Loading...
CEB Minutes 06/26/2008 R June 26, 2008 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida June 26,2008 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: Gerald Lefebvre Larry Dean Kenneth Kelly (Excused) Edward Larsen Robert Kaufman Richard Kraenbring (Excused) Lionel L'Esperance George Ponte ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Bendisa Marku, Operations Coordinator Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA Date: June 26, 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 MAYBE 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 TillS 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, WillCH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WillCH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING TillS RECORD. 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - May 22, 2008 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. MOTIONS 1. Motion for Re-Hearing BCC vs. Emma Houston CEB NO. 2007-114 2. Unopposed Motion to Dismiss without Prejudice BCC vs. Patriot Square, LLC CEB NO. 2007060341 3. Motion for Extension of Time BCC vs. Bart and Sandi Chernoff CEB NO. 2007-105 B. STIPULATIONS C. HEARINGS 1. BCC vs. AMG Properties, Inc 2. BCC vs. Caribe Investments of Naples, Inc 3. BCC vs. Erika Labra and Isidra Trejo 4. BCC vs. Dagoberto and Maria Saldana 5. BCC vs. Rufina Cruz and Moises Hernandez 6. BCC VS. Jaime and Damarys Oliva 7. BCC VS. Jaime and Damarys Oliva 8. BCC VS. Affordable Whistler's Cove L TD 9. BCC VS. Barron Collier Partnership CEB NO. 2007090454 CEB NO. 2007030836 CEB NO. 2007040147 CEB NO. CESDZ0080000885 CEB NO. CESDZ0080001629 CEB NO. 2006090513 CEB NO. 2007080436 CEB NO. 2007060558 CEB NO. 2007070830 5. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. BCC vs. Willie L. and Marjorie Davis 2. BCC vs. Emma Houston 3. BCC vs. Frank Fernandez 4. BCC vs. Mahir Trading Corporation 5. BCC vs. A. L. Petroleum, Ine 6. BCC vs. Cynthia Aurelio Markle CEB NO. 2007-68 CEB NO. 2007-114 CEB NO. 2006120290 CEB NO. 2007020481 CEB NO. 2007040340 CEB NO. 2006060005 B. Motion for Reduction/Abatement of Fines/Liens 6. NEW BUSINESS 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens B. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office 1. BCC vs. Albert Houston, SR 2. BCC vs. Albert Houston, SR 3. BCC VS. Eduardo and Maria Rodriguez CEB NO. 2007-63 CEB NO. 2007-64 CEB NO. 2007-80 8. REPORTS 9. COMMENTS 10. NEXT MEETING DATE - July 31, 2008 11. ADJOURN June 26, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board meeting to order for June 26, 2008. Notice, the respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation unless additional time is granted by the board. Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes, unless the time is adjusted by the chairman. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe 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 the 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. Can I have the roll call. MS. MARKU: Good morning. Bendisa Marku, Collier County Code Enforcement Operations Coordinator. Mr. Edward Larsen? MR. LARSEN: Present. MS, MARKU: Mr. George Ponte? MR. PONTE: Here. MS. MARKU: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Here, MS. MARKU: Mr. Kenneth Kelly has an excused absence. Mr. Larry Dean? MR, DEAN: Here. MS. MARKU: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR, L'ESPERANCE: Present. MS. MARKU: Mr. Richard Kraenbring has an excused absence. Mr. Robert Kaufman? Page 2 June 26, 2008 MR. KAUFMAN: Here. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Two things. First of all, I'd like to welcome our new member, Robert Kaufman. And second of all, this is going to be Michelle Arnold's last meeting. She's been with code enforcement for 10 years. And I've had the privilege to be on the board for six of those years and enjoyed working with her. And if any of the board members would like to thank her, they can go ahead. MR. PONTE: Well, I certainly want to thank Michelle for everything she's done. I think her organizational skills are extraordinary. And she certainly has helped this board and helped me in a way by giving me something to always remember, and that is that ugly is not illegal. Thank you, Michelle, for everything. MS. ARNOLD: Thank you. MR. DEAN: I'm really shocked, because you're a great inspiration to board people and the community. And can we change your mind in any way? MS. ARNOLD: I think it's a done deal. MR. DEAN: Can I ask you where you're going? MS. ARNOLD: I'm going to be the Alternate Transportation Mode Director. So I'm going to go to the Transportation Department MR. DEAN: Oh, so you won't be-- MS. ARNOLD: -- starting Tuesday. I'm not going to go too far. I'll still be around. MR. DEAN: So we can still come by and say hi. MS. ARNOLD: That's right. MR. PONTE: If you take the bus. MS. ARNOLD: That's right, take the bus. MR. LARSEN: It's been an honor and a privilege to know you and to serve on this board with you. Page 3 June 26, 2008 MS. ARNOLD: Thank you. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Michelle, thank you so much for your service. You're just incredible. We all appreciate it so much. MS. ARNOLD: Thank you. And I like the new mustache. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. You're the first one to say anything. MS. RAWSON: In could say something. One of the reasons that I've been the attorney for this board for so many years is because of Michelle Arnold. She's the finest code enforcement director I've ever known. And she's so professional and she does such a good job. It's been such a pleasure to work with her. That's one of the reasons that I've hung around to represent you guys for so long is because of my relationship and my very pleasant working relationship and my respect for Michelle Arnold. So we wish her well. MS. ARNOLD: Thank you so much. MR. PONTE: I make a motion we all stand and give her applause. (Applause.) MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion. MS. ARNOLD: I really appreciate it. I was going to hope that all of the thanks and gratitude was going to stay till the end of the meeting but -- so I could keep my composure throughout the meeting until the end. It's been my pleasure to work with all of you and all of the other prior board members and Jean and our court reporter, who's been a consistent fixture in these proceedings for over the years that I've been here for over 10 years. And all of my staff, they've been wonderful. And I hope that you all have recognized the improvements that I have made to the department over the years. And just thank you for all of your help and dedication to this community, really, because I think all of the hard work that you all do is why Collier County is as Page 4 June 26, 2008 beautiful as it is. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thanks. Do we have any changes to the agenda? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, we do. We have several stipulations. Item 4.C.2 is a stipulation. It will become 4.A.l -- or 4.B.l. Item 4.C.3 is also stipulation. It will become 4.B.2. And item 4.C.5 is also stipulated. It will become 4.B.3. We also have another stipulation, item number eight -- 4.C.8 will become 4.BA. And item nine under hearings is going to be continued to next month's hearing. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I have a motion to approve the agenda? MR. DEAN: Motion to approve the agenda. MR. PONTE: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Motion is passed. Approval of the minutes of the last month's meeting, May 22nd, 2008. Do I have a motion? MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Second? MR. LARSEN: I second it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. Page 5 June 26, 2008 MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Abstain. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We have one abstaining. We're going to move on to public hearings. Motion. And the first motion for rehearing will be BCC versus Emma Houston. MS. ARNOLD: You all have received a letter from Ms. Houston requesting a rehearing. Ms. Houston is not here today. She has not met the time requirements for a motion for rehearing __ CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's what I was going to ask, okay MS. ARNOLD: -- and for those reasons, staff is objecting to that request. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That was my first question, if she met the time requirements. We also have her further down the list for motion of imposition of fines also. MS. ARNOLD: That's correct. And that's a staff request. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Do I have any discussion from the board? Or -- the county objects, correct? MR. SANT AFEMIA: Correct. MR. LARSEN: I make a motion to deny the motion for rehearing. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 6 June 26, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Okay, the next one will be unopposed motion to dismiss without prejudice, BCC versus Patriot Square, LLC. MS. ARNOLD: And that's the county's request. We are just asking that the existing order that's on the record be dismissed without prejudice and the item will come back. There was an issue with the notification in that particular case. MR. LARSEN: I make a motion we approve the county's request. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. The next one will be a motion for extension of time. BCC versus Bart and Sandi Chernoff. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. MR. CHERNOFF: I go first? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, it's your request. MR. CHERNOFF: Okay. This was a -- I've been -- this is my third time here. I bought a home with illegal structures on it, which I Page 7 June 26, 2008 found out when I got violated on an anonymous phone call for an apartment I built. Litigating -- you know, there's stamp -- there's reasons I built it. I had a very sick mother-in-law and I could not do it legally, so I did build this and I take full responsibility. We've already gone through all this. I've asked for time for the lawsuit. I am suing the previous owner who built the main thing that I'm being violated for, which is the pole barn, which is a very big structure that I'm trying to resolve. That's why I asked for time. Originally Supervisor Mitchell was there with Code Enforcement Board, who gave me time as long as I didn't sit on this thing and I moved forward. After that, a new supervisor came in and said not on my shift. You're not getting any more time. And that's when I came in front of the code board. You guys granted me six months with my attorney, which she gave me something to read. I'll read in a second. Gave me six months. I have no control over the time. It's a lawsuit. I can't tell the judge when to hear the case, I can't tell the judge when to do what. I'm at the mercy of the court and of you guys. The six months came. You gave me three months additional, which originally Mr. Kelly, he's not here today, but he expected it to take over a year. And at that time he told me come back. As long as you come back beforehand we shouldn't have a problem granting you time, again, as long as things move forward. I do have an attorney, she's not here today. She has asked me to read this. To the members of Code Enforcement Board, please accept my apology for being absent from the hearing. I am out of town on a long scheduled commitment which I could not change when Mr. Chernoff asked me to request another appearance. Even though Mr. Chernoff is prepared to present his argument to Page 8 June 26, 2008 the board, I want to give the board an update to the status of litigation. The former owner has admitted under oath in deposition to building the pole barn without a permit. We have provided the former owner with an estimate for demolition, rebuilding of the pole barn, and have offered to review any bid that he might get for the demo and replacement. The matter has been noticed for trial, but per requirements of the court we must mediate first, which my office has attempted to coordinate in the mediation. Counsel for the former owner filed a notice of withdrawal from the case. We have set the mediation directly with the former owner by mail for July 24th but have not been able to confirm with the former owner personally that he will attend. Should he fail to attend, we will move for default and ask the court to proceed to trial for determination of damages. We had hoped, because both parties were represented by counsel that clearly saw that as a matter appropriate for settlement, that we would settle the matter without trial and meet the board's deadlines. It is my guess it will not settle and will proceed to trial on the amount of damages. Mr. Chernoff is prepared to answer the board's questions and state his ability to comply with the board's order without payment from the party that build the nonconforming structures. Thank you, Colleen McAllister. Again, I've done everything everybody's asked of me. The structure that I built I take full responsibility for. It's all tied into one. I do have an engineer working on what I built, which will become legal as -- not an apartment. My in-laws have passed and it won't be an apartment anymore, it will be a storage unit. It is not in use. I've invited Mr. Morad out to the property several times to confirm that I'm doing nothing wrong. I've complied. I need time. That's what this is about. My hands are tied. I have Page 9 June 26, 2008 a counsel. We're not sitting on it, she's moving. Again, like Colleen said, under deposition the owner has admitted he built it, which basically, you know, he falsified the sale. I'm not trying to get my house back to him, I just want to get what is mine, what I bought. As far as the apartment, again I'm ready to move on that. I have an engineer ready. But it's all tied into one now. And that's where I am. I need more time. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Investigator? MR. MORAD: For the record, Ed Morad, Code Enforcement Investigator. The county respectfully denies this motion, and for several reasons, several facts. As Mr. Chernoff has pointed out, he's been responsible, not just for -- the pole barn wasn't his responsibility. However, the dwelling unit and the large exercise studio was. And that's what brought attention to the pole barn, per se, that construction. This case started March 12th, 2006, well over two years ago. And the violation, as he pointed out, still exists. There's not been a penny of fines imposed on this for more than two years. The respondent has tried to -- in October of 2006 he filed a civil action against the previous owner. The judge denied the civil action. The respondent can reduce the width of that pole barn and that would hence eliminate the encroachment issue, and then he could proceed with his permitting process. But he hasn't taken that opportunity as of yet. And still can take that opportunity. The most important fact of this whole thing is, as pointed out in the respondent's second motion for extension, number eight, the board cautioned that another extension would not be granted. So we hope that you would keep your word on this. MR. CHERNOFF: Can I respond to him? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sure. Page 10 June 26, 2008 MR. CHERNOFF: First of all, the court never told me that my action was denied or we wouldn't be here today with Colleen. The lawsuit has continued -- MR. MORAD: This is the document that you gave me as proof of filing that civil action against the property owner. MR. CHERNOFF: Right. MR. MORAD: Then you also told me in November that year, 2006, that the judge denied this judgment, and that's what I'm going on. MR. CHERNOFF: No, the lawsuit has gone forward. And I have counsel. She isn't here today, but I have counsel and it has gone forward and we're close. MR. MORAD: Correct. You got counsel after attempting to do this judgment on your own. MR. CHERNOFF: Right, because things were happening where I needed counsel. I was being taken advantage of with this. So I had to get counsel. I couldn't afford counsel. And I'm very lucky Mrs. McAllister has taken this the way she has. But this lawsuit is still the same lawsuit. It has never been denied or canceled, it is still ongoing. MR. MORAD: Once again, I'm just going by your statement, which I documented in my comments of my case. So I just took you for your word. MR. CHERNOFF: You might have heard me wrong, Ed, because this thing has never ended. MS. ARNOLD: The county's position is that we object to the request. And it's mainly because the respondent has the ability to take action towards compliance. And what he's asking the board to do is to wait for his decision in the courts before compliance is made. I understand that they're proceeding with that suit and they're trying to mediate. But that information was presented to the board at the last hearing. And I'm not sure that they were coming any closer to coming to a settlement. Page 11 June 26, 2008 I'm not really sure whether -- I agree with him, this could take years. And so it's up to the board if you want to wait a year or more and possibly not get any closer, because he may not be successful in his trial, or ask him to come into compliance and then settle his suit outside of these proceedings. MR. CHERNOFF: In had the money to do that, Michelle, it would have been done already. That's why the lawsuit has gone. And we have gotten closer. We do have on deposition, okay, the former owner, he has admitted liability. He admitted he built it. MS. ARNOLD: And Ms. Chernoffs noted -- she noted that at the last hearing. MR. CHERNOFF: No, absolutely not. That has happened on deposition since the last hearing, okay. That's what I'm saying. This is moving forward, we are gaining ground. Now it's just a matter of damages, and that's where we're at. And what I'm asking you for is, you know, please don't cut it off when it's close. Again, I don't want to bring up old things, but you have. The guy that started this whole thing, the anonymous phone call -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I don't want to rehear the case. I think you made your point. You're looking to extend the time, and I think it would be up to the board at this point to make a decision if we want to extend the time or go ahead and not extend the time. And if that were to occur, then you could come back at the time of imposing the fines when we go to impose the fines and you come back to us and state that you feel that you need a reduction in fines because you now have proceeded and were diligent. So I'm going to close the public hearing. And do I have any questions -- MR. DEAN: I have a question. Mr. Morad, you stated that in six months that you guaranteed there would be nothing after six months. But I'm reading on the first Page 12 June 26, 2008 page, additional time could be granted by discretion of the board. MR. MORAD: What I was in reference to is the second motion for the extension that his counsel submitted, item number eight. It's stated in there, her words, it's stated in there. MS. ARNOLD: In your order, her Exhibit B, your order states, the respondent -- motion for extension of time is granted. The respondents are granted an extension of90 days. No additional extension of time shall be granted to the respondent. MR. DEAN: The second part, the nonconforming, there's no use in that building now that you know of, they don't use it but for storage only? MR. MORAD: My understanding is that there's no one living in that dwelling unit. MR. DEAN: But there could -- is an apartment in fact in there? MR. MORAD: Oh, yes, sir. I have documented pictures. It was a two-bedroom, full bath, full kitchen dwelling unit with an screen-enclosed porch. MR. LARSEN: I'm persuaded by the county's arguments that there could have been some mitigation by the respondents during the period that they did receive an extension of time. And in light of the clear order of the board, dated the 2nd day of April, 2008 and the testimony here, I'd like to make a motion to deny the second motion for an extension of time by the respondents. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Well, the motion hasn't been seconded. So-- Is there any more questions of the board -- from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion to approve the extension and what time frame? MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion to approve. And given the fact Page 13 June 26, 2008 that a court ordered mediation is set for August 12th, I think we ought to give it certainly 60 days beyond August 12th or whatever that works out to be, sometime in September, I guess. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, I'm not sure with the -- I don't know if it's going to be rectified then, due to the fact that the -- one of the attorneys has removed himself from the case. MR. PONTE: Well, I'm not too sure exactly what the procedures are in mediation, whether or not even attorneys have to be present. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And what's the time frame you're looking? MR. PONTE: Well, I think after the mediation, we have to give it 30 days, let's say. And this is August-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: September. MR. PONTE: Yeah, September. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: September meeting? MR. PONTE: The September meeting. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question. In the event of an extension, what's the likelihood, if you are the winner of this suit, that you will actually receive any money? MR. CHERNOFF: I have done -- when I was doing this on my own I went on line and found that the previous owner has several other properties, which my counsel has said we could levy. We can't take his house, but we can take everything in his house, his cars, his trucks, everything that -- clothes on his back. So there is money to be had. That's through my counsel. MR. KAUFMAN: My question would be that although they have resources, what is the likelihood of obtaining those resources? I guess it's a money issue to get the work done. So, I mean, could that take another six months or a year or -- what happens at that point if you are found to have won your case but the collection is not forthcoming? MR. CHERNOFF: I don't know the legal end of it. That's why I Page 14 June 26, 2008 have counsel. And Jean might be able to help you with that, I don't know. MS. RAWSON: A judgment is a piece of paper that you then have to enforce. So he would have to go back to court again, or his attorney would, and try to enforce the judgment with a proceeding supplemental. It's hard to say how long it would take. I don't think he's asking you for that long. I think he's asking you to give him time after the mediation to get in front of the judge. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right, we have a motion on the table. Looking for a second. MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And all those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those against. Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The motion passes for extension to September's meeting. And-- MS. RAWSON: That would be September the 25th. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: September the 25th. MR. CHERNOFF: And then we come in front of you again and go from there? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MR. CHERNOFF: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And make sure you bring documentation showing whatever has occurred on hopefully the August 12th -- MR. CHERNOFF: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- meeting. Page 15 June 26, 2008 MR. CHERNOFF: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you want to have him waive notice or -- Jean? MS. RAWSON: He can waive notice but, you know, it's so far away that I'm sure Bendisa will probably get the notices out anyway. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good. You'll receive a letter, along with your attorney. MR. CHERNOFF: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You're welcome. MR. CHERNOFF: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, we're going to move to stipulated agreements. The first one, if I'm not mistaken, is BCC versus Caribe Investments of Naples, Inc. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to note that Ms. Houston did come into the room after her particular request was decided upon, and I didn't know whether or not you wanted to kind of advise her of that recommendation, or I could have staff do that. Okay, he's motioning to me that he already did. So never mind, I guess we can proceed with the next case. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Again, we're going to proceed to the stipulations, which is BCC versus Caribe Investments of Naples, Inc. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, code enforcement supervisor, Jeff Letourneau. I met with Ephrain Arcy (phonetic), who is the owner of Caribe Investments, this morning before the board hearing and he agreed to enter into a stipulated agreement, stipulating basically that the violations noted in the referenced notice of violation are accurate and he stipulated to their existence. And the violations are of Section 1 0.02.06(B)(1 )(a), 10.02.06(B)(1) -- hold on one second here. I've got a typo on this stipulation. Oh, B.l(A), B.l(E) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i) of Ordinance Page 16 June 26, 2008 2004-41 and are described as the nonpermitted removal and erection of separation, fire walls, expanding the space of one unit and reducing the space of another. Mr. Arcy agreed to pay operational costs in the amount of363.84 incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by obtaining a Collier County building permit, all required inspections and certificate of occupancy within 90 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed each day any violation remains, or by obtaining a Collier County demolition permit, all required inspections and certificate of completion and restoring the structure to its originally permitted condition within 90 days of this hearing, or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed for each day any violation remains. I I'd like to point out that he's already got a permit issued for this violation. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: A permit to -- MR. LETOURNEAU: To permit the improvements. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Not demolish. MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. MS. ARNOLD: Jeff, you had also cited him for -- he was cited for 105.1 and 105.7 under the Florida Building Code, 2000 edition. Is that still applicable? MR. LETOURNEAU: I only put the land development codes on the stipulation. MS. ARNOLD: Should you add those? Because that's what our case was being brought for. MR. LETOURNEAU: Hold on one second. (Discussion off the record.) MR. LETOURNEAU: We're just going to go with the violation as stated on the stipulated agreement. So that would be 10.02.06 (B)(1)(a), 1O.02.06(B)(1)(e) and 1O.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i) of the Land Development Code 04-41. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So it's not going to include the Page 17 June 26, 2008 Florida Building Code 2004 edition, Sections 105.1 and 015.77 MR. LETOURNEAU: No. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. LARSEN: In number two, the violations of Sections (B)(1)(a), and then it looks like it's repeated (B)(1)(a) again? MR. LETOURNEAU: That should actually be (B)(1)(e). That was a typographical error I made right there. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you need to have him come back and initial that at all, or -- MS. ARNOLD: I don't know if that's necessary. He received the packet, and the packet with the statement of violations showed it correctly with the two additional violations that I was questioning. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. MS. ARNOLD: Those all should have been on the stipulation. He has the ability to be here and be heard. He signed the stip. You all have the ability to accept it as stated or amend it. So-- MR. LETOURNEAU: I advised him to stay but he had open heart surgery recently and he wasn't even supposed to be here in the beginning, so he wanted to get out of here. MR. LARSEN: I make a motion that we accept the county's proposed stipulation as stated. MR. PONTE: I second that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Page 18 June 26, 2008 The next one will be BCC versus Erika Labra and Isidra Trejo. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MS. SORRELS: Good morning. For the record, Azure Sorrells, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. I spoke with Ms. Labra this morning and we had entered into a stipulation agreement. The stipulation agreement, she agrees that there are violations on her property, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(e) of Ordinance 2004-41, and Section 104.1.3.5 of Code of Laws and Ordinances. And are described as improvement of property prior to building permit and prohibited activities prior to permit issuance. Ms. Labra agrees to pay operational costs of$303.28 and to abate all violations by obtaining all necessary building permits -- excuse me, obtain all necessary permits, inspections and certificate of completion within 60 days of this hearing or a $200 a day fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains, or she can remove all the fill dirt from the property, returning the property to its original vacant state within 60 days of this hearing or a $200 a day fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains. And the last would be to notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you agree to that? MS. LABRA: Yes, I do. MR. LARSEN: I make a motion that we accept the proposed stipulation. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 19 June 26, 2008 Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. SORRELS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next one will be BCC versus Rufina Cruz and Moises Hernandez. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MR. KEEGAN: This is Case No. CESD20080001629, Board of County Commissioners versus Rufina Cruz and Moises Hernandez. Violation of Section 1 0.02.06.B.1.E of Ordinance 04-41 as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code. It's for an unpermitted addition to a mobile home located at 3156 Van Buren Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34112. On the 24th of this month I met with Moises Hernandez, who was the owner of the property, along with his mother, Rufina Cruz. They entered into a stipulation agreement that they would pay operational costs in the amount of295.66 incurred in the prosecution of this case. The respondents have been issued a demolition permit, 2008-050891, for the removal of the unpermitted addition. The addition is removed, and as of yesterday they received their certificate of completion. So the case is finished. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. LARSEN: I move to accept the stipulation as so stated by the county. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And a second? MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. Page 20 June 26, 2008 MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. KEEGAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next one will be BCC versus Affordable Whistler's Cove, LTD. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MS. O'FARRELL: For the record, Susan O'Farrell, Collier County Code Enforcement Environmental Specialist. We're here today because a stipulation has been presented and approved by Affordable -- Whistler's Cove Affordable and the county. This case originally became about because of a proposed unit development inspection that found that the complex had fallen below the standards of their site development plan. Therefore, they have signed a stipulation that says the violations noted in the referenced Notice of Violation are accurate and I stipulate to their existence. The violations are that of Sections 4.06.05.1.2 and are described as required landscape. It has fallen below Collier County approved site plan 97-006 standards. Therefore, it is agreed that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of 545.35 within 30 days of this hearing. And they will abate all violations by restoring the required landscape of the property to the standards set by the Collier County approved site development plan 95-22. We've got two different site development plans here -- wait a minute, I want to make sure we get the right one. 97-006 is the correct site development plan number. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you just make sure. MS. O'FARRELL: We're going to have to make sure we change that on the stipulations. Page 21 June 26, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Just cross it out and have him initial it, please. MS. O'FARRELL: Yeah. So it will be 97-006 with attention paid to required landscape and native vegetation areas within 90 days of this hearing or a daily penalty of$150 will be imposed as long as the violation persists. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you agree with -- MR. ZIMMERMAN : Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And can you state your name for the record and your position within the company, and do you have the authority to sign on behalf of the company. MR. ZIMMERMAN: I'm a representative of the owner. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And your name, please. MR. ZIMMERMAN: Scott Zimmerman. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you have the authority to sign? MR. ZIMMERMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you agree to this change from 95-22 to 97-00 (sic) for the site development plan? MR. ZIMMERMAN: I believe so. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is that a yes? MR. ZIMMERMAN: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: Do you want to look at it, sir? MR. ZIMMERMAN: It's -- okay, we could look at it. MS. ARNOLD: Do you want to show him what -- MS. O'FARRELL: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the question. MS. ARNOLD: The change, the site plan change reference. MR. ZIMMERMAN: It's the final site plan that was approved. I'm fine with it. MS. O'FARRELL: I was looking at the statement of violation that had the correct numbers on it. They have -- Whistler's Cove has been given three copies of the site development plan with the correct numbers on it. I believe his Page 22 June 26, 2008 landscaper has a copy of it and is attempting to work from it today. MR. ZIMMERMAN: They're supposed to be here today. We'll see. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. What I'll just have you -- before you leave, just make sure you initial that little section, that change. MR. ZIMMERMAN: Okay. MR. LARSEN: I make a motion that we approve the proposed stipulation as so stated with the amendment in section two of therefore clause, changing it from 95-22 to 97-006. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. O'FARRELL: Thank you. MR. ZIMMERMAN: Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, we do have two additional stipulations. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I like to hear that. MS. ARNOLD: Those are items 4.C.6 and 7. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good. We'll move on to those then. BCC versus Jaime and Damarys Oliva. MS. WALDRON: Oliva. Page 23 June 26, 2008 (All speakers were duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: We have come into a stipulation agreement with Jaime and Damarys Oliva for a violation of Collier County Land Development Code, as amended, Sections 3.05.01.B, described as vegetation removed over the allowable acreage without obtaining the proper permits. They have agreed to pay operational costs in the amount of 460.20 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. The respondent must prepare a mitigation plan which meets the criteria stated in 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06.E.3. The mitigation plan shall be prepared by a person who meets or exceeds the credentials specified in Section 1O.02.02.A.3. The respondent is required to establish a monitoring program that would determine the 80 percent survivability of species of the plants used in the mitigation effort over a two-year period with replacement required to maintain the 80 percent minimum annually. A minimum of two reports will be submitted by the respondent. The mitigation plan must be submitted within 60 days of this hearing or a daily fine of $200 will be imposed for each day until mitigation plan is submitted. All plant materials must be installed in accordance with the mitigation plan within 120 days of acceptance of mitigation plan or a daily fine of $200 will be imposed for each day until plant material is installed. And the respondent must notify code enforcement that the violation has been abated and request the investigator to come out and perform a site inspection. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you agree to this plan? MS. OLIVA: I agree. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is any of this area, does it have irrigation where you're going to have to replant? MS. OLIVA: I guess we're going to have to replant. Page 24 June 26, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But does it have an irrigation system? MS. OLIVA: Right. No-- MS. WALDRON: No, I don't believe that they have irrigation. But we did do the time frame so that will still be within the rainy season. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. So I guess it's pretty important to get these plants in as soon as possible so they have the beginning of the rainy season to give it the best chance for them to survive. Because you are regulated to 80 percent of them must survive within -- I think it's two years is what you stated? MS. WALDRON: Right. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right, very good. Any questions of the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. LARSEN: Make a motion we accept the proposed stipulation as so stated. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And do I have a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. And that would be for the first one. And the next one? Page 25 June 26, 2008 MS. WALDRON: Exactly the same, different case. The violations of Collier County Land Development Code as amended, Sections 3.05.01.B, described as vegetation removed over the allowable acreage without obtaining the proper permits. The respondent has agreed to pay operational costs in the amount of 460.20 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Respondent must prepare mitigation plan which meets the criteria stated in 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06.B.3. The mitigation plan shall be prepared by a person who meets or exceeds the credentials specified in Section 10.02.02.A.3. The respondent is required to establish a monitoring program that would determine the 80 percent survivability of species of the plants used in the mitigation effort over a two-year period, with replacement required to maintain the 80 percent minimum annually. A minimum of two reports will be submitted by the respondent. This mitigation plan must be submitted within 60 days of this hearing or a daily fine of $200 will be imposed for each day until mitigation plan is submitted. All plant materials must be installed in accordance with the mitigation plan within 120 days of acceptance of mitigation plan or a daily fine of $200 will be imposed for each day until plant material is installed. And the respondent must notify code enforcement that the violation has been abated and request the investigator to come out and perform a site inspection. MS. OLIVA: I agree. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. This is a separate piece of property; is that correct? MS. WALDRON: It's two separate folios, yes. MR. PONTE: I have a question. Because they replicate each other, how much acreage are we talking about here? Page 26 June 26, 2008 MS. WALDRON : Well, the two properties total is 10 acres. It's not all going to have to be mitigated. MR. PONTE: Thank you. MR. LARSEN: Make a motion we accept the proposed stipulation as so stated. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And can I have a vote. All in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. WALDRON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Now we're on to public hearings. BCC versus AMG Properties, Inc. MS. MARKU: This is in reference to Department Case No. 2007-090454. The respondent and the board were sent a packet of evidence, and I would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. LARSEN: Move to accept the evidence. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. Page 27 June 26, 2008 MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. MARKU: For the record, the respondent is not present. Violation of Ordinances 04-41, Collier County Land Development Code, as amended, Sections 10.02.06.B.l.A, 10.02.06.B.l.E.i. Description of violation: Construction additions remodeling done without proper permits. Location/address where violation exists: 3831 Arnold Avenue, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 00278360006. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: AMG Properties, Incorporated, co-owner, Jose Garcia, 7301 Southwest 57th Court, Suite 500, South Miami, Florida, 33143. Property owner: Parts Depot, 148 Rosalie's Court, Coco Plum, Florida, 33143, business owner. Date violation first observed: September 17th, 2007. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: October 2nd, 2007. Date on/by which the violation to be corrected: October 10, 2007. Date ofreinspection: April 4th, 2008. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. At this time I would like to turn the case over to Code Enforcement Investigator Kitchell Snow. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: For the record, Supervisor Kitchell Snow. We appear before you today on a case in our industrial zoned property that involves building or additions to a structure without Page 28 June 26, 2008 permits. This is a violation of Sections 10.02.06.B.1.A, 10.02.06.B.1.E.i. I have -- would like to submit as evidence, evidence packet with some photographs of the property. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion to accept-- MR. DEAN: I make a motion to accept the photos of the property . MR. PONTE: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. SNOW: The first photograph you're going to see is of the property as it exists today. I was hoping for member Kelly to be here for some of the roofing issues, he could probably advise us. But that is the structure as it is today, that's in 2008, according to our property appraiser. The next photograph you're going to see is as this structure was in 2001. As you can see -- and clearly see on the top of that there's been an addition that's been added to that. This is a 2008 photograph. They probably done some work on that roof and made it seen like it's all the same. But as you can clearly see in the top of that photograph, you can see the addition clearly where that's been done. This property was purchased in 1997. And I have talked to the property owner. And he says it existed when he purchased it. And we Page 29 June 26, 2008 discussed his options to see what we could possibly do to rectify that. I'll get to that in a minute. The next photograph you're going to see is of the property card. The square footage originally in 1983 was 4,500 square feet. That's what it was permitted as, that's when their CO was done. It's 4,500 square feet. And the next one again, that's the property card. The next one is the original permit of 4,500 square feet. There's several more in there, and there's a certificate of occupancy that's there. If you see in the yellow highlight again, it's talking -- the original permit was 4,500 square feet. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Excuse me, Mr. Snow, could you go back to the former document that you had up on -- MR. SNOW: The property card. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Yes. This property card is dated 1980 something, you said? MR. SNOW: Eighty-eight. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'm looking at the sketch of the building. I seem to see a little sketch off to the right. MR. SNOW: That was a canopy, that little -- off to the right. That's a canopy that was added back then, and it was permitted. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you very much. MR. SNOW: The next one you're going to see is the actual permit itself. Contrary to opinion that a lot of folks try to represent to the county, we do have a lot of older permits. And this is the older permit. And in the packet you will see it does have a certificate of completion. And the issue here is not that it was permitted 4,500 square feet, the issue is where is it today? This is a -- Mr. Garcia, who represents AMG Properties, has tried to find ways that he can come into compliance. He had an engineer Page 30 June 26, 2008 do a survey on the property. This is his engineering appraisal, and the engineer states it's 5,800 square feet. So 1,300 feet have been added to this. I'm going to show some photographs. Not only has there been a rear structure added, another 1,000 square feet, there's been a mezzanine. And if you're not familiar with what a mezzanine is, it's kind of a second story that doesn't go over the whole structure, it's just a certain part. That's just his explanation of the property. If you look in the middle exactly where my finger pointed, it talks about the 5,800 square feet of that property, of the interior of that property -- or of the warehouse itself. I did speak to Mr. Garcia as recently as 5/14/08 and told him where we're going to progress and how we're going to get there and that he needed to come into compliance. I want to submit some photographs, and I want these photographs to -- I'm going to testify that these photographs are an accurate and true representation of the property as it is today. This is the interior. This is as you're looking in -- as I'm walking up in the mezzanine, I walked up on top of the mezzanine and I took a photograph of actually the structure. And this is looking out on the mezzanine on the top floor. This next one is -- and this is one of the issues that we really were very concerned about, is that when they did the addition to the rear of that structure, they just slapped those two beams on the top. They were not originally welded. They have been welded since then and they -- this is going by Mr. Garcia. I can't get up there to see if they have been welded, I'm not a structural inspector, so I don't know. But originally they were not, they were just tied together. This is another photograph that represents the same thing up there. Again, just to represent, you can kind of see where the old beam, Page 31 June 26, 2008 and that's where the new beam is and where the knew structure was started. The old beam is per code, and the new one, as you can see, there's a large difference between those two. Again, the same thing, we're just looking at the beams here. This is -- looking as you walk in the rear of that structure, right under where the new structure has been added, this is the second floor on the mezzanine. This is facing the front. Right below that opening there is an office space in there and there's folks working there all the time. And we have no idea whether that's safe or not safe. We have no idea of that. I did walk up there and it creaks. But anyway, there is a fairly large office space. And you'll get a representation here pretty quick of how large that mezzanine is. Again, this is going up the stairs to the second floor mezzanine. This is the window that you saw in the first picture looking out. We're looking out over the back of the warehouse from the mezzanine. This is what's inside that mezzanine. And in the rear of that photograph you can see the window. So you can actually realize how large that is. That's not just a little attic up there, that's fairly large. I don't have the -- I don't know what the measurements are of that. Same thing. That's looking from the window to the back of that mezzanme. And finally, we were very concerned about the health, safety of the individuals that were working there and what we were -- how we were going to progress. We asked structural to go out and take a look at this. This letter is from our structural folks, and that's their opinion on exactly what was going on the property. They didn't address the mezzanine; they just addressed the addition and the structure in the back. And again, our main concern was we are in hurricane season again, and I'm not really sure if that's suitable or can go through any Page 32 June 26, 2008 type of foul weather. And for the record, I did talk to Mr. Garcia, I posted the property within the appropriate amount of time. I called him and explained and told him he was going to have a hearing, and we were going to have to be here, that we needed to find a solution to this issue. And he's not here today, which is disappointing to the county. I have no further testimony at this time. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer those. MR. LARSEN: Yeah, if you can go back to the first two photographs of the aerial view and just put them side by side so we can make a comparison, please. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What you're saying is the new section on the left -- are you saying where -- MR. SNOW: This part right here, sir. See where that line is right there? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. Where it looks lighter in color, maybe? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is what you're saying is the addition. MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. And I highlighted that for you. But you can clearly see that when you look on the property appraiser's maps that there was an addition. You can clearly see on the interior of how the steel beams are put across the top, that there's a huge difference in that. And that would never be permitted by the county. Not only that, but there are steel footers in the back of that property. We don't even know about encroachment. There was a drainage issue back in -- when it was originally permitted. We don't know anything at this point other than it is not permitted. I do have a copy of and I can show you this, the type of permits that's been done. The only other permit since then that has been pulled is a sign that's been CO'd. There's been nothing else on the property. The canopy's gone. Page 33 June 26, 2008 MR. LARSEN: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions of board members? MR. KAUFMAN: The lighted area in the top, is that approximately 1,300 square feet? MR. SNOW: I'm sorry, sir? MR. KAUFMAN: The top area that appears to be a different color. MR. SNOW: Yes, sir, that's the 1,300 square feet. And for the record, these photographs are of the same property. They are of the same size. And again, that's just for reference, one from 2001 and one from 2008. So the structure hasn't changed since then. And again, 1,300 square feet was added some time between when it was originally CO'd and when the case was opened in 2007. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So it looks like there's been a roof replacement between 2001 and 2008. MR. SNOW: Again, I don't know what they've done on that. The whole time in looking at this and going through the years and trying to figure out exactly what was done on this property, the roof continually changed. And I was very curious about that as to why. And there's never been any permits pulled for anything on that property other than just a sign, and that's why it was so curious. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: How far back do the GIS pictures go? MR. SNOW: 2001. I looked back a little farther and there was nothing clearly discernible. I felt that this was pretty standard for what had happened. I was trying to find out exactly when he had it. I talked to Mr. Garcia, and Mr. Garcia says he purchased it like that. And as we all know, I explained to Mr. Garcia that he has avenues, but he is responsible for the property and any additions done on that property, as we've talked about with cases today. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. Page 34 June 26, 2008 Any further questions ofthe board? MR. LARSEN: I'd like to make a motion that we find that a violation does exist. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KAUFMAN: I second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Recommendation? MR. SNOW: The County has recommendations. It will just be a minute to put them up there. The county recommends that the -- pay operational costs in the amount of 502.41 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of the date of the hearing. And that A, they obtain permits for all unpermitted construction remodeling additions on property and get all inspections through certificate of completion within 120 days of the date of the hearing or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed until such time as the unpermitted construction remodeling has been permitted, inspected and Cord, or obtain a demo permit and remove any unpermitted construction remodeling additions within 120 days of the date of the hearing 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. Remove all construction waste to the appropriate site for such disposal. Page 35 June 26, 2008 B, is cease any activity that is not in compliance with and in accordance to the Land Development Code of unincorporated Collier County . And C, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. And let me add in the 120 days that we probably wouldn't have been as lenient is we didn't have that letter from structural saying it didn't appear to be a health and safety issue. And it is going to take him some time. He's going to probably have to submit a site development plan or at least a site improvement plan to find out exactly where we are. So I think 120 days is sufficient for that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: In number two, is there a time period to cease any activity that's not in compliance? MR. SNOW: No, sir. That's just to let him know that he's got to __ we addressed that on the first one. And we don't want anything else to happen on the property that's illegal, that's the point. No more unpermitted work on that structure, no more welding any of the beams in the top without the appropriate permits. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any discussion or questions of the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion to accept the county's position as read. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And a second? MR. LARSEN: I second that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. Page 36 June 26, 2008 MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. SNOW: I thank the board. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Our last hearing will be BCC versus Dagoberto and Maria Saldana. MS. MARKU: This is in reference to Department Case No. CESD20080000885. F or the record, the respondent is not present. The respondent and the board was sent a packet of evidence and I would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. PONTE: Make a motion to accept. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. MARKU: Violation of ordinance -- Collier County Land Development Code 2004-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Description of violation: Owners of property did not complete inspections or receive certificate of occupancy for Permit No. 20050033512 for mobile home located on the property and permit has expired. Mobile home has been vacant for a long time and has exterior damage caused by the hurricanes. Page 37 June 26, 2008 Location/address where violation exists: 2626 Holly Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34112. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Dagoberto and Maria Saldana, 2626 Holly Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34112. Date violation first observed: February 7th, 2008. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: March 4th, 2008. Property, courthouse, posted. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: April 4th, 2008. Date of reinspect ion: April 4th, 2008. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. At this time I would like to turn the case over to Code Enforcement Investigator Joe Mucha. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. MUCHA: For the record, Investigator Joe Mucha, Property Maintenance Specialist, Collier County Code Enforcement. This case initiated on February 7th of this year as a routine patrol case on Holly Avenue in the East Naples area. At that time I observed what appeared to be an abandoned mobile home, and it had some exterior damage. So at that point I elected to open a case and do some research on the property as, like I stated, it was abandoned, unoccupied. When I researched the property, I discovered that there was a permit from 2005, it's Permit No. 2005033512 that was applied for at the time, but the permit never had any inspections and never received a certificate of completion or occupancy, and the permit has since expired. And I did some research as well to try to locate contact information for the owners, and all my research, the only address I could find was the actual address of the violation at 2626 Holly Avenue -- yes, 2626 Holly Avenue. So I could not find any other contact information for the owners. Page 38 June 26, 2008 So at that time because the property is vacant, I couldn't attempt personal service, so I sent my first Notice of Violation certified mail. That was returned unclaimed. So on March 4th, I posted the property, the Notice of Violation at the property and the courthouse. Property still remained in the same condition. Also sent a copy of the Notice of Violation regular mail. Made my -- another reinspection on April 4th. Property remained in the same state. No contact has been made from the owners. Have yet to be contacted by the owners. Property is not under foreclosure, and actually the taxes have been paid, so they're paying the taxes on it, just have no idea where these owners are. And I'd also just like to submit some photographs so you guys can get an idea of what's going on at this property. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Could I have a motion to accept. MR. DEAN: Motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. MUCHA: This first photograph that you're looking at, this is just a shot from the street, what you would see if you were standing out on Holly Avenue facing the mobile home. You can see it's got quite a bit of mold on there. This appears to me to be hurricane damage. And again, the mobile home's not being maintained. Page 39 June 26, 2008 This is just a shot close up of the exterior. You can see that the exterior walls of the mobile home are pretty damaged. This is just to show that the insulation is coming out there. Another shot of that, I think. And just again, it's -- there's not even stairs to get into it, so I don't even know how somebody would even get inside, because there's no stairs on either side. So I guess what I'm trying to represent here is that the mobile home has been abandoned, it's not being maintained. And in fact, during the course of this case I also opened up a weed case on the property because the grass was overgrown and the county had to abate that violation. So that's where it stands. I've not been contacted by the owners. It's basically abandoned but the property is not under foreclosure and I have no idea where the owners are. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Investigator Mucha, you did not gain access to the interior of the mobile home? MR. MUCHA: No, sir. No, sir. MR. L'ESPERANCE: The doors are locked? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What was the permit for in 2005? MR. MUCHA: For the placement of the mobile home. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: 2005? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you have any aerials of this showing that there was a mobile home prior? MR. MUCHA: Unfortunately I do not have that with me. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions of the board? MR. PONTE: This is in a residential area, is it? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. MR. PONTE: There are children around the area? MR. MUCHA: I believe so, yes, sir. Page 40 June 26, 2008 MR. PONTE: So this, you know, in my mind looks like an attractive nuisance that could be of danger to kids playing under it, even though they may not be able to get in it. In your -- well, let's see what you're going to say. MR. MUCHA: Did you want my opinion on it -- MR. PONTE: Yes, sir. MR. MUCHA: Do I think it's an attractive nuisance? MR. PONTE: Yeah. MR. MUCHA: Any time that you have an abandoned property like this, it's definitely. Not only for children but also in this area there's a lot of homeless people and things like that, so -- MR. PONTE: But it is locked. MR. MUCHA: It is secured. And, you know, I have -- MR. PONTE: My concern was really underneath. I mean, is it sound? MR. MUCHA: The trailer is tied down and it does appear to be sound. I mean, it just looked like it was damaged by the hurricane and maybe at that point abandoned, I don't know. It's kind of a strange situation, because like I said, the property is not being foreclosed upon, the taxes are up to date. And the only address on record is the subject property address, the 2626 Holly A venue. Been unable to locate any other information for the owner. So I'm kind of baffled, you know, because usually I could understand if it was being foreclosed or something like that. But everything's up to date on it. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I assume there's no other address in Collier County for these individuals? MR. MUCHA: No, sir. MR. PONTE: Jean, legally, seeing that everything is fine, taxes are paid, all that sort of thing, there's no access to it, legally can the county just take it down? MS. RAWSON: Well, yes, if it's a violation of the code and they Page 41 June 26, 2008 don't do anything about it. I mean, we're going to give them notice, but apparently they don't answer the certified mail. Did you send it regular mail as well? MR. MUCHA: Yes, ma'am. MS. RAWSON: Did that come back? MR. MUCHA: You know, to be honest with you, I don't know. Didn't receive it. I know there was kind of a hang-up there with our mail for a while, actually, a lot of stuff was delayed. So I can't be certain about that. I know the certified mail was returned unclaimed, so -- in fact, being out there, there's no mailbox, so I'm assuming that that there's not a forwarding address -- MS. RAWSON: So the notice was only by posting, right? MR. MUCHA: Yes, ma'am. MS. RAWSON: Well, I would say you need to make a concerted effort to find these people. And if you can't, and if this is a violation of the code and it looks like an abandoned property, they're paying the taxes on it because they own the real estate, they own the land. So you're not destroying the land, you're just taking down the damaged mobile home. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Jean, is there a way for us to inquire with the United States Postal Service as to their current address? MS. RA WSON: Yes, but I don't think they'll give it to you. MR. L'ESPERANCE: We can ask, but you're not going to receive. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The other thing is -- MR. DEAN: The tax assessor. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- if the taxes have been paid, you can check with the tax assessors and see if there was a check sent to them. They might have on record a check with a new address. That might be one way to check. MR. KAUFMAN: Did this house ever have electricity? Page 42 June 26, 2008 MR. MUCHA: I'm not sure, sir. It doesn't appear -- again, when I got onto the scene, this is what I saw. And it's been abandoned for some time, so -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The issue we're looking at here is that it has never received the final CO for it being placed there, which means we don't know if it's tied down correctly. So there's a lot -- MR. MUCHA: There's never even been any inspection, so -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. So that's the issue we're looking at. We don't know if it's even secured correctly. It could have been placed there without being properly secured. So I guess -- is there any more questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: How large a folio was this? How many acres or lot size, approximately? MR. MUCHA: It's just a normal mobile home lot. It's not a huge -- unfortunately I don't have that information with me. MR. LARSEN: I'd like to make a motion, based upon the testimony of the investigator and the documents submitted into evidence, that we find that a violation does exist. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. And your recommendation? MR. MUCHA: My recommendation is that all operational costs Page 43 June 26, 2008 in the amount of$279.33 incurred in the prosecution of this case be paid within 30 days of this hearing, and for the respondents to abate all violations by obtaining a permit, related inspections and certificate of occupancy for the mobile home located on the property within 30 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed until certificate of occupancy is obtained, or by hiring a general contractor licensed in Collier County to obtain a demolition permit for the removal of the mobile home and all resulting debris to a site designated for final disposal. Licensed contractor must execute demolition permit through to an issuance of a certificate of completion within 30 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed until demolition permit received certificate of completion. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct the final inspection and confirm abatement. I'll put this up so you guys can look at it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Does the board have any questions? MR. PONTE: Yes, I do. I guess number two answers my question. But I'm not quite sure we can do it. I'm very vague on the legality of going in and taking -- demolishing the property in 30 days MR. MUCHA: Actually, sir, I was going to say I'm not recommending that the county abate the violation, I'm just giving the owner the option. I mean, if -- MR. PONTE: Okay, I see. MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. MR. PONTE: If it's 30 days, are we giving you enough time to check with the tax office to try and track this respondent down? MR. MUCHA: If you would like to extend that time, I'm perfectly fine with that. This has been going on since February, so I don't see how another 30 additional days would hurt. Page 44 June 26, 2008 MR. PONTE: I make a motion to accept it and just give ourselves -- give the county a little bit more time. I'll make it 60 days. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sixty days for both? MR. PONTE: Yes. MR. LARSEN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. MUCHA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're going to move on to old business. Motion for imposition of fines and liens. First one will be BCC versus Willie L. and Marjorie Davis. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MS. ARNOLD: This is a request for imposition of fines against Willie L. and Marjorie Davis. The case was heard by the Code Enforcement Board on August 23rd, 2007 and the -- a violation was found. The finding of fact order has been provided to you for your reView. As of today, we -- they have partial compliance is our understanding, that they've got inspections for the site plan. But what's outstanding is a fence permit for the fence around the property. Therefore, fines have accrued and continue to accrue until the final abatement. And we're at this time requesting fines for $200 per day between the period of February 20th, 2008 through May 15th, 2008,85 days, Page 45 June 26, 2008 for a total of $17,000 be imposed. And the operational costs of 578.09 have been paid. And I believe the respondent's engineer is here to make a request for abatement of fine. MR. BUTLER: For the record, I'm Gary Butler, representing Willie Davis, the owner of the property. We did enter into an agreement with the county to complete the work in six months. It was four months for permitting and two months for construction. We burned up an extra two months plus on the permitting side. We had to go to South Florida, we had to go to the county. We didn't actually receive our permits until near the end of March, at which time Willie progressed to do all the work that was required. We certified the work complete in mid-May. The landscaping inspection was done at that point in time. The engineering inspection was not. I called the county every week trying to find out where that letter of approval was. And they were waiting for the building permit 800 request to come in. But there's no building so there's no 800 request. I finally talked to him yesterday. He met me on the site this morning and signed off on the engineering aspects of the site, so we should have that letter within the next couple days. Once we get that letter, we can get the occupational license transferred to the property, if that's what's required. I've been told that, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to put an occupational license on a piece of property that has no business. His business is at his house, his office, and that's where his occupational license has always been. And if we need to transfer it to this piece of property -- all he does is store trucks. He doesn't lease space or anything like that. If we have to transfer that we will. But we can't do that until we get the letter from engineering. Page 46 June 26, 2008 There is no CO. Part of the thing was saying getting a certificate of occupancy. There is no CO because there is no building. The fence permit issue got brought up today. As soon as we got the SDP issued, we asked the fence company to request a permit. You can't get a permit for a fence until the SDP is issued. They have not done that. We found out this morning that that permit had never been issued, so we've been on the phone with them today. That will be issued in short order. I'd like to ask for the fees to be waived. I mean, I know 20 wrongs don't make a right. But I've driven through that industrial park and I can't find one other storage site that has a buffer. They've all got fences, none of them have buffers. Willie's site looks great now. I mean, it's better than any of the developed sites that have buildings on them as far as the landscaping and everything else. And I think the -- that Mr. Snow can confirm that. He spent 10,000 plus in fees to the county, including sidewalk mitigation and right-of-way permits and SDP fees. Obviously none of the other storage sites have done that. He's probably spent $30,000 improving the site so he can just store his trucks there. All of his competitors are storing their trucks out in the Estates with no requirements for buffers or anything else. So he's done the right thing since day one. And he's done his part of the job perfectly. We did -- he said 60 days originally he'd get his work done once the permits were issued. He got it done in less than 60 days. So I guess I'm asking to waive the fees. Two things we need to do is pick up the fence permit, which we can provide a copy to code enforcement. And the second thing is transfer the occupational license. And we're going to find out today if that really needs to be done. I mean, I would think it would make sense to have the occupational license where the office is, not -- yes, I've had that come up many Page 47 June 26, 2008 times, I'm sorry. And have the occupational license transferred to the site if necessary. Those are the two outstanding items. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, they're still outstanding items, and typically when there are items that are outstanding, it is not the -- the board typically does not allow the fees to be waived at that point, until you come into full compliance. And it doesn't sound like you have, even though you have a few issues to take care of, minor issues. So it would be my feeling that I would not agree to waiving any fees at this point until the -- until it comes into full compliance. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I would echo your comments 100 percent. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other thoughts? MS. ARNOLD: You do have an option, which, in discussing with Mr. Butler, that he indicated that he thought that this was going to come into compliance next week. I know that he did attempt to get a final inspection from the county over a month ago and because of the confusion with the 800 inspection it didn't happen. You could decide on whether or not you would abate or reduce the fine with an extension of -- I don't know how much time you're thinking it's going to take you to abate this violation completely. MR. BUTLER: Willie could go and get the permit today. I think that's a one-day permit, you walk in and you walk out with the permit. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, but you still need to get an inspection. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can we continue this until next month? MS. ARNOLD: You could do that, or you could make a decision on any modification to the fine contingent upon that additional time. And if they make that time, your fine's abated. If they don't make a fine, the fine gets imposed. You understand what I'm saying? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I think I'd be comfortable Page 48 June 26, 2008 in waiting till next month's meeting to see what they truly, actually accomplish. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I would have to agree with that. But would you like to put that in a motion? MR. L'ESPERANCE: I move to wait till next month's hearing for us to find out the status of your progress and till we decide whether or not to abate the fines. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I will second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. It's going to be continued until next month. MS. RAWSON: July 31st. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: July 31 st. Are you going to waive notice for this meeting? MR. SNOW: I'll let him know, sir. Just for the record, the site does look very good. They've done massive improvements on that property from the way it was. Just for the record. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. We can save that for next month. MR. BUTLER: Thank you. MR. SNOW: Thank the board. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: BCC versus Emma Houston. MS. ARNOLD: This particular case was -- I'm sorry, you've got to swear them in. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're going to take a five-minute Page 49 June 26, 2008 recess. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board meeting back to order. BCC versus Emma Houston. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, this case was heard by the board on January 24th, 2008. The finding of fact, order has been provided for you for your review. A violation was found for two mobile homes on the property, approximately 18 to 24 inches from the rear property line in violation of setbacks and both mobile homes having illegal conversions from single-family units to multi-family units without permits. Compliance has not yet been met. And we at this time would like to have fines at a rate of $200 per day for the period between April 24th, 2008 through May 15th, 2008 for a total of $4,400 be imposed and the fines continue to accrue. The operational costs of$333.13 have been paid. And Ms. Houston is present as well. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MS. HOUSTON: First I'd like to apologize for being late this morning. I have with me someone to help represent me, and I will let him do the speaking right now. MR. HOUSTON: To the board, my name is Joseph Houston, I'm the son of Emma Houston. We were late for a motion for rehearing. We're just here to say to the county on the -- we had a letter mailed out April 21 st, 2008 questioning the decision on the county's -- in reference to the fines -- or the decision in removing the property. We had no response from the county in reference to that. Now, it's quite strange that we had a motion for a rehearing on the same date __ having to do with the same case on the same date they were going to imposition of fines in reference to the same case. So we were unaware that we were on the docket for both situations today. However, we were late for the rehearing, but we were given a Page 50 June 26, 2008 letter to the county on April 22nd. We also gave a letter to the county on June 12th. It was not so much -- we were just asking the questions why did the county decision weigh the way it was, being that the fact that they came to us, wanted us to make major repairs to the property and then decided that removal of the property at a later date. And that was the -- that was in the letter dated April 21st, 2008. And obviously we're too late for the motion for the rehearing. So we're here for the motion of imposition of fines, but they directly -- one affects the other. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I think you were here when we had another case in front of us where you stated that -- I guess, are you looking to reduce the fines -- but you're not in compliance at this point. What are you doing to get into compliance, to come to compliance? MR. HOUSTON: Well, this is the nature of everything. We were under the impression -- obviously we already went through the phase that you guys said you wanted A, B, C and D done. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Correct. MR. HOUSTON: Ms. Houston has looked in sort of avenues and understands that she might be put into a position financially to have to remove the property because I think the SDP was just to put in for it, it's like $4,500. Now, to understand that, we're just asking the county, why did the county have Ms. Houston put in four, $5,000 worth of improvements to the property and then suggest to her we want you to remove the property. It seems like you sort of put her in a very liable position, or put the county in a liable position to hey, we want you to fix this. And then after she fixes it, then you tell her we want you to remove it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, in our order it says either/or. You either obtain all required permits for additions to conversion of and placement of both mobile homes and by retaining all required Page 51 June 26, 2008 inspections and certificates of occupancies within 90 days, April 23rd, 2008. In the alternative, which means you either do one or the other. So I guess the question I have is has Ms. Houston been working towards getting the permits and the COs? MR. HOUSTON: The attorney has suggested to us even to go get an SDP will take over -- quite -- about, six months to even get an SDP. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's fine. What has been done to go ahead and get this corrected? You have either/or. If you don't want to take the option of going and getting an SDP, then your alternative would be to demolish the property. MR. HOUSTON: Okay. From the point which you've given us the time period, there was no way the engineer was going to be able to get an SDP done in that time period. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But if you've heard some of the cases, people have worked towards correcting the issue and we've extended their time periods. Weare hard pressed to extend any kind of time periods if nothing's been done. You have to take some action for us to take some action. MR. HOUSTON: Okay. Now we've been given the impression that that's a workable situation. We're under the impression it's a do or die situation, whether we get it done or not get it done, she was going to be pushed into that corner. However, I wasn't here at that hearing. I'm just obviously expressing her side of it. She can obviously get up here. I'm just telling you her position was she was not going to be able to get it done in time. So she wasn't going to invest four or 5,000 additional to what she already did in repairs when she's pushed in the corner to say, hey, this has got to be done in two or three months and it's not going to be done and she wastes more money. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: There's a couple of things we can do here. One thing we can do is impose the fines, which would mean that Page 52 June 26, 2008 fines start accruing. The other one is we can push off having the fines start take effect. It would be -- I don't know what the board's decision would be. But I would be hard pressed not to impose the fines because nothing's been done to try to correct the situation, from what I understand. From what I'm hearing from you, nothing's been done. When we did impose -- or when we did decide to give 90 days, she certainly could have came to us and said I don't think 90 days is going to be enough, or as soon as you realized that that was going to be the case, to wait until now to come in front of us. MR. HOUSTON: It wasn't a point of waiting till now to come in front of you. Obviously you guys put it on the calendar when you come to it. But these letters are not dated just yesterday. Obviously I know you guys have meetings and don't respond to the letters. But just the letter, you know, our suggesting that if we try to achieve that, that we would be allowed some extension of time. But it was nothing -- none of the letters that we responded to the county, nothing got responded back to Mrs. Houston, only to a rehearing. And we have requested documents from the county as far as the property is concerned to find out -- to find out -- to support and to be able to find out what has been done, and we have yet to got those documents as well. All these letters have been certified. And it's not like Ms. Houston is not aware. I think even the county has went and got a demolition permit. She's pushed in a corner. What she doesn't want to do is invest her money into a situation -- more money into a situation that is uncurable from the county perspective. Obviously you've given her a choice, but she wasn't going to invest the money and was told that the attorney said and the engineer said it's not going to be done in that significant amount of time. So she didn't want to waste the money in getting it done. And the probability of it getting done within that time is not -- wouldn't have Page 53 June 26, 2008 happened. So obviously I'm just here to express some feelings of what her situation is, and obviously the board can make a decision from there. MR. PONTE: At this point has she retained any professional advice? I mean, does she have a contractor or does she have an attorney? What's-- MR. HOUSTON: I know she has been in touch but I think it would be hearsay. I'll let her speak directly when it comes to that, okay? MR. PONTE: Okay. Ms. Houston? MS. HOUSTON: Yes. MR. PONTE: At this point have you retained any professional help in terms of a contractor or an engineer? MS. HOUSTON: Yes, I went to Mr. Tyler to start the work. He told me what it was going to cost and what his fee was. And he said then you really don't have enough time with the time they give you to do this. So then I'm in a hard place. But the thing is, at first -- I have never had this to happen, really. But at first to put this much money and it's over. And it's not only that, because something happened prior to the property. I had just put more money in there when they had something that was done there also. Then I had to put this money, which drained me, from the storm. And also the 30,000 that we put in taxes, like with taxes that was put in there during that same time, all that money came from my account. And I'm not -- I'm not into real estate, I'm just a small, you know, person, you know, just had a property that was passed on to me during divorce to pay for the other mortgage on the other property that I have. And this is just like a domino effect, when one thing falls, then this is going to do like that. Because the time frame, I'm crushed, you know. MR. PONTE: What amount of time did the engineer suggest to you would be appropriate to complete the job? Page 54 June 26, 2008 MS. HOUSTON: With the time frame that I was standing here listening to, he told me you definitely need more time than that. And MR. PONTE: Well, that may be, but did he give you an estimate as to what it would take? MS. HOUSTON: No, he just told me that it was more than what they were given. He'd seen it before and they don't have enough time. And even if I -- even if I was going another step to reconstruct something, because the people that I have now that are staying there -- I have some people that are staying there over 10 years, you know. MR. HOUSTON: I would interject that I did speak to him directly. I didn't -- I wouldn't say -- but he told me it would at least take for the SDP to be even put together and looked at, it would be at least six months, I think that was his quote. MR. PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions? MR. KAUFMAN: I'm a little unclear as to exactly what you're asking for at this time. MR. HOUSTON: Well, just to clarify this again, the letter that we sent out, we were just asking -- we actually didn't really ask for a rehearing, we're asking the county to specify why they took the position of having Ms. Houston put an exorbitant amount of money to fix the problems which they had made record of and then literally came out again telling her this needed to be done after another tremendous financial situation come up right after she had just put up five or $6,000 in repairs. And they come to her and said well, either we're going to have to remove this or you're going to have to do A, B, Cor D. And then put her in the straight that hey, you've got 90 days to comply when it takes six months to even get an SDP. So we're like, if you guys want us to remove the building, obviously that's absolutely fine. But why would the county take the position to have her pay all this money in repairs when something that Page 55 June 26, 2008 he feels like maybe should be torn down. MR. SANTAFEMIA: In may. For the record, John Santafemia, Collier County Code Enforcement Property Maintenance Specialist. Just point of clarification. What I believe Mr. Houston is referring to is that this case initially started as a property maintenance case. It came in as a complaint to me by one of her tenants at this location. While I was doing the investigation for the minimum housing end of it, I started discovering permitting issues; there was some setback violations with the mobile homes, stuff like that, which is why she's here today. The -- what I did was I completed the Notice of Violation for the minimum housing part of the case, the original case, and I created a new case for the land use permitting issues. There's no site development plan violation that I've noted in my case. The Notice of Violation was mailed to her. And in the interim I was doing the investigation, the research behind the permit issues, because they take a little longer to do the research. The original Notice of Violation for the minimum housing that was mailed out was actually returned unclaimed. I updated another Notice of Violation and I ended up posting that Notice of Violation at the location of violation. That was done on August 29th of '07. On September 10th of '07, I had a conversation with Mrs. Houston on the telephone, and in that conversation I had advised her not to put any money into repairing the mobile homes because at that point I was discovering that the mobile homes may have to be removed. And I did advise her of that, not to do that. She actually kind of rushed me off the phone and asked me to call back and leave all that information on her voice mail, which I did. It's noted in my case. In the meantime I put that minimal housing case on hold until I resolved the land use permitting issues, advised her not to do any of the repairs. If she did them, she did them against my advice. Page 56 June 26, 2008 MS. HOUSTON: May I say-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I don't want to rehear the case at this point. MS. HOUSTON: I know you don't, but incorrectly it's being stated. So you can -- if I don't have nothing to say, I can't. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're not talking about the minimum housing. MR. SANT AFEMIA: Right, the minimum housing case was not brought before this board or the special magistrate. That is a case that is -- it's still open but it's on hold until this gets resolved. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions of the board? MR. LARSEN: Yeah, I have a question for Mr. Santafemia. In regard to the violation, has any work been done to fix the violation? MR. SANTAFEMIA: Not to my knowledge. Mrs. Houston did bring in a piece of paper from Tyler Construction that she presented to the board and myself at her hearing in January, stating that they were going to work with her to correct these problems. And that's it. To my knowledge nothing has been done to correct these problems. There's no permits, there's no -- there's nothing been filed with the county to correct any of these issues. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I would wonder if the county attorney's representative feels the necessity to make any comments on this or not. MR. WRIGHT: For the record, I'm Jeff Wright, assistant county attorney. I'm happy to answer any questions. I'm not sure ifthere's any particular issue that you're focusing on, but that's what I'm here for, in can help with that. MR. L'ESPERANCE: It seems to be somewhat of an issue of understanding the original board's order, perhaps. MR. WRIGHT: My understanding of the board's order was it was optional and it was her choice as to which course of action she Page 57 June 26, 2008 wanted to take. It seems that one of those courses of action is more burdensome to her than the other. But again, it's her call. And ultimately this is a request of imposition of lien, so we're trying to focus on what the number should be. She may have some mitigating factors or information for you to consider in the request for imposition, but beyond that, I think that that should be the focus, determining what if any the lien should be. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you very much. MR. LARSEN: I just have one more question on the investigator. Are they still, these mobile homes, still occupied as multi-family units? MR. SANT AFEMIA: To my knowledge, yes, they are. MR. LARSEN: And they do not have proper permits on them? MR. SANT AFEMIA: Correct. MR. LARSEN: I have no further questions. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. LARSEN: I move that we accept the recommendation of the county and impose the lien in the amount $4,400. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion is approved. Do you understand what we just did? We're imposing fines, and Page 58 June 26, 2008 until the items are corrected fines will be collected every day on your property. So suggestion would be to go ahead and one of two things: Is go ahead and start your process, if you need to get a site development plan, whatever it needs to get to come into compliance or B, to remove the property -- to remove the mobile homes from the property . Is that clear? MS. HOUSTON: So what you're saying, that I am going to be fined. Even though if I go ahead and do these things, I'm still going to be fined because I -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But you can come back to us and ask to have your fines either reduced -- MS. HOUSTON: And I'm so sorry, can I say one sentence? This is going to be a sentence -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, this isn't really a time to-- MS. HOUSTON: I still have -- you know, I have been in this area for quite a long time and I have worked for the county a long time. But I always think justice ought to be justice. And because of this, I have already spent money over that amount. And for the code enforcement, who has been sworn in, to give the incorrect information, because the next step is to give me a legal letter saying stop. I have never received it, and he never did it like -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I asked if you understood what your options are. MS. HOUSTON: I understand my option of that, even though it was not justice done here. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Thank you very much. Next one will be BCC versus Frank Fernandez. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, this case was heard by the board on March 27th, 2008. Violation was found for vegetation removed on an undeveloped property without appropriate permits. The order has been provided to you all for your review. Page 59 June 26, 2008 At this time the compliance has not been met. Fines have accrued at a rate of $200 per day from the period of April 27th, 2008 through May 15th, 2008, for a total of$3,600. And they continue to accrue because compliance has yet to be met. Additionally, $463.99 for operational costs are being requested for a total imposition of $4,063 -- $4,400 -- no, sorry, $4,063.99. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Michelle, is there a difficulty with the respondent's address or notification? MS. ARNOLD: I don't know whether or not he's received notice of this particular proceedings, but he was present at the hearing. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: For the record, as Michelle stated, Mr. Fernandez was at the hearing and was not happy, of course, about what happened, and basically said -- Jen Waldron, Code Enforcement, for the record. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. He has not contacted me at all since the hearing, so -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And nothing's been done on the property? MS. WALDRON: Nothing's been done on the property. I was out there on Tuesday and it looks exactly the same as it has. MR. LARSEN: I make a motion that we accept the county's recommendation and issue an order imposing a lien in the amount of $4,063.99. MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 60 June 26, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion is approved. MS. WALDRON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: BCC versus Mahir Trading Corporation. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, this case was heard by the board on February 28th, 2008 for a ground sign without permit. A finding of fact was entered and a violation was found. The respondent has complied with the board's order. However, fines accrued at a rate of $150 per day between March 31 st, 2008 and May 20th, 2008, for a total of$7,500. And the respondent has paid operational costs in the amount of $439.26. MR. HART: Hello. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're going to swear you in. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Are you with them? If you're to give any kind of testimony, both of you would have to be -- okay. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. HART: My name is Kevin Hart. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And spell-- MR. HART: H-A-R- T. MR. AHMED: My name is Ali Ahmed. I'm from Mahir Trading Corporation. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you have the authority to -- MR. AHMED: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you need the spelling and everything? MR. AHMED: My name is A-H-M-E-D. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead, sir. MR. AHMED: We just bought that station in 2006 -- in 2007, Page 61 June 26, 2008 June. And then we have a gas contract with the Florida gas supplier, which is MonufRashed. MonufRashed, his name is M-O-N-U-F, R-A-S-H-E-D. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We don't need to rehear the case, so are you looking for reduction in the fines? And if you are, why would MR. AHMED: Yes. Because of the -- we did the -- whatever is done, the PBS gas supplier, he came, he say he's going to do it. And Mr. Kevin Hart, he was doing that sign, Sunoco sign. And he done -- he, I think, took the permit. But some little sign, (unintelligible) sign, I think it was not in the permit. There was something put in there, and then somehow there was delaying, delaying. We don't know what they're doing. They was responsible for the sign. And we don't know what they're doing. They're sending him to correct that. So then he did or not, and the other guy, the gas supplier, he say, you know, just ignore it or something like that. So we don't know was. He just telling us Tuesday morning, say the PBS owner tell him to ignore it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: When did you come into compliance? When was-- MR. HART: When was the sign removed? MR. AHMED: We picked up the sign on, I think, May-- MS. PATTERSON: May 20th. MR. HART: May 20th. MR. AHMED: I think you came in on May 20th, after two days. And same day we found the problem, it was May 18th. And then right away we call Edison Oil, and they came and they take the whole sign out -- Edison Oil Company. And then after we take the sign out my business is really get down, and without sign we cannot do anything in there. Last almost one and a half years we suffering much, much, much. And we -- Page 62 June 26, 2008 when I bought the business, business was too high, now it's -- 2006, August 22nd. And then after that, we having lot of problem with the sign, and after that, after three months we having down business, is keep downing. Last month we did like we used to be do lot of business, but we, like a -- 60 percent down business, I know, because of the sign. And we are not doing anything in there right now. MS. PATTERSON: I think what happened in this case is that just as Mr. Ahmed is saying, that they did buy the station. I think there were some issues there prior to his purchasing the station. In my experience there's been a lot of players in this game here with trying to get the sign permitted or removed or whatever. I've talked to a number of different people. Mostly I've talked to Mr. Hart. He's the contractor trying to get the sign CO'd. I would just like to say for the record that the permit for this sign was a Sunoco ground sign, was issued in January of'07, January 3rd of'07. The permit expired on July 2nd of'07 because all of the inspections and certificate of occupancy was not obtained. I did speak to a number of people, as I said, with regard to this sign, trying to prompt them to get and move on the sign and get it taken care of. I think that at one point, as he was talking about, Mr. Rashed, he was working with a Mr. Rashed from Florida Gas Suppliers, who was his gas supplier. And he was thinking that Mr. Rashed was taking care of the situation, when he was not. When we came before the board the last time, Mr. Ahmed had someone here acting on his behalf and he signed a stipulated agreement to say that they agreed to all the terms and conditions set forth by the county. So, you know, bottom line is that they were to come into compliance by removing that sign or getting their CO by March 30th of 2008 or the $150 a day fine would be imposed. I made a site reinspection on May 20th of 2008 and it revealed Page 63 June 26, 2008 that the corrective action had been taken. The sign was removed at that time. So as we said before, the fine would -- if the board wishes to impose the fine, it would run from March 31 st to May 20th. That would be the day that they did come into compliance by removing the sign. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: On this imposition of fine, it says respondent has complied with CEB orders as of February 28th, 2008. MS. PATTERSON: It should be the 20th. MS. ARNOLD: The affidavit says May 20th, '08. The inspection was performed -- I'm not sure what you're referring to. MR. DEAN: Where it says respondent has complied with CEB orders as of February 28th, '08. Right above recommendations, that line. MS. ARNOLD: Oh, okay, on the executive summary. That's just how Bendisa writes it. That's the date of the hearing, February 28th, 2008. He is not -- he had not complied on that date, that was the date of the hearing. The order was February 28th, 2008. So -- the issue really is your order required obtaining permits, I believe, to permit the structure -- or permit the sign or remove the sign. And the sign was removed without a demo permit. And then didn't -- the investigator wasn't informed of its removal until she did a site inspection on her own to -- but we are recommending that the fines be imposed to that May 20th date of her site inspection because that's the only time that we are aware because of no permit activity whatsoever that the sign was actually removed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I have any more questions of the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I have recommendation, or a motion? MR. LARSEN: I'd like to make a motion. I'd like to move that we reduce the amount of the fine from $7,500 down to $1,500 and Page 64 June 26, 2008 assess the operational costs of $439.26 on top of that, for a total assessment of$1,939.26 to be posed as a lien. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But the 439.26 has been paid. MR. LARSEN: Oh, have been paid. So it would just be reducing the amount of the fines down to $1,500. MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Did you understand what we just did? We reduced the fines. MR. AHMED: My question is why I have to pay fine, because we are losing so much business. And then it's not my fault to do that all these things -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The reason -- the reason we reduced the fines, it was supposed to be corrected in a certain amount of time which it wasn't. So we reduced the fines to $1,500. MR. HART: Are you liening the property or can he just pay the fine? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: He can just pay the fine. He can get with Michelle. MR. AHMED: But is not my fault was -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're done with the public hearing and you can go ahead and get -- MR. AHMED: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- get in touch with Sharon or Page 65 June 26, 2008 Michelle. Thank you. MS. PATTERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next case, BCC versus AL. Petroleum, Inc. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, and Arthur H. Lennox should also be included on that. This case was heard by the board on January 24th, 2008. A pole sign violation, wall sign violation and banner sign violation were found in violation on that particular date, all without appropriate permits. To date not all the violations have been in compliance. The banners have been corrected, and I'll let the investigator kind of give you more detail on that. But we are asking at this time that fines at a rate of $100 per day from the period of April 24th, 2008 through May 15th 2008 for a total of $2, 1 00 be imposed and continue to accrue until all violations are abated. Operational costs in the amount of$573.86 have been paid. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. MR, LENNOX: Arthur Lennox -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And state your name, please. MR. BOWER: Tim Bower. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Lennox, I ask this to all parties: Do you have authority to sign for AL Petroleum, Inc.? MR. LENNOX: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. Are you looking for reduction in fines? We can't really -- you haven't complied, so I guess what's -- MR. LENNOX: Yes, we have complied. We made a mistake. We did not call -- I have the original findings of fact. And the original findings of fact, we went through the fact that we had bagged our sign, meaning it was a mobile and we put a bag over it, which was illegal. Page 66 June 26, 2008 We had put some temporary things on our canopy that said BP, and that was illegal. We also got into a long dissertation at the last meeting about my Subway signs. And I brought out all the old permits that I had showing that we had permits. At the end of the meeting there was no discussion on the Subway signs. And I have right here the findings of the fact that says the pole signs was altered and three banners that were on the canopy were wrong. There was nothing else in the findings of fact about Subway or anything like that. So I -- Tim here got the permits. I paid my fine. I contested the fine because I thought you guys said 100 bucks, but I paid it and I never heard back. I wrote a letter. And Tim came in and did all the work. And in the findings of fact, it says my alternative by removing all non-permit signs including supporting structures within 90 days, which is April 23rd, and should a wall sign be removed, removal is to be included. So we did everything on March 28th. Everything was gone and done, nicely cleaned up on the signs. The problem was down here on number five, we're supposed to notify the code enforcement and we did not. So we were done a month early with all the, quote, illegal things. And I thought Tim was going to do it, but he never had the findings of facts. I never sent them to him. But he did as a -- he knew that when we were here we had to have it done by April 23rd, and he was all done in March. So we continued on our merry way, getting the rest of the signs done and all the COs and things like that and it takes -- you know, he comes out of the Tampa area, and he finally got them all done and he has COs on everything. But as far as what we had illegal in front of you guys, we were cleaned up a month early. As far as getting all our new COs done, we just finished that this week. But I don't see why that's -- you shouldn't Page 67 June 26, 2008 have to tell me that I have to have a CO in 30 days. As long as I cleaned up my violations. You can tell me to have my building done in so much time. So I don't see where I should be getting any fines. And if it was a problem, she's been on my case since I've owned the facility. She won't even come in and see me anymore, but I think she would have said something. And then another situation when she finally did call me I think -- no, I called her up to find out what this -- what's this hearing all about. I thought the hearing -- it didn't say anything when you told me to come to this -- I thought the hearing was on the fact that I paid $500 and contested it because I thought it was $100. She said oh, no, you're in violation of this, this and this. I said, what violations are we in? She called me back, said, well, you didn't get a demolition permit. This is a copy of the permit that we pulled. This is for our sign. This is -- I went down to the county yesterday and had it copied. And it says right here on our demolition -- our permit, existing sign to be removed. And now she's coming and telling me well, we have to have a demolition permit. Well, this got issued to us, stamped, sealed -- how are we supposed to know that we're supposed to have a demolition permit where we already got it on this one? So I'm not sure what's going on other than the fact that your guys are coming after me for money all the time and I'm trying to obey the rules. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. MS. PATTERSON: For the record, Sherry Patterson, Collier County Code Enforcement. Mr. Lennox is correct in some things. I would like to say right off the bat that, just to kind of do a quick scenario here, initially the case did involve three violations on this property. One of the violations was a pole sign without a required permit and the sign was Page 68 June 26, 2008 not being maintained and repaired. He would not be able to get a permit for a sign of that size, it was too tall and it wouldn't comply with today's ordinance, so he would in fact have to take it down. So I'd like to go back to the order of the board, which simply states that Mr. Lennox was to obtain all required building permits and inspections and certificate of occupancy within 90 days. Part of that required building permit would be a demolition permit to remove that Sign. That did not happen. That's where that came from. MR. LENNOX: May I interject for one thing, on just what you said? It says within -- we have to get all our COs by 30 days. Number two says in the alternative, by removing all nonpermitted signs, including supporting structures, within 90 days. That's our alternative. And that's exactly what we did. We had them down before they -- continue reading. MS. PATTERSON: Okay, let me just say, you are correct, you did take it down. However, when you took it down, you did not obtain the demo permit to do so. That's my contention. MR. LENNOX: I have it right here. MS. PATTERSON: Also there were three banners attached to the canopies without the required permits. They did take those down, that's abated. There are two wall signs for Subway without required permits. When we were last before you, the respondent brought up that there was a permit for those signs. During my research, I found that in fact there was, but there had been a change made to those, so they did an alteration on that sign which made the permit no longer valid. So he needed a new permit for the sign. MR. LENNOX: Can I comment on that? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, we're not here to argue the case. Basically what I'm trying to get at is were there any issues with Page 69 June 26, 2008 the county where we shouldn't impose the fines. I guess that's what I'm getting at. I just want to know -- I'm not here to argue the case. MS. PATTERSON: Yes, there is. And I'd like to go to that right now. Basically my reinspection on April 29th revealed that the respondent did not follow the recommendation of the board, did not obtain all required Collier County building permits, i.e., demolition permit for the removal of the pole sign. He did not obtain all required inspections and certificate of occupancy for the Subway wall signs on or before the compliance date of April 23rd. So those -- that's when he was -- he just had the Subway wall signs CO'd yesterday, June 25th. His comply date was April 23rd, he's at June 25th. So in between, those are the fines that may be imposed by the board. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So we're actually looking between April 24th and yesterday for fines. MS. PATTERSON: That's correct. That's correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Which would be -- do you have a calculation on how many days that is? MS. PATTERSON: I do not. Perhaps Bendisa -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Because that would be the actual fine that we're looking at. MR. LENNOX: Why did your findings of fact give us an alternative to have everything removed within 90 days? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. But part of that alternative is that you have to get -- let me read it. Also part of it is you have to call code enforcement to notify them, that's part of this order. MR. LENNOX: Well, says either do one or two. And I did number two. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Even if you did number two, you still had to notify code enforcement to come out-- Page 70 June 26, 2008 MR. LENNOX: I agree that I did not give them -- I said that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you have any -- MR. LENNOX: But she also admits that she was there five days after the 23rd, which is only five days, and everything was gone. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Except she did say the Subway signs had been altered and they were not in compliance. MR. LENNOX: But that's a new permit that we're working on. We have three permits. We have a wall permit, we have a pole permit and we have a canopy permit. And we were working on those. And aIls we wanted to do was -- what we were last time was the violations. We cleaned up the violations. And you didn't make any rulings on the Subway signs last time because myoid permits were from '94 and '96, which I brought last time and I have them again today. So the only findings of facts you made last time were on the bags and the canopy signs. Can Tim say something, please? He's my contractor. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sure. MR. BOWER: Art's correct, you know, he was supposed to call. He told me to make sure that we cleaned all this up. And we did. We went out there, we made sure we were out there on 3/28, removed the bags, we installed the ground sign. We went back a couple times after that to do some minor adjustments to the ground sign and we were complete on 4/16. I mean, the sign was complete. The site was completed. So apparently I guess it was my -- I should have called Sherry, okay, but we had -- it was a communication issue that we had is what it was. And as far as the demolition permit, I've built 1,000 signs in the last 10 years. I've never pulled a demolition permit to take down a sign, because generally once you take the sign down, you use the same circuit, you tie into it, you have to have an electrical inspection, a foundation inspection. That would be no different than if you took an Page 71 June 26, 2008 air conditioner off the roof and you had to disconnect the electric to put it back on. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Speak into the microphone, please. MR. BOWER: Sorry. I've never pulled a demolition. I -- ask Sherry that. I've never pulled a demolition permit to remove a sign. Generally a demolition permit is so you obtain the proper utility disconnects, you make sure there's no asbestos, you do an asbestos survey and, you know -- so the workers that are doing the demolition, you know, are -- but I've never pulled one for that. As far as notification of her, that's my fault, it's not Art's. I should have done it. It's a communication deal between us. But the work was done and it was in compliance. In fact, the last inspection I got I had to peel the sticker off the Subway permit, the original permit sticker off, because they were both on there, for the numbers. MS. PATTERSON: If! may just say one thing. With the demo permit, the reason the county requires the respondents to get a demo permit is because just what he said, there could be some health, safety issues with wiring or structural, you know, problems under there that we can't see. And that's why the demo permit is -- they ask them to get that. However, because the respondent did not call me to let me know when he did demo it and get the demo permit, I went out a few days later and found that they had the new sign installed. Well, Mr. Bower is saying that what they did at that point was they just hooked up the old electric to the new sign that's in there. So, you know, I don't know what we could require them to do now at this point for a demo permit since everything is installed, except for an after-the- fact demo permit, if that is what the board wishes to do. MS. ARNOLD: Can I ask Ms. Patterson a couple questions just for clarification? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sure. MS. ARNOLD: Sherry, the case that was brought before the Page 72 June 26, 2008 board included specific wall signs, correct? MS. PATTERSON: Correct. MS. ARNOLD: Have those wall signs been removed? MS. PATTERSON: No, they have not. MS. ARNOLD: Have they been permitted? MS. PATTERSON: They have a permitted and they just got CO'd yesterday, June 25th. MS. ARNOLD: So part of the issue is the pole sign, and the pole sign -- I walked over and saw the plans that were submitted, allegedly, with the permit application. We don't have -- I don't have that to verify if that's exactly what was submitted. It does say in there that the pole sign will be removed. I mean, the board has the ability to give them that, that they notify the county and if that's the site plan that was in fact approved with the permit, that the county was then put on notice that that sign was going to be removed. The only issue then would be the wall sign and the CO of that, because that was part of the board's order. MR. LARSEN: I just have one question. Mr. Lennox, you mentioned before in regard to the investigator having knowledge of the removal within five days after it occurred. MR. LENNOX: Yes, she just said she was there. MR. LARSEN: I understand what she said, I'm just getting back. You said five days earlier? MR. LENNOX: The date you had to have this done was April 23rd. She said she was there April 28th. Yet she's trying to say it wasn't done for 60 days. MR. LARSEN: Okay. I understand. Thank you very much. MR. PONTE: Well, I'd like to make a motion. Seems to me that the respondent is in compliance, and basically what we're turning on is point number five, is the fact that he didn't notify code enforcement that he was in compliance. Page 73 June 26, 2008 MS. ARNOLD: That's incorrect, sir. He didn't comply with your full order until yesterday. MR. PONTE: All right. So what you're saying is that the -- without any photos, it's kind of difficult. But the Subway signs were not -- MS. ARNOLD: The wall signs. MR. PONTE: Right, the wall signs were not in compliance until yesterday. MS. ARNOLD: Correct. MR. PONTE: So we're only really talking about the wall signs in consideration. If we're just talking about the wall signs and the fact of the matter is that the respondent is in compliance, though late, I think the fines should be reduced to reflect that fact, that the compliance has been achieved and that the respondent was late in coming into full compliance. And so I would recommend that the fine be reduced to $250. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Michelle, is he in full compliance as of today? MS. PATTERSON: Yes, he's in full compliance as of today, other than the fact that I mentioned with the demo permit for that pole Sign. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other -- is that a motion? MR. PONTE: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: There is not a second. Do I hear any other suggestions? Any other motions? MR. LARSEN: Well, you know, I'm also in agreement with my colleague that, you know, a reduction in fine is appropriate. But my concern is that $250 may be low for the circumstances. My concern is basically whether or not he did it -- he complied in a timely manner. There must be, you know, some acknowledgment Page 74 June 26, 2008 on their behalf that they did not completely fulfill the requirements of the order but they acted in good faith. So I would move that basically we reduce the fine to an amount of $750. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I would second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion has been approved. The fine will be $750. MR. LENNOX: Okay, how do we appeal it? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Jean? MS. RAWSON: In the order it will tell you, you have 30 days to file an appeal. I'll send you a copy of the order. MR. LENNOX: Can I just say one more thing. It doesn't say one thing in the findings of fact about the Subway signs. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The hearing has been closed. MS. PATTERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next will be BCC versus Cynthia Aurelio Markle. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, this case was heard by the board on January 24th, 2008 for violations of interior remodeling without permits. The order has been provided for your review. The respondents have not yet complied with the board's order. Fines accrued at a rate of $100 per day between February 8th, 2008 through May 21st, 2008 for -- there's a couple different parts of Page 75 June 26, 2008 your order here -- for failure to apply for permits. And then -- for a totalof$10,300. And additionally, fines accrued from March 23rd to May 21st. And on your executive summary it says May 20th, but it should say May 21 st, for failure to get certificate of completions for those permits, for a total of $6,000 -- I'm sorry, $5,900. That's also an error on your executive summary. And additionally, operational costs in the amount of $320.05 have yet to be paid. So the county is now requesting that fines in the amount of$16,520.05 be imposed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can I have them sworn in, please. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MR. PAUL: The last time I had a conversation with the owner in regards to the wall in their garage, her response was if I wasn't going to pay it out of my own pocket, then she wasn't going to do anything. So that's where I left it off with her. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And when was that? MR. PAUL: It was sometime last month I spoke to her. I don't know the date offhand. But I've been to the site several times and she's not going to remove this wall or do anything in regards to it. I told her the fines and she doesn't care. She says the bank will take it anyways, take the house anyways. The bank has not foreclosed on her house or anything as such. So the fines will just continue to accrue. Renald Paul, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions of the investigator? MR. LARSEN: Just to be clear. I mean, there's been no compliance whatsoever with the prior order of the board? MR. PAUL: No, there hasn't. MR. LARSEN: I make a motion that we impose an order, or issue an order imposing a lien in the amount of $16,520.05 as recommended by the county. Page 76 June 26, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: There is none. Motion passes. Any new business? MS. ARNOLD: No. Just to note on your consent agenda that three items were forwarded to the county attorney's office for their consideration. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do we need a motion for that, to forward? MS. ARNOLD: No, when you approve your agenda, it gets approved. I just wanted to note that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. MR. LARSEN: Do we have to read them out on the record? MS. ARNOLD: If you'd like. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Do you want to go ahead and read it. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. The first item is Board of County Commissioners versus Albert Houston, Sr., which was CEB Case No. 2007 -63. Another case against Mr. Houston, CEB Case No. 2007-64. And finally, Board of County Commissioners versus Eduardo and Maria Rodriguez, CEB Case No. 2007-80. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. Page 77 June 26, 2008 Any reports? Comments? Next meeting-- MR. PONTE: I'd just like to make one comment. I want to thank the county attorney's office, and particularly, I guess, Jacqueline Hubbard, for taking the position they did and keeping us all informed about the Marshall case, which looks as if it's coming to a hoped-for conclusion. And I certainly thank the county attorney's office and Jacqueline Hubbard. Because you really did track me down while I was out of the country and kept on me and make sure I got in to sign all the right papers. Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, all the board members that were named have been dismissed from that case. But I think the case continues -- including myself, I've been dismissed from it. MR. PONTE: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next meeting will be July 31st, 2008. And do I hear a motion to adjourn? MR. DEAN: Motion to adjourn. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. ARNOLD: Thank you. It's been my pleasure. MR. PONTE: Ours too. Page 78 June 26, 2008 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :35 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD GERALD LEFEBVRE, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM Page 79