wires there are exposed at this time. That photograph shows the addition, the front of the east side addition, that's the street side, that's what you would see from the street. There is a little screened in room that was added to the front of that. On the interior of that section is several issues. That's an electrical wiring box with exposed wires. That's also exposed wiring on the interior of that addition. That photograph is the east side addition from the street looking north. That is a sink -- these next two photographs show a sink and a bathroom that were added to the east side addition, all without permits. Page 32 April 24, 2008 Next two photographs show -- that's the living space on the east side. That photograph is showing the elevation difference between the mobile home, the existing mobile home, and the addition that was added on. These next two photographs are the west side addition. Again, if you look to the right of that photo, that top photo anyway, you can see where the mobile home kind of is above the ground level of what that addition is. That's some closet space in that addition also. Next photo shows the stairs that lead up from that west side addition into the mobile home itself. Again showing the elevation change. That door leads into the -- the stairs that you just looked at previous are to the rights of that doorway. And if you go straight through the next doorway, you're in the addition on the west side. And the last -- I'm sorry, the second to last photograph, that's a photograph from a case that was -- a previous investigator had on that property in 2006 for the unlicensed vehicle. However, I noted that in the background you can see a shed that was there in 2006, and this is the shed that is there now. So the old shed was removed and this was built since 2006 without permits. And the last photo shows the rear, again the east side addition that was put on to the rear of the mobile home. The owner, Mr. Garcia, did his due diligence. I think -- I don't know if he -- I think he ran into a money problem, to be honest with you. But at this point in time he does have two permits applied for, one for the additions and one for the shed. I did not check today. However, as of yesterday those permits were still being reviewed by the county. I believe he has called there today and got some further information about that. As far as I know, the property is still vacant. Page 33 April 24, 2008 VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Do we have any questions of the county from the board? Please. MR. KELL Y: One question. Some of the photos showed electrical outlets that were exposed. Were those some of the Minimum Housing standards that have been corrected? MR. SANT AFEMIA: No. Those are -- they would normally be a Minimum Housing issue. However, if those issues are connected to an illegal structure, I'm not going to ask him to correct that to the housing code if the structure has got to be removed. If he gets his permits, goes through the inspection process, he will have to correct that in order to pass his inspections. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Is the property occupied now? Is anybody living -- MR. SANT AFEMIA: As far as I know, my last recheck, it was not occupied. It was still vacant. MR. GARCIA: No, the property is not occupied from probably six months ago. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: One second, sir. Could you please state your name for the record. MR. GARCIA: My name for the record? Or ran the property or VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: No, what is your name. MR. GARCIA: My name is Adalberto Garcia. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay, thank you. Any other questions from the county? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: We'll hear from the respondent now. Please, present your case. MR. GARCIA: Okay. I was checking all the information and appraiser (sic) for the construction of this additions on the property Page 34 April 24, 2008 that I bought in 2005. And I was checking that addition was really in 1985, was making this. That doesn't show this kind of pictures. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay, would you like to enter those photos into evidence so we can -- MR. GARCIA: Yes. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: -- look at them on the board? Okay, can we have a motion? MR. KELLY: Yeah, I make a motion that we accept the images. MR. DEAN: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Motion carries. Can you maybe put those up on the board so we can see them, please? MR. GARCIA: And I make this letter with my architect that is working with me for solve the problem where I explain what happens with this property. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: There's been a motion to accept these? MR. KELL Y: I amend the motion to accept the letter from the architect as well and any further documentation. MR. DEAN: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 35 April 24, 2008 MR. KELLY: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Motion carries. MS. ARNOLD: Is this the part that you want? VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: What part of these photos do you want us to take a look at? MR. GARCIA: This part. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Looks like toward the center, right next to that tree. If you want to step over to where the photos are so you can point out exactly where we want to be looking. MR. SANT AFEMIA: And if I may interject just briefly, part of the thing that he was told to do during his permitting meeting was -- is to go back and try to get some old aerial photos to determine when these changes were made that so he would know what code he would have to comply with as far as the building code. I believe that's the direction he's going with these. MR. GARCIA: Okay. The pictures that show here are this one. That's a 1995 -- 1985. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: And this photo's also 1985? MR. GARCIA: Yes -- no, this is 1989. And this -- and this addition was ready (sic) when I bought the property. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: And you purchased the property when? MR. GARCIA: In 2005. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: 2005. Thank you. MR. GARCIA: That's 1989. MS. ARNOLD: Same picture? Page 36 April 24, 2008 MR. GARCIA: Same picture. MS. ARNOLD: And did you want to see the other --letter? VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Yes, please. If you want to put that up on the board. This is the letter from the architect? Is this the letter from the architect? Or this is -- MR. GARCIA: Yes. Weare doing this letter when I was working with my architect, because my architect and me was trying to fix the problem in January, but when we was ready for submit the papers in Collier County, we can do not thus the submission, because that was my first residence, that was a problem. And I was looking for a contractor that wasn't -- to do the papers and everything for me. And I no was the money ready because I was checking some contractors and I don't have money. And the resource that I find it was to refinance my property and take an equity line for do this kind of process. And this process of my refinance, I finish the refinance in March 17th. And I talked with Mr. Santafemia when I was ready for -- with the money. And he gave me one week. This week was on the 19 and 21 March to submit the papers. And when I submit the papers to my contractor for take the permits and everything, I called to Mr. Santafemia, and my contractor was trying to talk with Mr. Santafemia, and he can't do that. I don't know why. And my contractor submit the papers in March 24. And I have a copy there. That was submitted in 1924 (sic). And now in the process that we have for take the permits, I have the evidence here, and I was yesterday in the Collier County. One of the papers, that issuance (sic) is really only we are waiting for the papers and send it from this for make the payment. In the order, they told me that was ready, but they submitted the papers to second review. And now all the papers in second review. And they told me that probably for next week I can take the two permits. One permit probably for tomorrow. They told me, this person Page 37 April 24, 2008 there. MS. ARNOLD: This is from the county's system. Just showing you what the status of that one permit, under that number, 2008031477. And he's also indicating that this is the other status of the second permit that he needs. It's in second review. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Any questions of the respondent from the board? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Sir, is there anything else you would like to tell the board? MR. GARCIA: Excuse me? VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Anything else you'd like to present to us? Anything else you'd like to tell us? MR. GARCIA: I think so that is all for me. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay. You can go over to the other stand, if you'd like. If there are no other questions of the county or the respondent, I'll close the public hearing portion of this case and turn this over to the board for consideration. Any comments or -- MR. LARSEN: Well, I move that we find a violation does exist. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Do we have a second on that? MR. DEAN: I'll second that. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? Page 38 April 24, 2008 (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Motion carries. Can we hear the county's recommendation, please. MR. SANT AFEMIA: County recommendations are that the board order the respondent to pay all operational costs of $416.05 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing and abate all violations by obtaining all required permits, inspections and certificates of occupancies for all unpermitted additions and alterations within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Alternatively, the respondent may obtain a demolition permit and remove all unpermitted additions and alterations, obtain required inspections and certificate of completion within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. The respondent will also notify Code Enforcement investigator, myself, when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. MR. LARSEN: I move that we accept the recommendation of the county. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Do we have a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. MR. KELLY: I have a comment. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Please. MR. KELLY: My only concern is that 120 days, ifhe runs into any review issues or perhaps additional work that may need to be done to bring this to a certain code level, that 120 days might not be enough time. Since the building's not occupied, perhaps a hazard does not exist to any persons. Maybe we should take the step now to grant him a little bit more time in hopes that he can get it done in less time. But if not, he certainly has that legally. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Do you have a time frame Page 39 April 24, 2008 you're considering, Mr. Kelly? MR. KELLY: My initial thought was six months. MR. LARSEN: I took into consideration that. And based upon the presentation of the Code Enforcement investigator it appeared that the violation was first observed on October 26th, 2007 and the owner was first notified on November 1st, 2007. And it doesn't seem to be a great deal of progress. I understand that the -- there are applications pending with the county. So I took that into consideration. And I just thought that basically perhaps if they can't achieve it in 120 days from today's hearing that, you know, we might be back in the same situation. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Well, certainly if they can't achieve it in that time they're going to come back and ask for more time. And it is nice to sort of take care of this housekeeping up front. MR. DEAN: But also it's nice that a progress report, 120 days, then he comes back, we know where we're at, instead of waiting six months and seeing nothing done. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Very good point, too. MR. KELLY: Mr. Chairman, I'd feel more comfortable if when -- if we pass this motion if you just explain that to him so he completely understands that he has the opportunity to come back. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Very good. So we had a motion and we had a second, I believe? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, one other question? VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Please. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Perhaps I'm missing something in the recommendation by the county, but I see nothing that prohibits the respondent from having the property occupied, from renting it out during this process. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Well, he doesn't have a certificate of occupancy. Page 40 April 24, 2008 MR. L'ESPERANCE: True. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: So I don't -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: But is that a clear message to the respondent? VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Would someone like to amend the motion to state that this property may not be occupied? MR. LARSEN: I'll amend my motion that we accept the recommendation with the proviso that the property may not be occupied without a certificate of occupancy being issued by the county . MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: And I can see the respondent just wants our attention for one second. So go ahead and just listen to -- MR. GARCIA: Okay. The other thing that I want to do is when I say three years (sic) is that -- and I am not thinking use that additions for living space. I am thinking use for storage. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay, very good. MR. GARCIA: For thats is the permits that I am trying to taken. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All right, then. So we have an amendment to the motion that the property will not be occupied until all the work is complete and the certificate of occupancy is obtained. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay, the motion carries. Page 41 April 24, 2008 Just so you understand that you do have 120 days in order to get your occupancies, get this work done, or there'll be a $200 a day fine. And that you do have to pay the operational costs at this time. Please understand too that if you do run into problems with obtaining permits or just getting the work completed that you can come back to us and ask us for some relief from those fines or additional time. But we want to make sure that within 120 days that you are doing what you can to get this completed. MR. GARCIA: Okay. And one question. I need talk to somebody for do the inspections in this case. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: One more time, sir? I'm sorry? MR. GARCIA: The inspections -- I need call to Mr. Santafemia for the inspections that everything that I am doing inside the property? VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: You can notify him and also the building inspectors who will actually be coming out and physically inspecting the work. MR. GARCIA: Yeah, because I was talking with Mr. Santafemia that my architect is responsible of the affidavit, and she need to check also the progress on this kind of case. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Very good. Thank you very much for coming today and good luck, and we hope that you're able to comply. THE COURT REPORTER: The respondent has taken the exhibits. Do you want them to stay with the record? MS. ARNOLD: He gave me the ones that they entered. The only ones that he took back is the building -- the CD plus, the county's record. So he has turned them in. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Very good. All right, thank you very much. All right, I believe that brings us to number eight. Okay, Tereso Page 42 April 24, 2008 Bautista and Emiliana Lopez Vasquez. Do we have a respondent here today? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Apparently not. MS. MARKU: This case -- VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Can we please hear from the county? MS. MARKU: This case is in reference to Code Enforcement Board Case No. 2006100651. The respondent and the board were sent a packet of evidence and I would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Do we have a motion for accepting the package? MR. KELL Y: Motion to accept. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Second, please? MR. LARSEN: I second it. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Motion carries. MS. MARKU: Violation of Ordinance 04-41, as amended, of the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 10.02.06(B)(l)(a), I 0.02.06(B)(l)( d), I 0.02.06(B)(l)( d)(i). Description of violation: Converted garage into living area and added a bathroom without Collier County building permits. Location/address where violation exists: 3545 23rd Avenue Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34117. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Tereso Bautista and Emiliana Lopez Vasquez, 3545 23rd Page 43 April 24, 2008 Avenue Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34117. Date violation first observed: November 3rd, 2006. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: November 3rd, 2006. Date on which violation to be corrected: November 28th, 2006. Date ofre-inspection: December 7th, 2006. Results ofre-inspection: The violation exists. Prepare for Code Enforcement Board. At this time, I would like to turn the case over to Code Enforcement Investigator Patrick Baldwin. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. BALDWIN: This case originated as a complaint. It came directly from Jeff Letourneau, Supervisor Jeff Letourneau. I went out there and I met with the owner on 11-3-2006, I observed that the garage had been converted into living space. There's a bathroom. There was a kitchen at that time. The kitchen has now been removed. And there was also electrical, more electrical work and an added bedroom. The owner at that time stated that he had just recently bought the house, but -- and the work had been done previous. But it is obvious that some of the work had been just recently done. Not from the owner. I have some pictures. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Do we have a motion to accept the pictures? MR. DEAN: Motion to accept the pictures. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Second, please? MR. KELLY: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. Page 44 April 24, 2008 VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Motion carries. MR. BALDWIN: First picture is the outside of the structure. Second picture is the same. Next picture is a part -- that's where some of the kitchen was. And the front right as you walk in, that would be to the north, northwest side of the addition. And that's where the kitchen was. Another view of that. There's the full bath that was added. And there was the bedroom that was recently done. The work that the owner had done -- this was built prior to the owner buying the house. The recent work that the owner did was mostly the tile work and painting. He was doing some improvements. The preexisting plumbing and electrical work had been done prior to the owner buying the house. On 12-22 the owner met with building department, myself, his contractor, Collier permitting, and the zoning department and we had a preap. meeting. He understood everything he needed to do. And on -- I'm sorry, he met with them on 12-7-2006. On 12-22 he had applied for a permit. Permit No. 2006122085. That permit has since expired. It had failed the health department plan review. And the owner since has put this property into pre-foreclosure. He's going to do nothing with it. So that's where we stand today. I've made several calls to the owner over the last three months and his phone has since been disconnected. I have a copy of the permit, if you'd like to view that as well. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Yes, that would be fine. We need a motion to accept. MR. KELL Y: Motion to accept. Page 45 April 24, 2008 MR. DEAN: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Motion carries. And you say this is the permit that has since expired? MR. BALDWIN: Yes. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay. Do we have any questions of the county? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Having no questions of the county, I'd like to close the public hearing portion of this case and entertain a motion for if a violation exists. MR. LARSEN: I move that a violation exists. MR. DEAN: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Motion carries. Can we hear the county's recommendations, please. MR. BALDWIN: Yes. That the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs in the total of $403.70 that incurred in the Page 46 April 24, 2008 prosecution of this case; and abate violations by obtaining, if obtainable, a Collier County building permit or a demolition permit for the converted garage, requesting all inspections and obtaining a certificate of occupancy for such permit obtained within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Two, the respondent must notify the Code Enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated within 24 hours of abatement in order to conduct a final inspection. I'd like to add one more thing to that. Because the permit has already been applied for, we are asking for maybe 60 days for this. And it's in pre-foreclosure, so this would be the same as the previous case today with the fine amount for the new owner that would purchase the property. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Would you put that on the board for us so we can see it? MR. BALDWIN: (Complies.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: So you're looking to change that to within 60 days? MR. BALDWIN: Yes, sir. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Do I hear any comment from the board? MR. LARSEN: I move that we accept the recommendation of the county as submitted. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: With the change from 120 days to 60 days? MR. LARSEN: Yes. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay. MR. DEAN: I'll second that. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All right, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. Page 47 April 24, 2008 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Motion carries. I suppose we're in the same situation as before. Thank you very much. MR. BALDWIN: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: That brings us to Case No. 10 under hearings. That's BCC versus 2319, LLC. Do we have a respondent for the -- MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, before we move forward, I have one minor change to the agenda. Under imposition of fines, I'd like to -- the staff requests a continuance of 5-A-2. There's some issues that the respondent has brought up that we want to clarify before moving forward. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: And that's RPK Enterprises? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Do I need to make that continuance now? Is somebody waiting? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, he is. MR. DEAN: What one is that law? VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: That would be No.2 under old business. MS. RAWSON: You can just remove it from the agenda. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, we could withdraw it. MR. DEAN: Motion to remove it from our agenda. MR. KELLY: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All those in favor? Page 48 April 24, 2008 MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay, we'll be removing that from today's agenda. I'm sure it will be scheduled for later. Anything else, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: No. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay. Again, back to Case No. 10, BCC versus 2319, LLC. We apparently do not have a respondent here today. Okay, we can swear in the county and hear from them, please. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. MARKU: This is in reference to Code Enforcement Board Case No. 2007040334. The respondent and the board were sent a packet of evidence and I would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Do we have a motion to accept, please? MR. KELL Y: Motion to accept. MR. LARSEN: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Motion carries. MS. MARKU: Violation of Ordinances 04-41, the Land Page 49 April 24, 2008 Development Code, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(l)(a), 10.02.06(B)(l)(e), and 10.02.06(B)(l)(e)(i). Description of violation: Construction/remodeling/additions of office space done without proper building permits. Location/address where violation exists: 2319 J&C Boulevard, Naples. Folio No. 00245320008. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: 2319, LLC, A. T. Connick as registered agent for 411 East Hillsboro Boulevard, Deerfield Beach, Florida, 33441. Registered agent replaced by Cynthia N. Deshields, 2316 Trade Center Way, Naples, Florida, 34109, and Steven C. Deshields, manager, 2360 Trade Center Way, Naples, Florida, 34109, property owner. Date violation first observed: April 12th, 2007. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: September 18th, 2007. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: September 18th, 2007. Date ofre-inspection: February 7th, 2008. Results of re-inspection: Violation remains. At this time I would like to turn the case over to Code Enforcement Investigator Thomas Keegan. MR. KEEGAN: Okay, Code Case 2007040334. This case actually has come into compliance on April 9th, 2008. Operational costs of 518.78 have been paid on April 10th. The county would just request that a finding of fact that a violation did exist be issued from the board. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Do we have any comment from the board? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All right. If that's all that we have, we'll close the public hearing portion of this case. And do we Page 50 April 24, 2008 have a finding of fact, please. MR. KELL Y: I make a motion that a violation did exist. MR. DEAN: I'll second. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Motion carries. Can we have the county's recommendation? MR. KEEGAN: Well, the violation's abated. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Abated. So it's just going to be looking at the fine. Okay. And there is no fine. MR. KEEGAN: No, just the operational costs. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Good enough. That one went too quick. I missed it there. Thank you. That brings us to Case No. 11, the BCC versus Mark S. Bailey. Do we have a respondent here today? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Apparently not. Can we hear from the county, please. MS. MARKU: This is in reference to Code Enforcement Board Case No. 2007100545. The respondent and the board were sent a packet of evidence, and I would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Can we have a motion to accept the packet, please. MR. KELL Y: Motion to accept. Page 51 April 24, 2008 MR. DEAN: I second that. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Motion carries. MS. MARKU: Violation of Ordinances 04-41, Collier County Land Development Code, as amended, Sections 2.02.03, 4.05.01(A), and 2004-58, the property maintenance code, as amended, Section 16.2.N. Description of violation: Using designated parking spaces for storage. Location/address where violation exists: 4073/4081 Mercantile Avenue, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 00278320004. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Mark S. Bailey, P.O. Box 4546, Winter Park, Florida, 32793-4546. Property owner: Precast Concepts, 5401 Jaeger Road, Naples, Florida, 34109. Daniel A. Russetto as registered agent, business. Date violation first observed: October 5th, 2007. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: January 17th, 2007. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: January 30th, 2007. Date ofre-inspection: February 27th, 2008. Results of re- inspection: Violation remains. At this time I would like to turn the case over to Code Enforcement Investigator Thomas Keegan. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. KEEGAN: This case is also in compliance. It was -- the violation was abated on April 16th, 2008. The operational costs of Page 52 April 24, 2008 406.51 have been paid. Once again, the county is requesting that a finding -- that there was a violation on the property from the board. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Any questions? MR. LARSEN: I have a question. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Yes, sir. MR. LARSEN: Date violation was first observed was October 5th, 2007, and the re-inspection was on February 27th, 2008. And the violation remained at that time. Is there any explanation as to why they didn't complete the -- abate the violation before that? MR. KEEGAN: I do not know. It's not my case. MR. LARSEN: I apologize. I realize it's Kitchell Snow's. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, also another question I have is first observed October 5th, 2007. Given notice of violation January 17th, 20077 VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: You're wondering why so much time was -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Are the dates backwards? MS. ARNOLD: Probably -- the January date's probably 2008 and yeah, instead of '07. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Not six then. It's not -- so we'll just change that here. Any further questions from the board? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: If not, we'll close the public hearing and can we ask that a motion of the violation existed? MR. KELL Y: Make a motion the violation did exist. MR. LARSEN: Second it. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 53 April 24, 2008 MR. KELLY: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Motion carries that a violation did exist. And operational costs have been paid and there's no fine. Thank you very much. MR. KEEGAN: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: That brings us to the last of our hearings, and that's No. 13, BCC versus TT of Pine Ridge, Inc. Do we have a respondent here today? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Apparently not. Can we please hear from the county. MS. MARKU: This is in reference to Code Enforcement Board CES 20080002403. The respondent and the board were sent a packet of evidence and I would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A. MR. KELLY: Make a motion to accept. MR. DEAN: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Motion carries. MS. MARKU: Violation of Ordinances 04-41, the Land Development Code, as amended, Sections 5.06.04(B)(2), 5.06.04(B)(4), and 5.06.05(B)(5). Page 54 April 24, 2008 Description of violation: Construction signs displayed improperly on property. Location/address where violation exists: 3650 Pine Ridge Road, Folio No. 00287560004. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: TT of Pine Ridge, Incorporated. Terry Taylor as registered agent, 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite B-400, West Palm Beach, Florida, 33401, property owner. Date violation first observed: August 17th, 2007. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: November 5th, 2007. Case No. 2007080811. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: November 22nd, 2007. Date ofre-inspection: February 22nd, 2008. Results of re-inspection: Recurring violation. At this time I would like to turn the case over to Code Enforcement Investigator Thomas Keegan. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. KEEGAN: Once again, this case has come into compliance. The violation was abated on April 8th, 2008, and operational costs of 360.09 were paid on April 9th, 2008. The county requests that a finding of fact from the board be issued. And that's it. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Any questions from the board? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: If not, I close the public hearing portion of this case. And can we have a motion? MR. LARSEN: I move that a violation did exist. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Second, please? MR. DEAN: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All those in favor? Page 55 April 24, 2008 MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Motion carries. Thank you very much. MR. KEEGAN: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: That brings us to the end of the hearings for today. That moves us into old business, motion for imposition of fines and liens. We're going to hear these individually; is that correct? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Okay. The first one is BCC versus Yunier Ortiz. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, this case was brought before the Code Enforcement Board on November 29th, 2007. At that time a violation was found. And the attached order is provided for your review. The respondent has complied with that order. And the only thing outstanding is the operational costs in the amount of $338.93. MR. KELLY: I make a motion that we impose the order. MR. DEAN: I'll second. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? Page 56 April 24, 2008 (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: The motion carries. Next case, Case No.2, was continued, and we agreed to continue that. Number three is BCC versus Ricardo and Magna Munoz. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, this case was heard on just this January 24th, 2008. The finding of fact is attached for your review. And a violation was found. The respondent complied at the time of the hearing. And again, the only thing outstanding is the operational costs in the amount of $270.28. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: We do not have a respondent here today. Do we have any questions from the board, or a motion? MR. LARSEN: I move that we accept the recommendation of the county and impose an order imposing the lien in the amount of $270.28. MR. DEAN: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Motion carries. The next item is No.4, BCC versus Sergio Valencia. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, this case was heard on February 28th, 2008. And the order entered into for violation has been provided for your reVIew. The respondent has not complied with the board's order, and Page 57 April 24, 2008 fines have accrued at a rate of $100 per day between March 31st, 2008 through April 8th, 2008 for a total of $800; and continue to accrue because the violation has not been complied with. Additionally, operational costs in the amount of $847.09 has not been paid. So we're requesting at this time to impose a fine of $1,647.09. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Apparently we do not have a respondent today. Do I hear a motion from the board? MR. LARSEN: I'll move that we accept the recommendation of the county to issue an order imposing a lien in the amount of $1,647.09. MR. DEAN: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Opposed? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Motion carries. Okay, that brings us to the end of old business. We don't have any motions for reduction or abatement of fines or liens today on the agenda. We do have one item of new business that was added to the agenda and that is that one of our board members, Charles Martin, has not been here in three months and they are, from my understanding, unexcused absences. MS. ARNOLD: And Mr. Chairman, I have been reading my e-mail and see that I received an e-mail from Mr. Martin this morning Page 58 April 24, 2008 asking for his resignation. So we need -- I guess the board need not take position on, you know, bringing this to the board. What I'll do is I'll submit that to the Board of County Commissioners and they'll probably advertise for his vacancy. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: We'd like to thank Mr. Martin for his service. Okay, we don't have anything else on the agenda that I can see. No reports, no comments. We have a next meeting date of May 22nd. And if there is nothing else -- MR. DEAN: I had one quick item on comments. If you don't mind. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Please. MR. DEAN: I know some of my fellow board members probably feel like I do. That some of these issues come up, I saw here '04, and here it's '08 and we're making some decisions. And then some things are in '07 and last meeting was in '06. It would probably be nice if -- or should we do it on individual basis, but Code Enforcement bring us up to date why something took a year or two years in some circumstances. MS. ARNOLD: Sure. MR. DEAN: Because when I see four years I think what are-- you know, are we missing the boat here. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. DEAN: Because I go back to that electrical problems and things. So I'm just curious, for information, if that wouldn't be helpful to our board. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. MR. LARSEN: I agree. I think it's vitally important to understand why, you know, there was no compliance when they were first notified, you know, significantly in advance of the hearing. Page 59 April 24, 2008 MS. ARNOLD: I think a lot -- I think it's got to be handled on a case-by-case basis. Because in some case the respondent may have been making progress at one point and then just stopped. But I think it's a fair request. The investigator should provide you with that information. MR. LARSEN: Well, some of the investigators did say that they had communications. And sometimes they were -- the respondents were non-responsive to the investigators, other times they worked with them, and then of course they just, you know, seemingly dropped off the face of the earth. I know two cases here today where the investigator said that basically they reached out to the property owners and there was no response. MR. DEAN: Thank you. I'll make a motion to adjourn. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Do we have a second? MR. KELLY: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KRAENBRING: Motion carries. Page 60 April 24, 2008 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:38 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD RICHARD KRAENBRING, Vice-Chairman These minutes approved by the board on presented or as corrected as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. NOTTINGHAM. Page 61