Loading...
CEB Minutes 07/31/2008 R July 31, 2008 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida July 31, 2008 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Gerald Lefebvre Larry Dean Kenneth Kelly Edward Larsen Richard Kraenbring Lionel L'Esperance George Ponte Robert Kaufman ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the board Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director Bendisa Madill, Operations Coordinator Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA Date: July 31, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. Location: Collier County Government Center, Third Floor, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Building F, Naples, FI 34112. NOTICE: THE RESPONDENT MAY BE LIMITlED TO TWENTY (20) MINUTES FOR CASE PRESENTATION UNLESS ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE BOARD. PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. ALL PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN THE PUBLIC HEARING ARE ASKED TO OBSERVE ROBERTS RULES OF ODER AND SPEAK ONE AT A TIME SO THAT THE COURT REPORTER CAN RECORD ALL STATEMENTS BEING MADE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - June 26, 2008 4. PUBLIC HEARINGSfMOTlONS A. MOTIONS Motion for Continuance 1. BCC ys. Florida Metal Master, INC CEB NO. 2007090640 Motion for Extension of Time 1. BCC Ys. MKA Holdings, LLC CEB NO. 2007070696 B. STIPULATIONS C. HEARINGS 1. BCC vs. James Bachmann 2. BCC vs. Ahmed and Melissa Celik 3. BCC vs. Richard and Lisa Kames 4. BCC vs. Florida Metal Master, INC 5. BCC vs. Carlos Perez 6. BCC VS. Juan Hernandez and Adrianna Garcia 7. BCC VS. James L. Hargraves 8. BCC VS. Barron Collier Partnership 9. BCC VS. Ridgeport Limited Partnership 10. BCC VS. Pry of Naples, LLC 11. BCC vs. M & M Developers, LLC 12. BCC vs. Genel Bricius and Dieumila Faugue 13. BCC VS. Genel Bricius and Dieumila Faugue 14. BCC VS. Robert and Jeanie Ankney CEB NO. 2006090001 CEB NO. 2007110592 CEB NO. 2007060801 CEB NO. 2007090640 CEB NO. 2007080099 CEB NO. 2006081209 CEB NO. 2007110616 CEB NO. 2007070830 CEB NO. CES20080005303 CEB NO. CES20080002782 CEB NO. CESD20080002249 CEB NO. CEPM20080004430 CEB NO. CESD20080004919 CEB NO. 2007050259 5. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. BCC vs. Willie L. and Marjorie Davis 2. BCC VS. Anthony Gualario 3. BCC VS. Teudis Zamora 4. BCC VS. Naples Property Services, LLC CEB NO. 2007-68 CEB NO. 2007-94 CEB NO. 2006120209 CEB NO. 2007050653 B. Motion for Rednction/ 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. Carmen Vasallo CEB NO. 2007-46 8. REPORTS 9. COMMENTS 10. NEXT MEETING DATE - August 22, 2008 11. ADJOURN July 31, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd like to call the meeting ofthe Code Enforcement Board to order. 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 this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and, therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. And first of all, I'd like to acknowledge Diane Flagg, she's the new Director of Code Enforcement. I'd like to welcome her to code enforcement. MS. FLAGG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and board members. As you see, you see a familiar face to my left. Bendisa, although she's been promoted to another division, she will be with us both for this meeting and for August's meeting. And in the process, we're seeking to work with her position, and we'll be hopefully hiring a manager for this position. So you'll see her for the next two meetings. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And may I have the roll call. MS. MARKU: Good morning. Mr. Edward Larsen? MR. LARSEN: Present. MS. MARKU: Mr. George Ponte? MR. PONTE: Here. MS. MARKU: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? Page 2 July 31, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. MARKU: Mr. Kenneth Kelly? MR. KELLY: Here. MS. MARKU: Mr. Larry Dean? MR. DEAN: Here. MS. MARKU: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. MARKU: Mr. Richard Kraenbring? MR. KRAENBRING: Here. MS. MARKU: Mr. Robert Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Here. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And do I have any changes to the agenda? MS. MARKU: For the record, Bendisa Marku, Operations Coordinator, Collier County Code Enforcement. We have the following changes to the agenda. Item -- under Item 4.C.5, BCC versus Carlos Perez, will become Item 4.B.1. MR. KRAENBRING: That's number five, actually, right? MS. MARKU: That's number five will become 4.B.1. Item 10.C.5, BCC versus Pry of Naples, LLC will become Item 4.B.2. Item 11.C.5, BCC versus M&M Developers, LLC, will become Item 4.B.3. Item 12.C.5, Genel Bricius and Dieumila Faugue, will become Item 4.B.4. County's requesting to withdraw Item 4.C.9, and that is BCC versus Ridgeport Limited Partnership. And county's requesting to continue item 4.C.1, and that is BCC versus James Bachmann. And that will be all, thank you. MR. KELLY: I have a question. There's a stipulation on C.12. Page 3 July 31, 2008 We also have the same respondent for 13. Are they both stipulated or just number 12? MS. MARKU: Only number 12 is stipulated. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I was going to have that question also. Do I hear a motion to approve the agenda? MR. PONTE: I'd like just to suggest one item or introduce one item under new business, and if not for this meeting then some other, to discuss the stipulation process, and particularly a possibility of the introduction of penalties for people who do not comply with the stipulation agreement that they've signed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We can put that under new business and you can bring it up at that point. MR. PONTE: Thank you. MR. L'ESPERANCE: All right, I move that we accept the agenda as so modified. MR. DEAN: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. The motion is passed. Approval of minutes from the June 26th, 2008 meeting. Do I hear a motion? MR. LARSEN: I move to approve the minutes from the June 26, 2008 meeting. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? Page 4 July 31, 2008 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Motion is passed. MR. KELL Y: One abstention. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And we'll move on to the public hearings and motions. The motion for continuance. We'll start off with BCC versus Florida Metal Master. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. BOX: Good morning. My name is Investigator Box for the record, Collier County Code Enforcement. There's been a continuance request here on behalf of Mr. Trapasso by his attorney, Peter Flood. I spoke to him this morning and we're willing to grant the continuance. I believe it's -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you speak up a little bit, please. MR. BOX: I believe they're asking for a 30-day continuance. The attorney is Peter Flood. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Flood? MR. FLOOD: Yes, that's correct. I was just recently retained on this. I've been out of town. I got back to my office on Tuesday and I was retained on it. We filed a continuance. I talked to the code enforcement officer and he indicated he had no objection, just to familiarize myself with the matter and come back in 30 days and see what we can do. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And the date of our next hearing in August, so it's on the record? MS. RAWSON: August 22nd. MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion that we approve the Page 5 July 31, 2008 continuance. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor -- MR. DEAN: I have a question. I'd like to ask a question. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Absolutely. MR. DEAN: Date violation first observed was '07, September 20th, '07, and to be corrected by April I 4th, 2008. Why do you feel this should be extended, sir? MR. BOX: Sir, during that time there were a -- two notices of violation that were issued to this person. Initially the initial Notice of Violation that was issued back in October had the incorrect ownership information on it. And what I did was I corrected that and we had a new compliance date on the new Notice of Violation that was supposed to have been in April. I believe it was April 14th. MR. DEAN: Yes, sir. Okay, thank you, that's fair. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We have a motion and we had a second. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. PONTE: I just have a general question before the respondent leaves. I'm concerned about one thing. The date for the meeting is August 22nd. But is that a Friday and not a Thursday? Page 6 July 31, 2008 MS. MARKU: Yes, sir. MS. RAWSON: It is. It was one of those that we couldn't get the room and they switched it. MR. PONTE: Okay, I just wanted to make sure we had the right date. MS. RAWSON: It is. MR. PONTE: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And -- MR. KELL Y: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes, sir. MR. KELLY: Given the time frame that it's only 22 days away, does Mr. Flood want to waive service? MR. FLOOD: That's fine. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next one will be BCC -- is it -- BCC versus Bachmann; is that correct? MS. MARKU: The county is -- the county requested continuance on that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. I need to swear you in. MS. SCAVONE: Michelle Scavone with Collier County Code Enforcement. . (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. SCAVONE: We're asking for continuance on this case due to further investigation research and verification from the zoning, due to the complexity of this case and wanting to find an agreeable resolution for the property owner and the county. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you're looking to continuance to the 22nd? MS. SCAVONE: I believe so. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is that adequate time? MS. SCAVONE: One moment. Yes, that would be fine. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And that is acceptable to yourself and your client? Page 7 July 31, 2008 MR. FLOOD: That's acceptable. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you waive notice also? MR. FLOOD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. We'll see you on the 22nd of August. MS. SCAVONE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And did you also say that Ridgeport Limited Partnership will be removed or -- MS. MARKU: Will be withdrawn. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Would we do that at this point? MS. MARKU: Yes, we can. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Let's go to Ridgeport Limited Partnership. And if I can swear you in, please. Have him sworn in. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: For the record, Supervisor Kitchell Snow. This case was heard before you -- or was to be heard before you as a repeat violation, a recurring violation. The problem is that since this Notice of Violation was issued, there has been a ruling by the Federal Court that parts of our sign code are unconstitutional. And it's not fair to the respondent if it's declared unconstitutional to hold them to something that has been declared unconstitutional. That's the reason for the county withdrawing this. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And do I hear a motion? MR. LARSEN: I move to approve the withdrawal. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. Page 8 July 3 1, 2008 MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. SNOW: I thank the board. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And we're going to move on to extension of time. MKA Holdings, LLC. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead, Investigator. MR. SNOW: Sir, this is a case for MKA Holdings that was heard before you on -- in March. They were given 120 days. And one of the things that the county is requesting them, if they needed more time to comply. Because this is a serious case that involves a site improvement plan and involves extensive permitting on the interior. And the county would prefer them to come back and ask for more time rather than let the time eclipse and then the fines start accruing. So that's why we're here today. I would like Mr. Walker to speak to you and request how much time he needs. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Walker, maybe if you could explain to us what stage of the process you're in and what you estimate the time before you will have the SDP. MR. WALKER: The front of the building, that issue has been issued -- we have been issued permits and we are at least halfway through the inspection phase on that. So hopefully that will be completed very soon. The rear part of the building that was of issue is going to require an SIP and a vacation of an easement and a moving of a drainage pipe. So that is going to -- I don't know how long that -- it's already been in process with the county. The SIP meeting has happened. The Page 9 July 31, 2008 engineer is working on it with the county. I'm guessing six months with the work that has to be done. It's also, you know, all -- everything involved has been kind of a financial hardship as well. And that is not going to be an inexpensive process to move that pipe and so on and so forth. So I'm certainly hoping to have all of this wound up by that time period. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Investigator, do you feel that they've been working diligently to correct the issue? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. I received usually a biweekly phone call from Mr. Walker letting me know the status. And the health and safety, which was the main issue before this was brought to you with the interior additions without permitting, they are starting to vacate those, and they have got permits. And that was the main issue here. It's just the site improvement plan. So it doesn't appear there's any health and safety issues here. And we would have no objections to whatever the board would like to do as far as a time continuance. MR. PONTE: What's the county -- do you think the six months is a reasonable amount of time or should this be closed up a little faster than that? MR. SNOW: No, sir, I think six months is a normal procedure for a site improvement plan. Because of the complexity here and because they've been diligent, and it's been kicked back several times, and we are trying to forward this and get this through, but I think six months. If it starts to run a little bit longer than that, we can always come back as long as there's reasonable cause for us to come back before you. But I would hate to cut him at 90 days or 120 days when he's on that cusp and then has to come back and see you again, which is -- I don't think we want to do that. I think six months is reasonable. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is it six months to the -- all the work Page 10 July 31, 2008 is complete, so at this point probably would need inspections and so forth. Would there be any reworking in there once they get the SIP? MR. SNOW: I don't believe so, sir. Once it's issued-- engineering -- some of it is involved site improvement plan. There's certain things that don't need to be -- are not going to be required to be permitted. For instance, ifhe's going to blacktop anything, we normally issue a permit for that. The engineer goes out and says it's fine. So the six-month time frame is going to allow him -- since they're so far along on the interior permitting. And the rear, they're going to get the drainage engineer and we'll go out and take a look at it. And I feel that six months is a reasonable time for him. I don't think he's going to need anything more than that. Ifhe does, he can always come back to the board and request more time. And we would prefer to do it this way rather than having the fines start to accruing. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Maybe the board might want to think about putting in there every 60 days or at least three updates, you know, written form, if that's of interest. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I feel confident and comfortable with the respondent checking in with Supervisor Snow as he's doing. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. PONTE: I do too. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion, then? MR. PONTE: Make a motion to accept the request for extension for six months. 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. Page 11 July 31, 2008 MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion's passed. You have six more months. MR. SNOW: Thank the board. MR. WALKER: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And we'll be moving on to stipulations. First one will be BCC versus Carlos Perez. Can I have the parties step forward, please? Didn't mean to make you run. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: Good morning. Just for the record, Supervisor Kitchell Snow, Collier County Code Enforcement. I met with the property owner, Mr. Carlos Perez, yesterday. He does have some family issues; he couldn't be here today. I advised him that that was his prerogative. We would like him to be here. But as you see, he's not here. We have reached an agreement, a stipulation agreement, and it is as follows: Number one, to pay operational costs in the amount of 88.43 incurred in the prosecution of the case within 30 days of the date of the hearing. And two, abate all violations by, A, obtain a valid Collier County building permit and all inspections through certificate of completion for the construction/remodeling of the structure within 120 days of the date of the hearing or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed until such time as the violation is abated. Or, obtain a demo permit and remove any unpermitted Page 12 July 31, 2008 construction/remodeling additions within 120 days of the date of the hearing and restore the building to its original permitted state or a fine $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. And three, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator that the violation has been abated and request the investigator to come out and perform a site inspection. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions of the board? MR. DEAN: I have a question. So nobody lives in this addition? MR. SNOW: Sir, it's a business in the industrial park. MR. DEAN: Okay. But I'm just saying that remodeling was done without permits and things like that. Does anybody live in the building? Some commercial have apartments upstairs. MR. SNOW: No, sir, it's an industrial -- it's an industrial condo, there's nobody living there; they just work in there during the day. MR. DEAN: See, again we run into that wiring problem and all these things and we're allowing this. So you're happy with this? I mean, this -- you think, Mr. Snow, this is acceptable? MR. SNOW: Well, sir, we have to give them reasonable time to comply. They are in the process of getting permits. They just haven't had them a approved yet. I have been on the interior of the site. And as you can see, this is a 2007 case. It is an older case. MR. DEAN: As you know, my problem with a lot of this is that when people do construction additions and remodeling without permits and then we find that people live in the place or -- inadequate wiring, it seems to me it should be a little more stricter than just going along with the program. You know, I just don't buy that. Thank you. Page 13 July 31, 2008 MR. PONTE: I agree with my colleague. I think the time that we're allowing for some of these recent cases, and this one particularly I think is right on the button, of 120 days is overly long. I think we have to do what we can to put a little fire under the respondents to get things done more quickly. 120 days is a long time. We're not building San Francisco Golden Gate Bridge, we're just rewiring a building. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Supervisor Snow, do you see any health or safety issues in this particular situation? MR. SNOW: Not at this time. Whatever the board would like to do as far as the time frame is concerned, the county has no objection to any editions to the time frame. And I'll be sure to inform the respondent. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Kelly? MR. KELLY: In the initial charging documents or the Notice of Violation, the -- what was observed was a hole that was installed through a fire wall. Fire walls are designed to stop fire spreading from one unit to the next. I would consider that a health and safety issue. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Kelly, what is your opinion as to the length of time that has been agreed to on this particular stipulation? MR. KELLY: Well, it's a stipulation, so we don't get to hear the whole case or see pictures or anything, so it would be hard for me to decide. I just don't know how much construction is going into this. But if we're talking about building a new wall, maybe 90 days. If it's just getting a permit approved on something that's already been done and the work that was done was to code, it really shouldn't be that big of a deal to get it approved, either permit by affidavit or through the construction process. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is it within our parameters, Jean, to amend the stipulation at this point? MS. RAWSON: Certainly. You have the full authority to change the stipulation, because you enter the orders. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And the respondent would have to Page 14 July 31, 2008 agree to it? MS. RAWSON: Well, for it to be a stipulation he'd have to agree to it. You can modify his stipulation. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And then ifhe does not agree with it, then he would be back in front of us then, correct? MS. RAWSON: Actually, you can make an order. He doesn't have to agree. MR. KRAENBRING: I have a question. This property is commercial property and is unoccupied? MR. SNOW: No, sir, there is a business in there. MR. KRAENBRING: A business. It's to my mind that if the county is agreeing to 120 days and we know that the permitting process in the county and Florida is -- can be arduous, that we'll just let it stand. So I would make a motion that we agree to the stipulation. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? (No response.) MR. KELL Y: One comment. If we're not to accept the stipulation as written, I would prefer to continue to hear the case under our regular orders so that I can see the scope of this. And maybe at that time if we see that it's not really as big of a safety issue as we may perceive at this time, we can go ahead and give the 120 days in our order at that time. Ifnot, shorten it. MR. PONTE: I think that's a good idea. I really do. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion then to -- MR. KELLY: I make a motion that we reject the stipulated agreement and hear the case. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. Page 15 July 31, 2008 MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? MR. LARSEN: Nay. MR. KRAENBRING: Nay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you raise your hands, please? We will hear the case. Next stipulation is BCC versus Pry of Naples, LLC. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: For the record, Investigator Kitchell Snow. For the record, the respondent is present. We have reached a stipulation agreement. The agreement is as follows: To pay the operational costs of 89.42 incurred in the prosecution of the case within 30 days of the date of the hearing and abate all violations by: Obtain a valid Collier County building permit with all inspections through Certificate of Completion for any signs that require a permit on the property within 60 days of the date of the hearing or a fine of $l 00 a day will be imposed until such time as the violation is abated. Or, obtain a demolition permit and remove any unpermitted signs within 60 days of the date of the hearing or a fine -- strike that. That should be $100 a day, not 200. $100 a day will be imposed until such time as the violation has been abated. Remove all construction waste to the appropriate site for such disposal. And three, 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 can you state your name for the record, please. MR. HILLSTAD: Todd Hillstad. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you have the authority to sign Page ] 6 July 31,2008 for Pry of Naples? MR. HILLST AD: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What is your capacity within the company? MR. HILLSTAD: I am the property manager for the property. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good. And you agree to the stipulation? MR. HILLSTAD: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions? MR. PONTE: Yes, I do. Sixty days. And what we're doing is getting a permit for a pole sign. Again, as I said earlier, I think the time frame we're giving for correction seems to get extended and extended. I would have thought this would be 30 days and not 60. It's a pole sign. MR. SNOW: Well, sir, we're not only getting a permit for it, we're getting all inspections through Certificate of Completion. And this is just not a small pole sign. They have to do extensive work on this and then they have to pass the inspections for it. It's not only just for the permit issuance, it's for all inspection through Certificate of Completion. It's to be done in 60 days. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Kelly? MR. KELLY: I have a question. We heard a case two months ago with a similar situation and the gentleman said that there's like one or two companies in the country that are allowed to make these particular signs, because the corporation -- for instance, this case has contracts with them and at times their backlog gets out quite a bit to where they can't get the new sign. Is this a replacement sign and do we possibly need more time? MR. SNOW: Actually, no, the sign is to be erected today. The contractor is here today. If you wish to speak to him, you can probably get a better handle on him. The permit has been issued, that's why it has nothing about the Page 17 July 31, 2008 permit issuance on there, because it has been issued. The only thing they're going to be required to do now is get their inspections and C.O. it, and 60 days is good for that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, the sign is on-site; is that what you're saying? (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. COOK: My name is William Reed Cook, Jr. I'm an engineer that works for Hess. And the sign has already been constructed. It will be on-site today for installation. And the 60 days I think is more than adequate for us to get the permit and -- or have the inspections done by the county . MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. MR. LARSEN: I'd like to move that we accept the stipulation with the one change, the therefore clause, 2(A), where it changed from 200 to $100 a day and that the board approve the stipulation as so presented to us. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? MR. PONTE: Nay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: One nay. Motion passes. MR. SNOW: Thank the board. MR. KRAENBRING: I have a comment, Mr. Chairman, regarding the Perez case. We're going to be hearing that case today? Page 18 July 31, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's correct. MR. KRAENBRING: That respondent is not here, because they felt that there was a stipulated agreement. MS. MARKU: Exactly. Can the county -- the county is requesting a continuance of that case, due to the respondent not being here. MR. KRAENBRING: That's my point, is that we really -- that person anticipated a stipulated agreement. I know that we have to approve it, that probably was not their understanding. And therefore, I would think that -- I don't know where we put this in the docket, but we would have to afford this person a continuance. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're out of order right now. But per Kitchell Snow's testimony, he stated that it would be better to be here, and he was advised of that. So with that being said, he was aware that this potentially could be -- case could be heard. MR. KRAENBRING: But at the same time, I think that, you know, what's expressed to these respondents, you know, these citizens is that this is what's going to be accepted. And I think we have to give this person due process. So I don't know where this goes in -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Jean? MR. KRAENBRING: -- as far as the -- but I would think that we would want to afford that person their due process. MS. RAWSON: It's not uncommon for respondents to be here early in the morning, enter a stipulated agreement and leave. Sometimes they enter a stipulated agreement with the county prior to today's date, figuring that the stipulation is going to be approved and they're not here. I would agree with Mr. Kraenbring, for due process reasons, if you want to hear the whole case we ought to have the respondent here. And so if you want to hear the entire case, I think we probably should continue it until August 22nd. MR. KRAENBRING: And Jean, how would that fit into our Page 19 July 31, 2008 process today? Do we have to -- MS. RAWSON: Well, as the chair properly pointed out, I guess we probably should have done it before. However, you know, you can ask to go back on the agenda to that case -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Or wait until the case cOl1}es up. MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Let's wait until the case comes up. MS. RAWSON: Good thought. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right. We're going to move on to -- if I'm in order, BCC versus M&M Developers. LLC. And are you the -- you're the star today. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: For the record, Supervisor Kitchell Snow. The respondents and the county have agreed to a stipulation agreement. And for the record, this property is not occupied at this particular time. There is no one in this structure. They have agreed upon: To pay the operational costs in the amount of 88.43 incurred in the prosecution of the case within 30 days of the date of the hearing and obtain valid Collier County building permits, with all inspections through certificate of completion for the construction remodeling of the structure within 120 days of the date of the hearing or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed until such time as the violation is abated. Or obtain a demo permit and remove 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. Respondent must notify the code enforcement that the Page 20 July 31,2008 violation has been abated and request the investigator to come out and perform a site inspection. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I have one question for Jean. Being that it currently is vacant, could we put a stipulation in there that it could not be occupied until all inspections are done and they receive a Certificate of Completion? MS. RAWSON: You could. Now, this is another case where we have a stipulated agreement. And I don't know whether the respondent probably left. MR. SNOW: Yes, he did. And before anybody can go in there, sir, before it can be occupational, they're required to get the C.O. Before an occupational license can be issued, they have to have a C.O. for that. It is empty, it's been empty for approximately five months. The issue with this, and we're not going to hear the case, but just the issue with this was the respondent had entered there, had done some additions, the respondent had left. Now the owner has to put it back to its original state. And that's where we are now. He's aware that nobody's going to be in there. I monitor that weekly. Nobody's going to be in there until this is completed. Again, it's been vacant for five months and they just need to get it back to where it was. MR. KRAENBRING: I think that's implicit with the C.O. I think it would be just adding, you know, verbiage to the order. MR. LARSEN: I move that we accept the stipulation as presented by the county. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. Page 21 July 31, 2008 MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? MR. DEAN: Nay. MR. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Chair. MS. MARKU: Excuse me, another stipulation just came to our attention. That is Item 4.C.8. That is BCC versus Barron Collier Partnership. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, we'll put them right behind the next one, BCC versus Genel Bricius and Dieumila Faugue. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is the respondent here? MR. MUCHA: The respondents were here this morning and elected to leave. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: They still have a case that they're going to be -- is that -- do we still have a case on number 13? MR. MUCHA: That's not my case, but I believe the violations have been abated in that case so that's why they chose to leave on that one. For the record, Investigator Joe Mucha, Property Maintenance Specialist, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violations are of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Article 6, Section 22-231, Subsections 9, 12(I), 12(P) and 20, and are described as property maintenance violation for rental units located on this property. I entered into a stipulation with the respondents this morning and they agreed to pay operational costs in the amount of $91.40 incurred in the prosecution of this case. And to abate all violations by correcting all property maintenance violations by providing light fixture or cover plate for exposed wires and ceiling of bedroom in Unit A. Repairing exterior light fixtures for Units A and B. Repairing Page 22 July 31, 2008 hole and interior wall for Unit B. Repairing damaged shower wall for Unit B. Repairing kitchen window for Unit B. Ensuring all electrical outlets have cover plates for Unit B. And providing operable smoke detector for Unit B. All property maintenance violations must be corrected by August 7th, 2008 or a fine of $250 a day will be imposed until all the violations are corrected. And respondent must notify code enforcement investigator that the violation has been abated and request the investigator to come out and perform a site inspection. MR. KRAENBRING: I just have one question. These seem like relatively minor infractions. MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. MR. KRAENBRING: Why were they resistant to doing them? Why are we hearing this case? MR. MUCHA: Well, this case actually involved a much bigger issue, which has involved the other case. This was a duplex that was actually converted to four units. And they spent their time -- they actually got it back to what it was supposed to be, a duplex. So I'm actually happier that they took care of the fire hazards that were involved more so than -- MR. KRAENBRING: These minor items. Okay. I'mjust wondering, because typically something like that isn't really coming before the board. This would be taken care of either by the special magistrate or even before. So okay, I'm just curious. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. LARSEN: I move that we accept the stipulation as proposed by the county. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? Page 23 July 31, 2008 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? MR. DEAN: Nay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: One nay. Motion passes. And we're going to move on to BCC versus Barron Collier Partnership. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. O'FARRELL: First of all, I'd like to apologize for the record for being late and for my telephones going off all at the same time. We're here today for CEB Case No. -- I'm sorry, for the record, Susan O'Farrell, Collier County Code Enforcement Environmental Specialist. We're here today for Case No. 2007070830. The respondent is the Barron Collier Partnership. They have agreed to a stipulation in this matter. It is a case where the site development plan does not match the property. The property has been allowed to fall deficient of that plan. The respondents have agreed that the violation was accurate and stipulate to the existence. The violations are of Section 4.06.05(1)(2) of the Collier County Land Development Code, as amended, and are described as required landscape has fallen below Collier County approved standards of approved site development plan improvement 2005-AR-8238. Therefore, it's agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay the operational costs in the amount of $87 .ll incurred in the prosecution of the case within 30 days of this hearing. Page 24 July 31, 2008 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 improvement 2005-AR-8238, with attention paid to required landscape and native vegetation areas within 30 days of this hearing or a daily penalty of $150 will be imposed as long as the violation exists. The restoration of the property shall include the removal of prohibited exotics throughout the property, the replacement of all dead, failing or missing required landscape material in the property buffers and landscape areas. The respondent must notify code enforcement that the violation has been abated and request the investigator to come out and perform a site investigation or inspection. The respondents are here to agree to the stipulation. They can identify themselves. MR. TRAFICANTE: For the record, Michael Traficante and Karen Triplett, who is the Director of Property Management for Barron Collier Partnership. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And the person that signed the agreement, Brad -- MR. TRAFICANTE: Boaz. He is the CFO and currently acting CEO of Barron Collier Partnership. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And he's not here, obviously. MR. TRAFICANTE: No, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good. Any questions? MR. KELLY: Not necessarily a question. Well, actually, I do have a question. The work to be done, have you already contracted to have it done and identified the problems in which you're going to need to fix it? MR. TRAFICANTE: Yes, sir, a landscaper has been hired and Page 25 July 31, 2008 has actually met with Inspector O'Farrell to discuss what needs to be done and should be completing that work in the near future. MR. KELLY: My only comment was that seeing how the original NOV was over a year ago, I thought 30 days might be just a little short. I'm not quite sure how much work needs to be done. But I thought 30 days was a little short and I figured $150 a day was a little much for a landscape issue that's over a year old. MS. O'FARRELL: They actually started working on the property and then the tenant on the property was doing the work. They ran out of business and the economy had a downturn. So they don't really have that much left to do but they have been making effort, which is why I gave them only the 30 days. They can definitely finish within 30 days. MR. KELL Y: Comment withdrawn. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions or comments? MR. LARSEN: I'd like to make a motion that we approve the stipulation as so presented by the county. 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. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. O'FARRELL: Thank you. MR. TRAFICANTE: Thank you. Page 26 July 31, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And that should take care of any stipulated agreements. Weare going to move on to cases. The first case will be BCC versus Ahmed and Melissa Celik. MS. MARKU: This is in reference to Department Case No. 2007110592. F or the record, the respondent and the board were sent a packet of evidence and the packet of evidence is then -- we would like to enter it as Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. LARSEN: I move that we accept the evidence. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Motion passes. MS. MARKU: Violation of Ordinance 04-41, as amended, Collier County Land Development Code, Section 3.05.01(B), vegetation removal, protection and preservation. Description of violation: Property has been mechanically cleared in excess of one acre without required permits and a berm has been created with the addition of fill. Location/address where violation exists: 1645 17th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 45970600003. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Ahmed and Melissa Celik, 1645 I 7th Street Southwest, Page 27 July 31, 2008 Naples, Florida, 34117. Date violation first observed: November I 6th, 2007. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: January 4th, 2008. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: January 30th, 2008. Date of reinspection: March 9th, 2008. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. At this time, I would like to call Code Enforcement Investigator Susan O'Farrell. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you please swear in the parties. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. O'FARRELL: For the record, Susan O'Farrell, Collier County Code Enforcement, Environmental Specialist. First I'd like to address the date of the violation being observed and the time lapsed between the date of the violation being given to the property owners. They live out in Golden Gate Estates. I tried to deliver it personally twice. When you send something certified mail out in the Estates, they actually have to go to the post office and pick it up, they can't leave it somewhere. So they never got that violation. So then I posted the property and was able to talk to Melissa Celik. She called me that same day. So I want to make it clear that they did make an effort to respond to me as soon as they knew the problem. I'm going to show you some pictures, if I may. I'll show them to Mr. and Mrs. Celik first so that they have my -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Would you like to enter that as an exhibit? MS. O'FARRELL: Exhibit B? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. Do I hear a motion? MR. PONTE: Motion to flccept. MR. LARSEN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? Page 28 July 31, 2008 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Motion passes. MS. O'FARRELL: These are the pictures of the violation as I saw it where they had created a berm with the fill. Mr. Celik also explained to me that a lot of the rocks had come from inside the property. I know that Collier County Estates area has a lot of that fill rock that was created when they put in the roads. After Mrs. Celik contacted me, I spoke with Mr. Celik. We spent about 20 or 25 minutes in the office. Explained to him the violation, explained to him how a berm could be approved in Collier County if it was brought to a four-to-one slope and was covered with vegetation. Mr. Celik decided that that wasn't going to be possible, so we talked about the option of removing the berm and regrading the property to its original elevation. When I talked to Mike Sawyer, another county staff, it was determined that because the fill had been placed, they were in violation of our vegetation removal laws ordinance, because the pine trees, as you can see, are starting to die already. The pine trees are very susceptible to root injury, which will then later kill the trees. After we spoke, we had come up with sort of a time frame where he would be allowed to do that. I knew it was expensive, and he explained that his tractor at the time was not working. On 4/9, I made a site visit -- I'm sorry, this took place on 2/20, and I had given him quite a bit of time actually to get started on the property . On 4/9, I saw the property had not had any change. The berm Page 29 July 31, 2008 remained intact. Because I saw that the palm trees had been cleaned and trimmed, I decided that money must not be an issue, so I'd go ahead and start it for CEB. Right after they got the CEB hearing, again posted on their property, Mrs. Celik called me sort of frantic about what was going on and what she needed to do. And I discussed it again with Mr. Celik about how they were going to replace vegetation because of what had been lost. They would move the berm back into the yard flat, put rocks in the yard but no wall. And I said they could dig a three-foot hole to put the vegetation debris into it but with no cover over it, which is allowed by the Collier County ordinance. Later if they wanted a fence -- the reason they had built the berm was to create a barrier around their house from their neighbors. And I told them that they could get a fence permit later and either get a fence or a wall that they could put up. When I went out to the property for the reinspection for the hearing, I saw that the berm had been completely removed, the property had been neatly graded. The only problem I saw was that rocks had been placed around the palm trees sort of as a -- or the pine trees as a decorative measure. And I explained to them that that was going to injure the palm trees even further and if they could please move them back, which they agreed to do so. I have to say that the Celiks have been responsive when they've gotten their violations and their notices of hearing. And I know that they're having financial trouble and I know that it's expensive to move fill off of a property. I'd just like to close my case presentation with that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you have any current pictures of the site? MS. O'FARRELL: I took current pictures but somehow they got lost in my computer, so I'm sorry, I don't have that. But it does look really nice. It's very flat and the rocks are all gone, as well as the Page 30 July 31, 2008 vegetative debris that was in the picture. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead, Mr. Kelly. MR. KELL Y: Just a quick question. What is remaining, just to revegetate? MS. O'FARRELL: They were ready to sign a stipulation to revegetate, and I had agreed to 30 pine trees. Mr. Celik remembers it as 20, so I can negotiate that number. But because of their financial problems, the stipulation became an issue. And I was going to give them 90 days to do the replanting, and they didn't feel that that was going to be possible. They're in -- ready to be foreclosed on on their property. MR. KELLY: What was the requirement of the size of pine trees? MS. O'FARRELL: It was an eight to 10 foot. I was trying to get more trees and a better survival rate. MR. KELL Y: Thank you. MS. O'FARRELL: All of that vegetation has been removed. MR. KELLY: One more quick question. This is a Golden Gate Estates lot? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. MR. KELLY: And they have the one acre that's allowed. MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. MR. KELLY: How much does the driveway and house occupy of that one acre? Are they still allowed more? MS. O'FARRELL: They have the property, they have the driveway and they have a garage for which they have a setback. So this is what put them over the one acre, having the berm. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you have any aerials at all showing -- MS. O'FARRELL: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Because usually you present that and show what's been removed and so forth. Page 3 ] July 31, 2008 How much over the one acre are they, do you estimate? MS. O'FARRELL: This is -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is that a 330 by 330? MS. O'FARRELL: I think that's a 660. It's a -- this is a two-and-a-half-acre lot. The amount that I believe has been removed, I'd need a calculator, but I would say ifthe berm was 20 feet wide, it would have been around three sides of that property. So 20 feet by the 330 minus the section in the front, the 330, and then on the two sides. I was really more interested in getting the pine trees replaced than all of the ground cover. So many of those properties out there have already had the ground cover removed. MR. KELL Y: I have another quick question. How much of what was cleared is in the easement? And is the easement -- MS. O'FARRELL: None of it was in the easement. The easement was not affected. MRS. CELIK: Are we allowed to speak? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes, yes. MRS. CELIK: I just wanted to say that we were told 10 -- my husband was told 10 trees, not 30 or 20. We were told 10 originally. My husband did all the work himself, including trimming the pine trees. There's no extra money. We're not in the process of being foreclosed but we could be. We're just two working class people, working very hard, love our home, trying to make it look good. We tried to comply with the violations as quickly as possible. Ninety days for us to get that size of a tree, that kind of money, it's never going to happen. And we want to comply, but we have to pay our mortgage, you know. I think we could use a little bit more time, and I think that possibly reduce the number of trees. Half of the trees, we were -- actually, there was a commercial on -- there was a broadcast on the news, they were looking at our property, half of the trees were infested Page 32 July 31, 2008 with some sort of a beetle bug. They were dying from the inside out. I mean, barely the wind would blow and some of them would fall over. We thought we were doing a service by protecting our home from the wind blowing and the trees crashing down on our property. I understand that we did it without a permit, which is why we wanted to rectify it. But I think that they're being a little harsh on us. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: How much time would you need to replace the trees -- MRS. CELIK: A number? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Number of days. MRS. CELIK: I would think about six months. MR. KAUFMAN: Is it possible to do it in stages? MRS. CELIK: We'd like to do it in stages. The money to put out for all those trees all at once is gonna kill us. MR. LARSEN: What is the cost of one tree, approximately? MS. O'FARRELL: The slash pines at that size, I would say probably $75. MR. KRAENBRING: So you're looking at $7,000 for them to-- MS. O'FARRELL: For the 30 trees? MR. KRAENBRING: For 10 trees. MS. O'FARRELL: Three times seven is 2,100-- MR. KELLY: No, 750-- MR. KRAENBRING: Seven-fifty, I'm sorry. Right, right. MS. O'FARRELL: $7,000? MR. KRAENBRING: But you're looking at 30 trees. MS. O'FARRELL: My notes actually say 20 pine trees. When I was out to do the inspection, I had counted how many trees were dead. There are 35 dead pine trees on the property as a result of the berm being placed on top of it. MRS. CELIK: But most of them were dying from the inside out. MR. CELIK: I'm sorry, can I speak? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Absolutely. Page 33 July 31, 2008 MR. CELIK: When I originally bought this property, probably Collier County, when they were doing the original main roads, and looked like it was a fill land and it was a lot of rocks and high ground. And basically was like a nest for all kinds of animals. And that two-and-a-half acres -- one acre is the house basically sitting on. Basically I just clear, you sayan acre legally but I did not get the permit. But the problem is all this dirt and rocks came when I bought the house. I did not bring that. When I rake it down, and basically root of trees become available and they just start changing. But of course I have to be responsible for it. But I wasn't aware of it, the trees were dying out. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Ifwe were to give you let's say 120 days, and 10 of the trees must be planted within 60 and the remainder of the 10 planted within the 120 days for a total of20 trees? I don't know -- MR. CELIK: Anybody want to buy a house? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're talking about $1,500. MR. DEAN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest, you know, six months. It's in the rainy season, mostly. And if they do the 20 trees, and he mentioned six months, that sounds reasonable to me. MR. KRAENBRING: Yeah, I think if we start to make this as a program, we're just going to have to be reviewing this again and again, and it's going to be more work for code enforcement. I would say let's just put a time frame on it and let them negotiate how many trees need to be planted, because right now it's between 10 or 30. MS. O'FARRELL: Yeah, I'd rather have the number of the trees determined here at the board. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion-- MR. KELLY: Hold, hold, I have a nother question. Susan, has there been any allowances at all to hurricane damage, like for instance the trees were blown down because of a hurricane or because of these pine beetles? Page 34 July 31, 2008 MS. O'FARRELL: Well, the hurricane damage I think would have shown up, and the fact that the trees were all killed where the berm was -- and the pine bark beetle question that you're asking, the pine back beetle only attacks stressed trees. So if you have a tree that's stressed because of mechanical machinery has been run over its root system, then the pine bark beetle will attack. It's an opportunistic beetle. MRS. CELIK: This news broadcast that was done on our property was before anything was ever brought down, anything. It was a huge jungle the way we purchased the property, and they were infested with these beetles. And like I said, we thought we were doing a justice by cleaning out the land and getting rid of some of these bugs. We have a small child and a huge driveway and there were snakes and bugs and just all kinds of stuff. But it was definitely -- the pine beetle was definitely before we did any damage or changed the property at all. MS. O'FARRELL: The only response I have to that is that Wilma did do damage to pine trees. It did a torque to the trunks which caused some damage to pine beetles. But Wilma has been three years now, and when I was on the property the first time, I did not see any sign of damage to the trees by the pine barks. You can tell the damage from the pine bark beetle because they leave a hole. You can see sap running down and then there's a pile of sawdust at the base of the trunk. And I didn't observe any of that. What I observed were trees that had six feet of rock and fill laid on top of them and were beginning to suffer. MR. KELL Y: I make a motion that a violation exists. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. LARSEN: I second it. CHAI~AN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 35 July 31, 2008 MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. KELLY: I'd also like to address the discrepancy between 10 and 30 trees and see if Susan would be okay with 10, maybe 15 trees instead of the 20. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What is your recommendation? MS. O'FARRELL: My recommendation actually is 25, because the last time I went out there I counted the trees that were dead and it was 35. Under normal circumstances, if we were going to follow the LDC to the letter, every one of those trees would be measured, the diameter would be taken, and one tree for every three inches of that diameter would be required. So 30 trees, 35 trees, we're still giving them a really huge break. Because it would be hundreds of trees if we counted up the diameter in accordance to how many need to be replaced. So what did I say, 30? I'm going to stick to my guns on 30. MRS. CELIK: But you had told him 10, and me 20. And I thought the paperwork said 20, so we keep switching -- MS. O'FARRELL: The paper work says 20 but -- as we're -- MRS. CELIK: This isn't fair. MR. CELIK: This is kind of like -- it's not right what you guys are doing. MS. O'FARRELL: We had a stipulation for you to sign and that was what the negotiation was. But when I present a case, I'm presenting to the board what I feel about it. Page 36 July 31, 2008 MRS. CELIK: But you're going up now. Even though your paperwork says 20 you're requesting 30. MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. MR. CELIK: That's great. MS. O'FARRELL: But I'm also here to encourage you to ask for more time. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you have any recommendation that you can put up on the screen? And we're just going to take a couple of minutes and read through it. MR. KELL Y: Did you say eight or 10 feet high is what you're recommending? MS. O'FARRELL: Eight to 10. MR. KELLY: Eight to 10. And is there a special diameter? MS. O'FARRELL: That would be about a two to two-and-a-half diameter, that size tree. I think I said the reason I wanted the smaller tree is because they survive better. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Number three has already been taken care of, correct? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes, number three has been corrected. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: There's no mention regarding the rocks around -- I didn't see any mention regarding rocks around the pine trees. MS. O'FARRELL: That was before the recommendation was submitted for the CEB packet. And they have removed those rocks from around the trees. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is that correct? MS. O'FARRELL: Is that true? MRS. CELIK: No, we were told that we have to start backing them up. They were like a small circle around the tree and they're not on the base of the tree -- MR. CELIK: Five foot, six feet -- MRS. CELIK: We were told to spread them out more. Page 37 July 31, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Have you done that? MRS. CELIK: Not as of yet. That was as oflast week I believe when we spoke, a week-and-a-half ago. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd like to see any order from this board include that, that you'd move the rocks. MRS. CELIK: Absolutely. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is there a paragraph five or six? Is there anything after paragraph four? MR. PONTE: I don't see anything about number of trees here. MS. O'FARRELL: That's why we've had this negotiation process. I don't believe that we would have any chance of having them submit a mitigation plan which is going to require them to restore all three strata. That's why I was trying to with the Celiks. MR. PONTE: What's the cost of preparing a mitigation plan? MS. O'FARRELL: The preparation of the mitigation can run between 500 and $1,000, and the actual mitigation can run up to $60,000 an acre. MR. PONTE: How much? MS. O'FARRELL: $60,000. MR. PONTE: 60? MS. O'FARRELL: If you're doing all three strata, that would be the ground cover, the mid-level shrubbery and the pine trees. MR. KELL Y: Can I take a stab at it? I make a motion that the respondent pay operational costs in the amount of $87 .ll within 30 days. Number two, replenish the property with 20 splash pines, two-inch in diameter, eight to 10 feet high within 180 days or a fine of $50 a day for each day thereafter. Remove rocks from around the pine trees to greater than three- foot separation. And number four, notify code enforcement when the violations have been abated. Page 38 July 31, 2008 MR. LARSEN: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I have a couple of questions. How about the mitigation plan -- MR. KELLY: It's done. Ifwe just tell them they need to do 20 trees, that's it. No strata, no three layers. MS. O'FARRELL: There wasn't a three-layer strata to begin with when they put the berm up. I'm required to put that down as our recommendation for any vegetation removal case. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I heard a second; is that correct? MR. LARSEN: I second that motion. MR. KRAENBRING: Before we go there, how does that sound to you? MRS. CELIK: If! can't get the number of trees reduced any more, I guess we'll do whatever we can to make it right. MR. KRAENBRING: It sounds to me -- I'm just going to say that is sounds to me like everyone's really working toward getting this solved, and 20 trees is -- MRS. CELIK: We will do it. MR. KELLY: Before you run the vote, Susan, is there any specific way you want them planted that you'd like to explain now on the record? Can they put them wherever they want to beautify the property? MS. O'FARRELL: It would need to be naturalized, so we're not talking about two straight lines of 10 trees each, they would need to be grouped in clumps. And I might add that there has been studies done by the University of Florida that shows that pine trees grouped in clumps survive wind storms and hurricanes much better than if they're planted in a straight line. MRS. CELIK: Absolutely. MR. KRAENBRING: I'd just like to say that if the county is working with our citizens to make sure that this is getting done Page 39 July 31, 2008 properly and reasonably, I think we've done our job here today. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Would you advise them on where to plant the trees? Would that be part of your -- MS. O'FARRELL: I can come out with them when they have purchased the trees. I would prefer not to do it in a staged phase -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. We're not talking about a staged process, we're talking about 20 trees, planting them. Would that be acceptable? MS. O'FARRELL: Actually, we have a copy oftheir aerial, and what I could do is put dots for the pine trees. I'm a little low on help right now in the county, so that would be a lot easier for me to just be able to kind of make dots for where the pine trees would be and fax it to them. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Would that be acceptable? MR. KRAENBRING: It's a motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. O'FARRELL: Thank you. The next hearing will be BCC versus Richard and Lisa Karnes. MS. MARKU: That is in reference to Case No. 2007060801. F or the record, the respondent is present. The respondent and the board were sent a packet of evidence and I would like to enter the Page 40 July 31, 2008 packet of evidence as Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion to accept packet. 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. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. MARKU: Violation of Ordinance 04-41, the Collier County Land Development Code, Sections 10.02.06(B)(I), 1O.02.06(B)(I)(a), 1O.02.06(B)(1)(e), 10.02.06 (B)(1)(e)(i), and the Florida Building Code 2004 edition, Section I 05 .l. Description of violation: An unpermitted screen enclosure in the rear of the primary structure. Location/address where violation exists: 627 Palm Avenue, Goodland, Florida, 34140. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Richard L. and Lisa Karnes, 627 Palm Avenue, Goodland, Florida, 34140. Date violation first observed: June 27th, 2007. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: July 2nd, 2007. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: August 2nd, 2007. Date of reinspection: April 30th, 2008. Results of reinspection: Noncompliance. Page 4] July 31, 2008 At this time, I would like to turn the case over to Code Enforcement Investigator Christopher Ambach. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. AMBACH: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Christopher Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is case reference No. 2007060801. Violation: unpermitted screen enclosure at the rear of the main structure. On June 22nd, the code enforcement officer received an anonymous complaint in regards to an unpermitted screen enclosure at 627 Palm Avenue in Goodland. When I arrived at the property, I met with Mr. Karnes and explained the reason for my visit. He stated the screen room in question was built approximately three years ago. MR. KARNES: Object to that. It's untrue. MR. AMBACH: And he recently replaced one ceiling support beam and one screen panel. MR. KARNES: Object to that, it's untrue. MR. AMBACH: I took photos at the time and explained I would have to perform more research into the permitting of such repairs. Later that afternoon a permit search was completed and none was found for the screen enclosure. I do have a photograph I'd like to enter in as Exhibit A. I'd like to show that to Mr. Karnes, please. MR. KELL Y: I make a motion we admit the evidence. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. Page 42 July 31, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Go ahead and show it to Mr. Karnes. MR. KARNES: Say again, representation of this photograph? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MR. KARNES: I'm asking for clarification again on what this photograph represents from Mr. Ambach. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you could explain. MR. AMBACH: I'm asking to enter this into -- as an exhibit. I'm showing that this is in fact the screen room at Mr. Karnes property. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We already accepted it, so -- MR. KARNES: I object to that violation for screen enclosure. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you object to that picture? MR. KARNES: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Jean? MS. RAWSON: He's objecting to your seeing it, so he's objecting to it being introduced into evidence. So it's up to you to vote on whether or not you want to see the picture. MR. KRAENBRING: Could I just ask a question of the respondent. Is that a picture of your screen room? Is that your screen room? MR. KARNES: If! can refer you to the contract for the installation. MR. KRAENBRING: No, no, we're just asking a very simple question, is that a picture of your screen room? MR. KARNES: That's a picture of our existing roofline with a screen panel in place. That's what that is. MR. KRAENBRING: So that is a picture of the back of your house or a part of your house? MR. KARNES: Yes, sir, that is. MR. KRAENBRING: So I don't understand how you can be objecting to that. MR. LARSEN: I move we accept it into evidence at this time. Page 43 July 31, 2008 MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: So this is a picture of your screen room? MR. KARNES: Sir, my objection is that the Notice of Violation is for a screen enclosure. MR. KRAENBRING: We're not asking that, sir, we're just asking if this a picture of your room. We're not trying to be confrontational here, we're just asking is this a picture of your house? MR. KARNES: Yes, sir, it is a picture of my house. MR. KRAENBRING: That's all we're asking. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good. MR. KARNES: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead, Investigator. MR. AMBACH: Thank you. On July 2nd, 2007 I met with Mr. Karnes and advised him of my findings and that a permit was needed for the screen enclosure to exist. He stated if a permit is needed, he will get it done. The Notice of Violation was signed by Mr. Karnes at that time and a copy was provided him, allowing 30 days to come into compliance. The week of August 3rd I received e-mails from Mr. Karnes stating the screen enclosure doesn't meet setbacks and a portion would have to be removed. He was requesting two to three months to correct the problem, as he was debating a variance or removal at that point. I asked for more clarification to the e-mails and the progress that has Page 44 July 31, 2008 been made to date in obtaining the permit. On or about the week of the 8th of August, I received confirmation e-mails from Mr. Karnes requesting extension so he can meet with the permitting specialist David Hedrich at the county to find out what options he had. An extension was granted at that time. On August 9th, 2007, I received confirmation e-mail thanking me for the extension and that he would make things right on his property . On September 17th, 2007 I received an e-mail from Mr. Karnes stating an engineering firm had been hired to draw up plans. MR. KARNES: I object to that. That's incorrect. MR. AMBACH: On October I 5th, 2007, a recheck showed demolition permit 2007100558 had been issued, not only for the screen enclosure but for two sheds on the property also. On April lOth, 2008 a recheck on the status of the permit showed no progress on the permit and the permit was going to expire within 24 hours. I phoned Mr. Karnes to advise him and asked what he was planning on doing about the permit. He requested to speak to my supervisor, Susana Capasso. That meeting was via phone and I was also in attendance. Options were given to Mr. Karnes to get a Certificate of Completion on the existing permit or get a separate demolition permit, remove the enclosure and obtain a Certificate of Completion by the end of the month. MR. KARNES: Object to that. It's untrue. MR. KELL Y: What month is this, September? MR. AMBACH: This was in April. On May 14th, 2008 I observed the original permit was extended by the permitting department and a partial final on the screen enclosure was given. However, no Certificate of Completion was obtained at that time. A visit to the property later that evening showed the screen enclosure had been removed. Page 45 July 31, 2008 As of July 30th, 2008 the permit continues to exist in issued status with a final-- a partial final only. No Certificate of Completion has been obtained. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Did you, this morning, bring a package here? MR. KARNES: Yes, sir, I did. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Would you like to have that entered? MR. KARNES: Yes, I would, please, sir. And in addition to that, my understanding is it's the option of the board to hear any beginning statements by myself. And at the closing I have the option of exercising closing statement. I'd like to exercise those options, if the board would allow. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Have you seen this package that was delivered this morning to us? MR. AMBACH: Yes, I have. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you object to any of the information that's -- MR. AMBACH: No, I don't. MR. KELLY: I make a motion to accept the packet. 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. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) Page 46 July 31, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Just give us a couple of minutes just to review it. MR. KARNES: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. Has the board had ample time to review it? MR. KRAENBRING: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead, sir. MR. KARNES: For an opening statement, sir, that's my option right now? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Uh-huh. MR. KARNES: Unbeknownst to me, prior to my submittal date to the board -- after that date, after the five-day -- you know, the five day previous to the hearing today, I received a code case detail report. If you'll look at Page 15, please, top right-hand corner, first paragraph. And I understand and I respect that we're supposed to be very narrowly focused on what we're here for today, which are a violation, whether it exists has been corrected and in what fashion. But this has been entered into this case through the code case report, and it concerns me greatly. The first statement says here on 4/16/08, a gentleman, Mr. Jay McMillen had a meeting about Susana Capasso, came into my office to inquire about this case and discuss other issues he felt was going on at 627 Palm Avenue, our residence. I'd like for the board to set some parameters, if need be, because at this point in time right now Mr. McMillen has litigation pursued against myself and my wife -- MR. AMBACH: Objection, this has nothing to do with the case. MR. KARNES: But it's entered into the documents in regards to our case. I have verification here. And all I ask is that we don't drift off into any areas that we shouldn't be in in regards to this pending litigation. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're not talking about any Page 47 July 31, 2008 litigation -- MR. KARNES: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- we're just talking about your screen. MR. KARNES: Yes, sir, I'm just asking for your support that we don't drift off into that since it's been entered into the code case detail reports. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You just brought it up. MR. KARNES: Yes, sir, I did. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We didn't bring it up. So you clarified who he is, and let's move on. MR. KARNES: Okay, thank you, sir. That's all. That's my opening statement. That's all. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The county presented their case and now it's your turn to present your side of the case. MR. KARNES: It's true the screen enclosure was built. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: When was it built? MR. KARNES: If you'll look at document one and document 13, the screen enclosure was built on 7 /l 0 of 2002, almost a little over six years ago to the date. If you'll look at document 13, that validates that contract because it shows a canceled check and payment to the individual. MR. KRAENBRING: Were permits obtained at that time? MR. KARNES: At this point in time I understand no. MR. KRAENBRING: In 2002 no permits were obtained. MR. KARNES: No, sir. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay, thank you. MR. KARNES: Mr. Ambach was to our residence on 7/2 and issued the NOV. From that point forward, all the way up through the time the permit expired, there was constant communications. Many initiated by myself. In addition to that, we had an immediate death in the family with Page 48 July 31, 2008 an immediate member unexpectedly that got thrown into this mix, too. I'm not using that as an excuse, it's just a fact of what happened, in addition to the other issues that are going on here. I never paid an engineer. I met with the guy from Z-Man Screen Enclosures looking at options there. If you would like to hear the options that I took to try to rectify this situation, I'll present them to you. If you're not, I'll move forward. Mr. Ambach did call me regarding the permit expiring. I panicked. Within the hour a new permit was issued, literally. I question the fact that I was going to be required to demo everything on the property to satisfy the code enforcement violation. The other areas on the property that are in question are an existing attached shed and an unattached shed, which I thought may be an issue that I elected to go ahead on my own and take care of and have removed. If you will-- if you will look at document 9(B), April 10th, almost the same day as we discovered the permit was expiring, I immediately went down and spoke with Mr. Harrison at the building department to find out if I could get a partial CC to satisfy -- as you can see in the e-mail, to satisfy the violation and satisfy code enforcement and we could all move forward. I did achieve that. And Ms. Capasso's response back was thank you for your prompt response, keep me posted on your progress. There was nothing in that e-mail to imply that I had a deadline or a commitment stated as far as a dead date on this thing. The next document I received regards to this violation was from Mr. Scribner. If you'll look at document 7(B), please. Document 7(B), second paragraph of Mr. Scribner's e-mail, he states that though you have obtained a demolition this does not make the structure legal until you demolish. I have instructed staff to proceed with enforcement. This e-mail is part of another situation that I personally don't think should have ever been addressed in this e-mail, but it was. This Page 49 July 31, 2008 is how we ended up here in front of the board. Specifically you have it in writing there. My response back to Mr. Scribner, if you'll turn to 7(A), first paragraph, Mr. Scribner, please read e-mail correspondence with Ms. Capasso from 4/1 0/08 approving the option of removing the area in question and getting a partial c.o. to satisfy your department. That will be done promptly so as not to upset you any further. I made a commitment to get it done. Up to this point, no dates had been implied when this was supposed to be corrected. There was -- I don't want to get ahead of myself here. If you'll turn to Page 6(A), the next correspondence -- the only communications further I ever had with Ms. Capasso after her e-mail to me to simply keep her posted of the progress, I've not heard back from you; however I did check our computer system and find no inspections or C.O.'s. As our previous conversation, we have no choice but to prep your case for hearing. My opinion is there's some things going on here that shouldn't be going on. It's documented. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Where are you in the stage of getting a C.O. or Certificate of Completion for this? MR. KARNES: To specifically answer that question, two-and-a-half months ago we had a partial completion signed off, as agreed upon by Ms. Capasso and myself. MR. AMBACH: That's not true. MR. KARNES: And you can go to -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You have a partial. When are you going to have it complete? MR. KARNES: To remove the other structures on the property that I chose to remove? MR. KRAENBRING: I think we're talking about the screen -- let's just stick with the facts here. It's the screen enclosure. Page 50 July 31, 2008 MR. KARNES: Yes, sir, that is correct. On 5/14, look on document 8(A), please, and you can reference 8(B). On 5/14, screen room only was signed off as being removed. And if you look at document 8(B), unfortunately even though I was directed that day to be there, I couldn't be -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What is remaining as a violation and how are you going to correct it? MR. KARNES: Nothing. MR. AMBACH: If I may, I can clarify. It's pretty simple. Mr. Karnes received on 5/14 a partial final only. It is not a Certificate of Completion. He was ordered to get a Certificate of Completion or -- Notice of Violation asked that he do that. I believe he's getting confused with a partial final and a Certificate of Completion. It was Mr. Karnes' option at the time to group other items or other structures on his property all under the same permit. I did not have issues with those. My issue was with the screen enclosure only. I did not make that choice, he did, to put them all under one permit. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you go to 8(B) for me. MR. AMBACH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It shows a diagram of what I would assume back of the property. The violation, is that any part of this diagram here? MR. AMBACH: Yes, I believe so. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And has that been corrected? MR. AMBACH: He has received his partial final on that permit to remove the screen, the screened-in area, but has not received his Certificate of Completion stamp. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What needs to be done to receive the final C.O.? I guess that's the question. MR. AMBACH: He needs to satisfy the permit, which would mean to remove the other two structures on there and call for a final to get his C.O., to have an inspector from the building department come Page 51 July 31, 2008 out, look, make sure both of the other sheds are gone and take into consideration his partial final for the screen enclosure to get a stamp of approval on that permit considered a Certificate of Completion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Has this violation been corrected that is in front of us today? MR. AMBACH: The screen enclosure has been removed, yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So could he separate this permit and get just -- MR. AMBACH: We asked that he have that option when he went back to the permitting department, to separate that permit, and it wasn't done. He re-upped his original permit to get a six-month extension. MR. KARNES: My argument, sir, to that is the fact that I communicated with the office. I did -- we negotiated an option, which is to -- for me to go down, see Mr. Harrison and see if I could get a partial. I did that. And in the e-mail, it verifies that the department agreed that th,at was an option. I complied. And we're here today. MR. KRAENBRING: You know, I've got to tell you, I'm a little lost here. MR. KELL Y: I'm glad you said that. MR. PONTE: Absolutely. MR. KRAENBRING: Because what I look at is that we had a screen enclosure that was unpermitted in 2002. You've agreed to either remove it or you have removed it? MR. KARNES: Correct, it has been removed. MR. KRAENBRING: You removed it. In the meantime, you had a couple unpermitted sheds on your property -- MR. KARNES: No, sir. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. So what are the sheds about? Are they -- MR. KARNES: That was my election, something I wanted to do to the house. And from the standpoint of efficiency, instead of pulling Page 52 July 31, 2008 two permits I just pulled one to have it done and it's created a real fiasco -- MR. KRAENBRING: So it's not a matter of them being unpermitted, you had some sheds on the property and you decided in your demolition permit to add those sheds. MR. KARNES: That is correct, yes, sir. MR. KRAENBRING: And you have not removed the sheds yet, for whatever reason. MR. KARNES: No, sir, I haven't. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. So what we're looking at is you removing the sheds in order to be able to obtain the final demolition permit; is that correct? MR. AMBACH: That is correct, yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But that's not why they're here -- MR. PONTE: But that's not the violation -- MR. KRAENBRING: That's not why they're here. MR. AMBACH: Not, that's not. MR. KRAENBRING: So the thing is, either the permit has to be reissued so that it's just for the screen enclosure, or you've got to remove the sheds and get it done. How long will it take you to remove the sheds -- MR. PONTE: But may I just ask a question? I think that's complicating the situation. The fact of the matter is that the description of the violation is an unpermitted screen enclosure of the rear of the primary structure, period. That's what it says -- MR. KRAENBRING: I agree with you -- MR. KELL Y: George, I think you're on to something. And if you refer to that exact statement it says, quote, I observed an unpermitted screen structure in the rear of the property, primary -- I'm sorry, in the rear of the primary structure. Must obtain all required permits or remove structure, period. Structure's been removed. Doesn't matter what permits have Page 53 July 31, 2008 been pulled. No violation. MR. PONTE: I agree. MR. KARNES: Members of the board, if! may, if! could refer you to Page 10, please. Even more so to help clarify my position and communicate and document what was going on, Mr. Scribner, Mr. Ambach, Ms. Capasso and Ms. Arnold were all notified two dates afterwards, on 5/16/08, that the screen enclosure was CC'd. Screen enclosure removal only as a partial on 5/14/08. A copy of the partial CC needs to be forwarded your office. Please indicate. MR. KRAENBRING: So that brings us back to the point that what is the county going to do here? Is the county just going to say fine, we will reissue this permit and just say that he's taken care of the violation, or are you insisting upon having these sheds removed in order to -- MR. AMBACH: I'm not insisting on the sheds at all. I wanted -- what I'm asking for is a Certificate of Completion on that permit for the screen enclosure that he happened to put two other sheds on. MR. KRAENBRING: But am I missing something here in that that's really up to you to -- you have to instruct him that, okay, you want this screen enclosure permitted and completed, okay. The fact that he added those sheds, is that really his responsibility at this point? MR. KELL Y: I just have a quick question. Let's say facetiously that the board decides that there's no violation because the screen enclosure was removed. However, there's still an open permit. If this board's ruling is that there is no violation, what happens to that permit? How does he close it out without removing those sheds? MR. AMBACH: The permit doesn't get closed out. MR. KELL Y: That presents a whole nother issue. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But we're not looking at that issue right now, we're looking -- MR. KELLY: I agree. I'm just saying it's going to be -- MR. KRAENBRING: But it's complicating the issue. It's Page 54 July 31, 2008 complicating the issue here. MR. AMBACH: If! may, in the original Notice of Violation, if you just give me a few moments, it does say here, must request cause, required inspections to be performed and obtain a Certificate of Occupancy or completion. Or demolish described improvements, structures are removed from the property. He would have to pull a permit for that. MR. KELLY: Is there any way to cancel a permit and decide, you know what, I was going to build a home and I'm not anymore? MR. AMBACH: Sure. MR. KELL Y: And could he do that and just pull another permit for the screen? MR. AMBACH: Absolutely. And get a Certificate of Completion on that, yes. That option was given to him. MR. KRAENBRING: And the reason that wasn't -- why didn't you choose that option, sir, just to have the screen removed? MR. KARNES: From the standpoint of efficiency again, sir, why pull two permits when I can just pull one and pull it all down. I never expected this. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You're telling us efficiency, but it doesn't seem efficient that you get one done and you let one linger for six or eight months. That doesn't seem efficient to me. It would seem MR. KARNES: Wouldn't it cost more if I would have gotten two permits instead of one? MR. KRAENBRING: When do you want to take these sheds down? MR. KARNES: Sir, quite honestly they're costing me more money sitting there right now than if I just pull them down with the first permit. And quite honestly, the permit cost itself is probably worth more than both the sheds combined. MR. KRAENBRING: Why don't you take them down? Page 55 July 31, 2008 MR. KARNES: Because I've been involved in many, many issues that aren't to be brought up here in today's venue. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And we really don't want to get into that -- MR. KARNES: No, sir. And believe me, I don't want them in my life, but they're there. MR. PONTE: The sheds are not part ofthe issue here. What is at issue is the screen. And that has been removed. And that being the case, it seems to me -- that being the case, it seems to me -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Excuse me, they have not been removed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sir, you're not part of the -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: They are not removed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sir, I'm not going to address you. MR. PONTE: The testimony is that the screen enclosure has been removed. That being the case, I would make a motion that the case against the county as -- against the respondent as described here be dismissed. MR. KELLY: And that going along with what George says, I'll make a motion that no violation exists. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Before we do that, the party in the audience, if you'd like to speak, you need to come up and we can swear you m. MR. KELL Y: If this is public comments, should it be held to the end or should it be before? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're ready to make a motion, so before we make a motion. MR. LARSEN: Right. And prior to the motion, I just want a clarification here. I don't think that the issue is whether or not a violation existed, I think it's pretty much been admitted that a violation exists. It's what he did after the Notice of Violation and he abated it. And he had the option of either going and getting a permit or Page 56 July 31, 2008 removing the structure. And in this particular case, if I understand correctly, I think he removed the structure, which abated the violation. MR. KELLY: I agree. And that was what I originally saw. But then the investigator was good enough to point out that he also checked the boxes underneath, which does require permits. I just didn't read far enough. My bad. MR. LARSEN: It's the order to correct the violations, yes. MR. KARNES: Sir, and I don't argue that point. But my last conversation with the supervisor and code enforcement, by her actions in writing, stated that taking this option was permissible. And I followed through on it. MR. LARSEN: I agree with you. MR. KARNES: Okay, sir. Thank you, sir. MR. AMBACH: I have a question for the board. How do I satisfy the permit? I don't understand -- MR. KELL Y: It's going to be up to the respondent how he wants to handle this, but there's two ways you can do it: You can either remove the other sheds and that would satisfy the permit as existing or cancel this particular permit, not remove the sheds or leave that completely separate and then open a new permit just on the screen enclosure and demo. MR. AMBACH: That's what I'm asking the board to do for the county today. MR. KRAENBRING: Can we ask the county's opinion on this? It seems to me that we're just -- round and around. Either get a new permit or take the sheds down. Whatever it cost -- if we're -- don't let a fee apply to this. Just re-permit it and get it done. MR. PONTE: The sheds are not an issue in this case -- MR. KRAENBRING: That's right, that's the point -- MR. KELLY: But I think that's what the county wants. They want us to make it part of the order. Page 57 July 31, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We can't, because that's not why they're here. MR. PONTE: That's not what the -- MR. KRAENBRING: Diane, do you have an opinion on this or MS. FLAGG: Margie can answer your question. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Good morning. For the record, Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney. As I understand it, a Certificate of Occupancy or Completion is really needed to know that what was done under the permit has been done and in compliance with the county's rules and regulations. So it would be my opinion that the permit needs to have the Certificate of Completion. It may be a technicality, but we need that. Whether you choose to sever the other structures from that so the final inspection can be made and the Certificate of Completion issued, that's fine, but the county needs that Certificate of Completion on the removal of the screen enclosure. MR. KRAENBRING: So does he need to file a new permit or can he just sever those sheds from it and get the completion? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I think what probably would have to be done is to get a new permit for the sheds, and then that would leave the one left for the screen enclosure and we could inspect and then issue the Certificate of Completion. MR. KRAENBRING: And just as a -- how much is a new permit going to cost? MR. KARNES: 50 bucks. MR. KRAENBRING: 50 bucks? MR. KARNES: Yes, sir. MR. KRAENBRING: So we're here for $50. MR. KARNES: Indirectly, yes, sir. Because I'll refer back to document 9(B) again where I followed my last direction, which was to get a partial C.O. And I followed through on that in a very timely Page 58 July 31, 2008 manner and addressed it. MR. KRAENBRING: I'm just going to say, sir, with all due respect, if we're here for $50 -- MR. KARNES: It's ridiculous. MR. KRAENBRING: Then why not just get a permit and -- just refile it. MR. KARNES: If it would satisfy the board, I'd be happy to go pull another permit for the sheds that aren't part of any violations or -- MR. KRAENBRING: Would that satisfy the county ifhe got a new permit? MS. CAPASSO: Supervisor Susana Capasso for the record -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We need to swear you in. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. CAPASSO: I'm sorry. And, you know, in order to bring this to a close, when I had spoken to Mr. Karnes, I had indicated that ifhe was able to obtain a partial on that -- partial C.O., that I would be satisfied. Because I just need the Certificate of Completion for the portion that we have a case on in order to close the case. And he had indicated that he had spoken to Gary Harrison who said he could. And I think maybe there was some confusion. Maybe he got a final inspection and thought that was the partial C.O. But ifhe can get the partial C.O., he wouldn't have to pull another permit and we could resolve the issue. And I'd be perfectly okay with that. MR. KRAENBRING: So what does he have to do now? He has to just call up and get someone -- MS. CAPASSO: He has to go back to the county and get the partial C. O. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. He doesn't have to pull another permit, he has to make a phone call. MS. CAPASSO: Or go down in person. It's probably the most Page 59 July 31, 2008 expeditious way to do this at this point. MR. KRAENBRING: You know, folks, it seems like a very simple matter. MR. KARNES: Sir, I'm very confused, because what did the inspector come out and sign off on? MR. KELLY: The final. The final's different than the C.O. MR. KARNES: No, he signed -- no, if you'll look at document-- MR. KRAENBRING: You know what, I -- to tell you the truth MR. KARNES: -- he signed off on -- he signed off and it even states screen enclosure. MR. KRAENBRING: One second, sir. I don't even know if we really need to hear a whole lot more. All's you need to do is make a phone call, have them come out, approve that it's been taken down. And then when your sheds come down you'll get the other half of that approval. Folks, you know-- MR. KARNES: Sir, I did. MR. KRAENBRING: -- for some reason you guys aren't communicating properly. I don't know what it is, you know, whether you don't have an understanding of it or they don't have an understanding of you, but to the other members of the board, I just think this is a simple matter. Just have them come out, approve it and we're done. MR. KARNES: Members of the board, if you please reference 8(A) and 8(B), that's exactly what I did. MR. KRAENBRING: Then why wasn't it approved by you? MR. KARNES: It says 5/14 it was signed off, screen room only, 8(A). And in addition to that, I even -- because I couldn't be there that day, even though I was instructed to be there that day I had to go see a client in Fort Myers. I even left Mr. Harrison-- Page 60 July 31, 2008 MR. KRAENBRING: One second, sir. Mr. Chairman, I think we need to move toward a decision here. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, we do have -- MR. KRAENBRING: We have one person who -- MR. KELL Y: You're going to need to grant it more time. It's now 25 minutes, not the 20 allotted. MR. KRAENBRING: I think we need to see a decision here. It sounds to me like we have a little bit of a confrontation between the two sides, that it's just very simply answered, you know, have the proper permit closed out or, you know, approved. You guys work with him and we're done. MS. CAPASSO: Absolutely. And, you know, I'll be happy to take a look at whatever he has, and if it is a C. O. On the portion that we have the case on, we'll be happy to close the case. That's all we really are looking for here. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman, I believe at this time we have to move towards determining whether or not a violation actually exists before we go to recommendations. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, we also have-- MR. PONTE: You have a motion, I think. I made a motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, we do have an audience member that would like to speak, too. So would you like to remove your motion at this -- MR. PONTE: To dismiss? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Until after we hear -- MR. PONTE: All right. MR. KELLY: And I'll remove my motion as well. And also I'd like to make a motion that we grant three minutes to the public to extend the time that's allotted by our rules. MR. LARSEN: I second that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 6] July 31, 2008 MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. If! could have you stand up, please, sir. State right to the mic. MR. MCMILLAN: Jay McMillan. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you need to be sworn in, too. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. MCMILLAN: I won't take three minutes, guys. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Let's just talk about the case. I don't want to talk about anything -- MR. MCMILLAN: Number one reason I was here, the screen cage still stands. All he's done is remove screen panels. I just want to take that right away to you guys. I have a picture, I have two other witnesses. As of this morning at 8:00, the screened cage that's in violation still stands. All he's done is removed screen panels. Secondly, he's used you guys -- MR. PONTE: Excuse me, sir. I have to ask you, what's the difference? I don't understand the difference. MR. MCMILLAN: The metal, the structure which imposes on his neighbor's right-of-way still is in existence. It's still there. MR. KARNES: I object to that for preservation. MR. KRAENBRING: Why do you object to it? MR. KARNES: For any future use -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Objection noted. MR. KARNES: -- the statements being made. I don't know the exact rules, but I know I need to say something. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Objection noted. MR. KARNES: Thank you, sir. MR. MCMILLAN: The screen enclosure which is the violation, Page 62 July 31, 2008 the metal that made up the screen enclosure still stands right now. All he has done is removed the screen panels from that screen enclosure. You see these uprights? They're still there. They're not gone. And two other people in this room saw it this morning as of 8:00. I've got pictures, they're not great pictures, but two other people saw it this . . mornmg, SIr. MR. KRAENBRING: Could I ask a question of the county. When is the last time you made an inspection of the property? MR. AMBACH: The site inspection was just after he received his final. And he was given that partial final by the county by a certified inspector. MR. PONTE: On what date? MR. AMBACH: I believe that was the 14th of April. MR. KRAENBRING: So the inspector has approved that it has been properly removed. MR. AMBACH: A partial final was approved on that, yes. MR. MCMILLAN: That's the deal, and that's what he was doing. MR. KARNES: I object to that. Once again, I'll refer you to sheet 8(B) where the screen enclosure is noted in a cloud in typical drawing format, and that area has been removed as instructed. MS. CAPASSO: Can I ask for perhaps in the interest of settling the matter if we can maybe grant a continuance and we will work with Mr. Karnes to resolve this issue, and then we can always bring it back to the board if need be. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It's hard to ask for a continuance after we heard basically the whole case. MS. CAPASSO: I understand. I just feel like we're going around in circles and we're not really getting anywhere and -- MS. RAWSON: I don't think you can grant a continuance to another date, because you already heard the case. You could, however, continue it to be heard after a few other cases here, allow them to go out in the hall and talk about it. And if they want to come back in then Page 63 July 31, 2008 and tell us what the resolution is today, then we could do that. You just move it down the agenda. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a quick question. Does the screen removal, does that -- what is being referred to in 8(A) constitute it being removed? Does the frame -- is the frame part of the unit or not? MS. CAPASSO: I believe the initial case was for the removal of the screen enclosure. MR. KAUFMAN: When you say enclosure, does that include the screen and the superstructure that holds it or just the screen? MS. CAPASSO: I don't know that it included the support beams. But I would like some time to really look at this again before going forward. I don't want to speak out of turn. MR. KARNES: For clarification, if! may add, document 8(B), which is the plan view drawing, that came from the permit submittal package. MR. KRAENBRING: And you're saying that part has been removed. MR. KARNES: Yes, sir, that's what I'm saying. MR. KRAENBRING: Including the frame. MR. KARNES: That's completely gone, yes, sir. It's been gone since before 5/14, because that's when it was signed off. MR. KRAENBRING: Gentlemen, I think the county has to bring us more evidence as to what's actually happening here. Because we don't know -- we have testimony from, I guess, a neighbor that that has not been removed. This gentleman says it has been removed. The county says it has been removed. MR. AMBACH: If I may, we're not permitting specialists -- or, I'm sorry, building inspectors. We enforce the Land Development Code. If an inspector from the building department goes out there and puts his stamp of approval on a final for that screen room to be removed, we are assuming that the building inspector knows what he's doing and he's saying that that screen room has been removed. Page 64 July 31, 2008 But the problem still remains that the Certificate of Completion has not been obtained for that permit. MR. KARNES: That's not why we're here. MR. KELL Y: Can I make a comment? I'm not completely comfortable with passing the buck. However, I think that our only decision as a board is to decide whether or not a violation exists. And the one caveat is whether or not a partial final, which was a final on the screen enclosure, can be considered a Certificate of Occupancy. What the respondent or the county works out after that might be beyond the jurisdiction of this board. I think we just need to decide whether there's a violation or not. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. PONTE: I have a motion that was to dismiss, so we have to get rid of that first because that's still there. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you want to -- MR. PONTE: I would repeat that. I do not believe that there is a case here. The screen has been removed. And this case, as it was presented in the documents should be dismissed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I have that second? Second still stands. MR. KRAENBRING: I don't have a second to that, but I will say that I would almost like to see this continued so that we can get some pictures, we can get testimony of the person that signed off on this. We've got a neighbor who apparently says that this is still there. I just don't think we have enough information to make a final decision. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If this case is dismissed, could it be brought back in front of us? MR. KRAENBRING: A continuance. MS. RAWSON: If it's dismissed, you'd have to have it brought back on a different violation, because it would be re judicata. MR. LARSEN: I make a motion that a violation did exist. That when the violation was cited, that basically there was a nonpermitted Page 65 July 31,2008 screen enclosure. I don't think that there's any contention. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We already have a motion on the table. We'd have to-- MR. LARSEN: I don't think it's been seconded. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No, it hasn't. MR. LARSEN: As a matter of protocol, is that motion now moot? MR. PONTE: I think what he's asking -- we haven't -- you didn't ask for a second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I did not ask for a second. MS. RAWSON: I guess we could continue it because you want further evidence. I just hope all of the same members that heard this today are back. And when you get your minutes, I hope you will read and review them very carefully, if we continue it to the next hearing. Because we need to just pick up right where we left off, with further evidence. Now, is there a pending motion on the board that has been seconded at the moment? MR. KRAENBRING: Let me ask you this question, Jean. Okay, so we have a violation does exist, a violation doesn't exist as a motion. In order to move this forward, we find a violation did exist and that then we have to go to a recommendation from the county? MS. RAWSON: Yes, you would. MR. KRAENBRING: You know -- and at that point we can look at the county's recommendation and say rather that maybe taking -- personally I think that this thing should just be done with, I think. It's nonsense. But the thing is then we can go to the continuance? Or do we have to make a motion for -- MS. RAWSON: No, if you're going to continue the case for further evidence, it would have to be prior to any motions. The only motion to be made is to continue it for further evidence to the next Page 66 July 31, 2008 meeting. MR. KARNES: Sir, if! may, is there any chance that I could-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It's closed. MR. KELL Y: Mr. Chair, let me just, if I can, tell the board where my mind is. Maybe that will help. And if there's more people who feel the same way maybe we can run that route. After the testimony with the investigator, sounds like he's intimately knowledgeable about all the details and the assistant county attorney. I think it's probably our responsibility to find that a violation does exist for the fact that it was never C.O.'d, and leave it up to the county and the respondent to decide how they're going to go about separating the permit issue and getting the C.O. for the screen enclosure, which is the violation. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is that a motion, Mr. Kelly? MR. LARSEN: I've already got that motion pending. MR. KELLY: Yes, that's just reminding. So I'm agreeing with his motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So you seconding the motion? MR. KELL Y: Well, we need to not second George's, first. MR. PONTE: We have to get rid of my motion first. I will withdraw my motion. MR. LARSEN: So my motion stands that a violation, when it was originally cited, did exist. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And -- MR. KELL Y: I would just like to say that if they didn't get the C. O. then it does exist. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So do I hear -- MR. KELLY: It might be semantics but -- MR. LARSEN: No, I agree with that. MR. KELLY: Okay, then seconded. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 67 July 31, 2008 MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion is passed. MR. LARSEN: Now we go to recommendations. MR. KELLY: Right. My suggestion would be to quite simply just get a C.O. on the violation portion. MR. KRAENBRING: I think the county has said today that they're willing to work with that, just to get it resolved. MR. KELLY: And then set a time frame and a penalty. That's it. MR. LARSEN: Right, I agree. I would make a motion that they be able to do that within a 90-day period of time or that basically a penalty be imposed. MR. KELL Y: Can I ask if you could hold your motion just until we hear the op. costs and we'll get everything into one. MR. LARSEN: That's fine. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Recommendation? MR. AMBACH: Can I read my recommendation as I have it? MR. KRAENBRING: If you could put it on the board for us. MR. KELL Y: I don't know if it's going to be suitable. MR. AMBACH: I don't have a copy. Can I read it first and then put it up for you, is that possible? Okay. Recommendation that the CEB order the respondent to pay operational costs in the amount of $87.44 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by obtaining a Certificate of Completion on the demolition permit, therefore restoring the property to its original permitted condition within 30 days of Page 68 July 31, 2008 today's hearing or pay a fine of $200 per day for as long as the violation continues to exist. And thirdly, to notify my department to do any inspection on it, a final. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any comments? MR. PONTE: I think it's right on the mark. MR. KRAENBRING: Yeah, because according to the respondent it's been removed, according to the neighbor it hasn't. But 30 days at this point should be enough to take down -- MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion to accept the county's recommendation as submitted. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. RAWSON: Break time. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes, sorry. MR. KARNES: Is that it? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's it. MR. KARNES: I'd requested a closing statement and wasn't given that opportunity prior to you making your decision. Note that on the record. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Ten minutes, please. (A recess was taken.) Page 69 July 31, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If everyone could take their seats, please. I'd like to call the CEB back to order. We should be at Perez. MR. KELL Y: Yeah, Perez. MR. KRAENBRING: This is the case where that person, we didn't approve their stipulation, so they're not here. I make a motion that we continue this case to the county's favor. What is the county looking at, next meeting? I make a motion that we continue this to the next meeting. MR. LARSEN: I second it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. All right, we're going to move on to the next one. Juan Hernandez and Adriana Garcia. MS. MARKU: That is in reference to Case No. 2006081209. F or the record, the respondent is not present. The respondent and the board were sent a packet of evidence and I would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. KELL Y: Make a motion to accept. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. Page 70 July 31, 2008 MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. MARKU: Violation of ordinances 04-41, as amended, Land Development Code, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06 (B)(1)(e), 1O.02.06(B)(I)(e) (I). Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Section 22, Article 2, Section 106.1.2. Description of violation: Garage converted, enclosed without Collier County permits. Location/address where violation exists: 1521 Golden Gate Boulevard, Naples, Florida, 34120. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Juan Hernandez and Adriana Garcia, 1521 Golden Gate Boulevard, Naples, Florida, 34120. Date violation first observed: August 3lst, 2006. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: September lst, 2006. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: October lst, 2006. Date of reinspection. October 2nd, 2006. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. At this time I would like to turn the case over to Code Enforcement Investigator Michelle Scavone. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. SCAVONE: For the record, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator, Michelle Scavone. Affidavit of service for the notice of hearing was served by posting the property and the courthouse on June 4th, 2008. This case was started as an anonymous complaint on August 8th, 2008 for a garage conversion without Collier County permits. On August 32st -- Page 71 July 31, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What was the date that it was opened? You said 2008. MS. SCAVONE: I'm sorry, 2006, thank you. On August 31 st, 2006 violation was first observed and research was conducted. On September I st, 2006 I met with Mr. Hernandez, who was the property owner. A Notice of Violation was served, which he signed and was given an explanation and a copy of. In the Notice of Violation, it was stated that he may get a permit for the garage conversion or a demolition permit to return the home the way that it was. Mr. Hernandez chose to permit the garage conversion and bring it up to code. He applied for the permit and went through an extensive review due to some septic issues. He was finally -- the permit was placed in ready status for him to pick up. And on February I 8th, I had spoken with Mr. Hernandez about getting the permit finished and picking it up, and he basically did not have the money to pick it up. It was around $4,000 for the permit, due to impact fees. He had stated at that time that he was losing his home and trying to make mortgage payments and he did not have the money for that permit to be picked up, in which case the permit had expired, and still as of present date the garage is still in the converted status and the violation remains. MR. KAUFMAN: Was that February 18th, 'on MS. SCAVONE: Let me check the date for you. MR. KAUFMAN: Or '08? MS. SCAVONE: '07. The permit was applied on August 20th, 2007. It was approved for pick up -- I'm sorry, it was approved July 20th, 2007, it was approved on August 8th, 2007. It was ready to be picked up, February 18th, I'm not sure. I made a mistake with that date. Page 72 July 31, 2008 MR. KAUFMAN: And you spoke to them after the permit was ready to be picked up on what date? MS. SCAVONE: I had spoken with the owner on August 27th of 2007 and September 19th, it was, 2007. Again, on November 5th, you know, letting him know that the permit is ready, that it needed to be picked. And he at all those times stated the same thing, that he didn't have the money to pick up the permit. MR. DEAN: Just a quick question. Is that impact fee you stated $4,000; is that correct? MS. SCAVONE: Yeah, I have an estimation sheet here, if you want the calculations. I can give them to you, you can look through them. It's basically because he was adding -- it was 440 I think square feet to a 1368 square foot structure, which puts him up into the different tier. And then they have it all estimated out here, which he was aware of and had signed paperwork, you know, noting what he was aware of. Can I put it up? MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion that we accept that. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: So basically he's building a garage of 480 square feet. MS. SCAVONE: He added square footage of living space. MR. KRAENBRING: So the garage was already existing, he just finished it. He took the garage door off and put drywall up and Page 73 July 31, 2008 finished it. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Did he add a bathroom? MS. SCAVONE: I don't know ifthere was a bathroom in there or not because I was never granted access to go inside. MR. KELL Y: I have a question for you. Do you know if the house is occupied? MS. SCAVONE: I was -- no, I don't know if it's occupied. Any time I've been there, nobody ever answered the door. It looks as if there is someone living there. And I have had previous phone conversations with Mr. Hernandez. I called yesterday to confirm our court date today. He did not answer. I left a message and he has not called back. MR. KRAENBRING: Do you -- MR. KELLY: More importantly, I'm sorry. Do you know if anyone's occupying or do you think anyone's occupying the addition that's not been approved? MS. SCAVONE: I don't know. There's curtains up. MR. KELL Y: Do you have pictures? MS. SCAVONE: I don't have pictures. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Richard, do you have one more question? MR. KRAENBRING: No, it's beyond the jurisdiction of this board. But boy, that's got to be really tough to take when they call you and tell you you've got to pay a $4,000 permit for converting a garage. I know that's beyond the jurisdiction of the board. I'd like to make a motion that a violation does exist. MR. DEAN: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. Page 74 July 31, 2008 MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And your recommendation, please. Sorry, Mr. Larsen. MR. LARSEN: It's okay. MS. SCAVONE: The county recommends that the Code Enforcement Board respond -- order the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the amount of $87.44 in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by submitting a complete application for any and all Collier County building permits or a demolition permit. Obtain a permit. Request all required inspections and obtain a Certificate of Completion within 60 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Also, that the respondent must notify the Code Enforcement investigator within 24 hours of when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions? MR. KELLY: I'd like to see added that they add 30 days to the op. cost payment. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question. Will that building permit expire at the end of August, '08? MS. SCAVONE: It has expired. MR. KAUFMAN: It has expired already? So the individual would have to start from square one. MS. SCAVONE: He can re-app. it. He has the option. Or he also has the option of taking out a demo permit and restoring it back to the way that it was. MR. PONTE: I have a question. What would the demo permit Page 75 July 31, 2008 cost? MS. SCAVONE: I believe it's $53. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Kelly, do you have any other questions? MR. KELLY: No, sir. MR. PONTE: Just one other thought. Should that demolition option be mentioned here? It is in many other cases, is it? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It is. Second line. MR. PONTE: Thank you, sir. MR. KRAENBRING: I would say one other thing. There is no real health or safety issue here, it's just a permitting case, that we might just look at reducing the fine or let this gentleman -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, we don't know if there's a health and safety issue. She hasn't been able to get inside. And we don't know how it's finished up. MR. KRAENBRING: Fair enough. MR. LARSEN: I move we accept the county's recommendation as so stated. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Before we second it, Mr. Kelly brought up a point to have the operational costs paid within 30 days. Could we have that included. MR. LARSEN: I modify my motion to have it paid within 30 days. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I modify my second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. Page 76 July 31, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. Next case, BCC versus James L. Hargraves. MS. MARKU: This is in reference to Case No. 2007110616. For the record, the respondent is present. The respondent and the board were sent a packet of evidence, and I would like to introduce the packet of evidence as county Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. KAUFMAN: So moved. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Jean, as an alternate, can you make a motion as an alternate? MS. RAWSON: No. You can't vote either. You can participate in the discussion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I should have made a mention at the beginning of the meeting. MR. LARSEN: All right, I move to accept the evidence. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. 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. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. I'd like to have you sworn in, please. Page 77 July 31, 2008 (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. PETRULLI: For the record, Supervisor Petrulli, Collier County Code Enforcement. I have spoken with Mr. Hargraves. He would like to ask for a continuance at this time. He had an attorney, which is out of town. This is a complex case. And I think it would be better for him to have his attorney present. So I would like for him to speak for himself, but the county has no problem with any continuance. MR. HARGRAVES: Yes, we'd like to try to get -- I don't know when the attorney's going to be back, and we might have to hire another attorney, so I need to have a continuance to see what we can do about it. MR. KRAENBRING: Does the county have a recommendation on when this would like to be continued until? Next month, the following month? MS. PETRULLI: I would suggest the following month, just so that they have enough time to bring a new lawyer up to date. MR. KRAENBRING: So the end of September then. MS. PETRULLI: Yes. MR. KELLY: I make a motion that we grant the continuance. MR. KRAENBRING: I'll second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MS. PETRULLI: Thank you very much. MR. HARGRAVES: Thank you, board. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If I'm not mistaken, next case will be Page 78 July 31, 2008 BCC versus Genel Bricius and Dieumila Faugue. I can't remember how it was pronounced last time. MS. RAWSON: Just for the record, the September meeting is September 25th, which is our regular day. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Then we probably would have to -- MS. RAWSON: And you know what? It's at Horseshoe. MS. MARKU: That is correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Let's make sure we notice -- MS. RAWSON: I think he left. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Flood. We send a notice that there's a change in the date because we did tell him the 22nd. MR. DEAN: That's for next month. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Oh, the following month. September, sorry. MR. KRAENBRING: Yeah, we're okay with that. MS. RAWSON: I'm talking about Mr. Hargrave's case, the gentleman who just left. Maybe Patti will catch him. MR. L'ESPERANCE: That was September 25th? MS. RAWSON: It is September 25th. And I'll put right in the order that it's going to be at the Horseshoe Drive. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. MS. MARKU: This case is in reference to Case No. CESD20080004919. F or the record, the respondent is not present. The respondent and the board were sent a packet of evidence and I would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion to enter the packet. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 79 July 31, 2008 MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion possess. MS. MARKU: Violation of ordinances 10.02.06(B)(I)(a) and 10.02.06 (B)(l)(e) of Ordinance 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, and Sections 1.04.1.3.5 of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida. Description of violation: Unpermitted conversion of a duplex to a four-plex without obtaining Collier County approval and all necessary Collier County building permits. Location/address where violation exists: 2730 Pine Street, Naples, Florida, 34112. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Genel Bricius and Dieumila Faughe, 3615 Boca Ciega Drive, Apartment 212, Naples, Florida, 34112. Date violation first observed: April 2nd, 2008. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: Notice of Violation received by certified mail on April I 8th, 2008 and Notice of Violation posted on property and courthouse on April I 5th, 2008. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: Within 30 days of receipt of Notice of Violation, May 19th, 2008. Date of reinspection: May 23rd, 2008. Results of reinspection: Violation still remains. At this time I would like to turn the case over to Code Enforcement Board Investigator Thomas Keegan. (Speakers were duly sworn.) Page 80 July 31, 2008 MR. KEEGAN: Good morning. This case started -- the respondent bought this -- bought a four-plex, thinking it was a four-plex when it's actually a permitted duplex. I met with the respondent. He had no idea what he did. I served him -- well, I posted, sent it certified mail, did all the service. It took a while. He has done what the county has asked him to do. I met with him yesterday, we went through everything. The county's happy, he's happy, we plan to withdraw this case, due to the fact that he's lost two rentals that he thought he was actually buying. MR. KRAENBRING: So you're not going to be asking for any operational fees or anything -- MR. KEEGAN: No, sir. He's been through enough, so-- MR. KELL Y: So did you just want a finding of fact that a violation did exist? MR. KEEGAN: Please. MR. LARSEN: All right. I move that a violation did exist on the date of the issuance of the violation. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) MR. KEEGAN: Thank you. MR. LARSEN: I make a second notice that we permit the county to withdraw this case for penalty purposes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? Page 81 July 31, 2008 MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KEEGAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next case will be Robert and Janine Ankney. MS. MARKU: This is in reference to Case No. 2007050259. For the record, the respondent is present. The respondent and the board were sent a packet of evidence and I would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. LARSEN: So moved. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. MARKU: The violation of Ordinances 204-4 I as amended, Page 82 July 31, 2008 the Collier County Land Development Code, Sections 1O.02.06(B)(1)(a), 1O.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Not obtaining the authorization of the required permits, inspections and Certificate of Occupancy. Also, Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances Section 22, Article 2, Section I 06.1.2. No required inspection or final inspection requested or Certificate of Occupancy issued. Also, Florida Building Code 2004 Edition, Section 105.1. Any owner who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move or change occupancy of a building or structure shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permits. Description of violation: Improvement of property without valid Collier County building permits. Location/address where violation exists: 6061 Painted Leaf Lane, Naples, Florida, 34116. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Robert and Jean Ankney. Date violation first observed: May 2lst, 2007. Date ownerlperson in charge given Notice of Violation: May 21st, 2007. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: July 21 st, 2007. Date of reinspection: August I 7th, 2007. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. At this time I would like to turn the case over to Code Enforcement Investigator Ed Morad. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. MORAD: For the record, Code Enforcement Investigator Ed Morad. The complaint was given to me on May 9th, 2007. The complaint was improvement of property without valid permits. I met with the owner on May 2lst, 2007. I did witness outbuildings not permitted or permitted buildings not inspected or Page 83 July 31, 2008 C.Oo'd. Plus unpermitted additions. I issued the property owner of record Notice of Violation. He signed it. MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion that we accept the document. 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. KELL Y: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MORAD: The respondent did get the inspections and the C.Oo's on the permitted structures, and he did remove all nonpermitted additions except for two structures. One was an outbuilding that was a shed/office. And the other one was a carport that was converted and enclosed to become a dwelling unit apartment. These two unpermitted structures, the respondent wanted to permit. So I set up meetings and scheduled the meetings with the respondent, myself, the permitting supervisor, the permitting agent, zoning and planning techs, and a building department structural reVIewer. We had two meetings about what needed to be done to come into compliance. The respondent is going to argue that no one told him that he needed a permit, needed to pay for a permit, needed to get inspections or a Certificate of Occupancy for the structures. If you look at the -- look at the Notice of Violation where the arrow is, it clearly states that the respondent needs to get the permits, the inspections and the Certificate of Occupancy. Page 84 July 31, 2008 Also, I did a summary of the meetings to which the respondent agreed to comply with the request, and the -- signed that document after the meetings. At both meetings, the respondent was given an option of getting these structures permitted by affidavit because he stated that these structures were built prior to him buying the property. A permit by affidavit means that he could get a professional engineer, architect to inspect the structures and conclude the structure is constructed according to the required Florida Building Code. The respondent did do that. He got a professional. And he was given an affidavit -- a permit by affidavit. It was okayed by the Director of Building, Mr. Bob Dunn. This is the document. And the respondent refuses to pick up the permit, so the violation still exists. That concludes. MR. KELLY: Just a quick question. What is the cost to pick up the permit. MR. ANKNEY: $900. MR. KELL Y: Thank you, sir. MR. ANKNEY: My turn? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes, sir. MR. ANKNEY: Good morning, gentlemen and ladies. My name is Robert Ankney, I reside at 6061 Painted Leaf Lane in Naples, Florida. I bought this property in 1994. The house was built in 1984. The areas that Ed Morad is speaking about, it was my boys' bedrooms there. Okay, originally the plan showed a carport, but the aerial photographs that the city has, what county has, shows the roofline of the house as being part of the house, not a carport. The plans showed a flat roof. So this has been done for almost 25 years. I've lived in the house 15 years. And the shed in the back, it's a pole building. They originally told me it was too close to the property line, so I spent $800 Page 85 July 31, 2008 and some for a survey proving that it wasn't too close to the property line. I paid an engineer $l ,500 to come through the house just to show that everything met the code to when this was built. I allowed Mr. Morad to come through the house. I was helpful, I showed him everything in my entire house, everything. We went through the shed, you know, I showed him everything. All this was there when I purchased the property. So me, as Bob Ankney, I don't know what's going on. But when we had the meeting with the lady, Alamar is her name, correct, Bob? MR. MORAD: Yes, sir. MR. ANKNEY: When we had that meeting I was under the impression when I got this letter from the architect when they went through my property saying everything met code, that Alamar said if you do that, that's all we need. And that's what I did. I had no idea that I had to come up with another $900 for a permit for something that was done 25 years ago. And the engineer said it meets all code and he assumes full liability if it doesn't. So I just think I'm being done some injustice here. They told me when I went down, Carol in the permitting has the permit there. They wanted $900 and I said, number one, I don't have the money. And they said if you want the fees waived, you have to see Mr. Bob Dunn. So I made at least five visits to visit this man. I could never see him. I don't know how many phone calls I made, the man would never return your phone calls. Ed Morad knows I was down there to see him because I would sign in at his office and at the building department just so people would know I was there. And I tried to do the right thing. I'm a licensed asbestos removal contractor, and our major contractor was Florida Power & Light. I've been there 15 years working for them. And after the hurricanes, they made up their mind that their own people are going to start doing more work and getting off their lazy butts. So they redid a lot of the contracts and got rid of Page 86 July 31, 2008 them, and I happen to be one of them that got gone. So presently I'm drawing Social Security. I'm trying to make more money, because there hadn't been an asbestos job around forever because people figure it's a waste of money and they don't want to hear. And, you know, they can spend their money somewhere else. So, you know, I just don't have the money to layout, I'm sorry. But I've done everything in my power to make it right. I spent over $2,500 on this even that was already there when I bought the property. So I tried to do the right thing, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good. I'm going to close the public hearing. And any questions from the board? MR. DEAN: Just one. Did I hear that the carport was converted to apartment? Did I hear that right? MR. MORAD: Yes, sir, the carport -- the original plans, which I have here if you'd like to see them, was approved for a carport and a certain amount of square footage and storage for a certain amount of square footage. As it stands now, that is a dwelling unit, apartment, if you like, it's a dwelling unit. Has full -- MR. DEAN: Does it have a restroom in it and-- MR. MORAD: Yes, sir, it has a full, three fixtured bathroom, a kitchen, living room, dining room. MR. KRAENBRING: There's a tenant in there? MR. ANKNEY: No, that's where -- it's part of the whole house, it's not separate. It's part of our entire house. When my boys were there, that's where my boys lived. That was their bedroom. MR. KRAENBRING: So you're not renting out the space? MR. ANKNEY: No. But like I said, it was there when I bought the property. MR. MORAD: This is a sketch from the property appraiser's office. The front part that you see there is what's -- the dwelling unit Page 87 July 31, 2008 that's -- right, right there that's in question. That used to be -- if -- that's what it was permitted for, as a carport with storage. MR. KELLY: Mr. Morad, did you do a complete permit search to see if there was anything since the original permit? MR. MORAD: Yes, sir, I did the microfilm search and that's where I found this documentation of the application showing it being a carport and storage area, along with the square footage of the house itself and screen enclosures. I did both our computer programs. It's CD-Plus and now -- prior to that was called WHIPS. And I also did the -- they called them, for lack of better words, the handwritten permits, which was way prior to '84. And the property appraiser's card that shows permits. I got the permits for the metal buildings that weren't C.Oo'd or inspected from that also. There's quite a bit of permit applications on his property card. And I did research on all those. This is the only two that he wanted to get permitted by affidavit, which he did. And the permit can't be issued -- it can be issued if you pay for it, obviously. But there's also an inspection sheet that has to be inspected by his professional, his architect, which he's basically already did by that document I showed you that was approved by Mr. Dunn. And he asked to also take a letter taking responsibility for the building codes and structure at that time. Then he gets his Certificate of Occupancy. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: At this point we're just asking questions, and let's stick to the questions that are asked. MR. KELLY: Just for the board for clarification. I can understand how the respondent would be confused on this, because permit by affidavit, what you would assume by its title, that it would automatically suffice as a permit. However, what a permit by affidavit is, is really somebody other than a county inspector certifying the inspections for a permit. So I do think from my knowledge that you still have to get a permit. And this suffices as the inspections. Page 88 July 31, 2008 MR. MORAD: And they don't have to meet today's codes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. ANKNEY: I have one more question, if! may. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, the board -- it's closed at this point. MR. LARSEN: I have a motion that we find that a violation did exist upon the issuance of the summons -- the statement of violation. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I have 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. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Do you have a recommendation? MR. MORAD: Yes, sir. Staff recommends that the board order the respondent to pay all operational costs of$89.75 incurred in the prosecution of the case within 30 days of to day's hearing, which would be August 29th, 2008, and abate all the violations. Normally the guidelines for this would be 120 days. But because the permit's ready to be picked up, been approved and everything, we're requesting that the order to abate be 30 days from today's hearing, which would be August 29th, 2008, to obtain the approved Collier County building permits, inspections, Certificate of Occupancy or a $200 a day fine be imposed for each day the violation remains. Page 89 July 31, 2008 Two, that the respondent elects to -- if the respondent elects to remove the unpermitted improvements, they must first obtain a Collier County demolition permit. The respondent must execute said permit by removing all nonpermitted improvements and all resulting debris to a site intended for final disposal. Obtain all required inspections, Certificate of Completion within 60 days of today's hearing, which would be September 29th, 2008, or a fine of $200 will be imposed for each day any violations remained. Number three, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions? MR. KELL Y: Just a comment for the board. Due to the financial hardship, I was hoping that maybe we can extend the time frame to pick up the permit. Do you know if 60 days, Mr. Morad, would be in conflict of how long that permit that's ready to be picked up would be available, or is it not even submitted for? MR. MORAD: Oh, no, it's available. That's the thing. It's been approved. It's been reviewed by his professional. It's been approved by the director. It's ready for the respondent to come in, pay the fees and pick it up. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: When does that permit expire? MR. MORAD: I don't know, to be honest with you. But that's something that he would have to check, and ifhe needs to re-app. it, obviously that would be available to him, to re-app. it. The only problem with the 60 days extension is that it may conflict with the part two of this recommendation unless he agrees here to pick up the actual permit and not get the demolition permit. That's up to you. MR. KRAENBRING: Just as a thought to the board, we're not dealing with any health or safety issue here, we don't have this being occupied by a tenant. The gentleman's testimony is that he has not Page 90 July 31, 2008 gotten a return phone call, requesting any kind of consideration for the fee. I don't see why -- you know, he's expressed a hardship financially. Let's not be imposing fines for something like this. I'd say give him some more time. And to the board's favor, whatever that time would be. I don't have an objection to the 120 days, to tell you the truth. But if anybody else has a time recommendation then I'd be willing to hear that. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I have one other suggestion, that perhaps Diane Flagg designate somebody to perhaps stimulate the successful communication between the respondent and the person that he was trying to get in contact with concerning mitigating the permit fee. MS. FLAGG: We'll take care of that. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Maybe you can stimulate the conversation. MR. MORAD: If I could add something about the fee. It's an ordinance. The Director cannot waive the after-the-fact fees. MR. KRAENBRING: It probably still would have been nice to get a return phone call, though, you know. It's not my job, but it's nice to get a return phone call, even if it's bad news. MR. KELL Y: Mr. Chair, may I ask the respondent a question? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Absolutely. MR. KELLY: Sir, would 60 days or 90 days be more appropriate for the time frame that you -- MR. ANKNEY: Yes, that would be fine. But I also have a couple of questions that I would like to ask, if I may. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The public hearing is closed at this point. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman, I have a motion. I'd like to move Page 9] July 31, 2008 that we accept the county's recommendation with the one caveat, that instead of 30 days, we grant 60 days from today's hearing to obtain the approved Collier County building permit inspections and Certificate of Occupancy. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I'd like to just make a suggestion, a little revision on that motion. I think it's all fine. I, in this case, think that 90 days is fine but that the fine of $200 a day is on the high side. And I would suggest that that possible penalty be reduced substantially to $l 00 a day or less. MR. KRAENBRING: I'd also like to make a comment. This is to the respondent. We've seen this a number of times over the past several years, where you bought a property and there was an unimproved -- improvement, unpermitted improvement. So we really don't have any ability to mitigate this fine or this permit cost. It's really not up to us. So I understand your concern. MR. ANKNEY: I still need to know one thing, though. The card that he has, the sign-off card, may I see that again? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Unfortunately the public hearing is closed. And -- MR. PONTE: You have a motion and a revision. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right, we have a motion and a revision, let's get through that. And then you can talk to Mr. Morad after -- MR. ANKNEY: I just thought it's something that's important that you all should hear. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, it's a little bit late, we already ruled on the case. We found a finding of fact. And now we're working on the recommendation. So it is late in this stage to go back, to rewind. So I think we should just get through what we're doing right now and then you can discuss it with Mr. Morad after. Page 92 July 31, 2008 It's up to Mr. Larsen to amend his motion to change it to -- did you say 90 days? MR. PONTE: I said 90 days and $100. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Would that be amendable? MR. LARSEN: I'd prefer to keep it at 60 days and a $200 fine. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, we have a motion then. Do we hear a second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Are you a regular member? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sorry. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Promoted. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I apologize. And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. All those not in favor? MR. DEAN: Opposed. MR. KELLY: Opposed. MR. KRAENBRING: Opposed. MR. PONTE: Opposed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The motion fails. MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that we extend the time frame to 60 days and that we reduce the fine, if going past that time, to $100. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I have a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. Page 93 July 31, 2008 MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Motion passes. You can talk to -- MR. MORAD: How about number two, does that stay the same? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That is staying the same. MR. KRAENBRING: 60 days, yes. That makes it consistent also. MR. ANKNEY: Okay, thank you. MR. MORAD: Thank you. MR. PONTE: Just a clarification. The question was does it stay the same? It stays the same as section one. So it's $100. MR. KRAENBRING: It's $100, right. It would be $100 regardless of whether it's demolition or permitting. . MR. MORAD: The time frame stays the same, but the dollar amount -- MR. KRAENBRING: 60 days, correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Did you understand that, sir? MR. ANKNEY: Yes, if! go past the 60 days, it costs $100 a day, correct? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MR. ANKNEY: I still want to know about that card. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next case, or motion for imposition of fines will be BCC versus well Willie L. and Marjorie Davis. MR. SNOW: Excuse me, for the board, Mr. Chair, remember, we were supposed to talk about BCC versus Carlos Perez about the continuance? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MR. SNOW: Okay, do we need to do that now? When are we Page 94 July 31, 2008 going to do that? MR. KRAENBRING: We voted on than already. MR. SNOW: You voted to do the continuance? I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's okay. Motion for imposition of fines. BCC versus Willie L. and Marjorie Davis. MS. MARKU: For the record, this is in reference to Code Enforcement Board Case No. 2007-68. For the record, the respondent is present. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. MARKU: August 23rd, 2007 the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order, and that order is attached for your review. The respondent was found in violation, but the respondent has complied with the Code Enforcement Board orders of August 23rd, 2007. At this time, the county is recommending imposing a lien for the fine at a rate of $200 per day for the period between February 20th, 2008 to July 30, '08, for a total of 160 days for the amount of $32,000. Operational costs of 578.09 have been paid. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm looking at the request for imposition of fines and it says the respondent has not complied. MS. MARKU: The respondent has complied as of yesterday, July 30th. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Because it says CEB orders as of August 23, 2008, which we haven't gotten to yet. MS. MARKU: 2007. But as of when you received this information, the respondent was not in compliance. As of yesterday, the respondent has come in compliance. And that is why the amount of days and the amount of fines has changed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. And again what is the amount Page 95 July 31, 2008 of the fines, please? MS. MARKU: The amount of fine, it's $32,000 for $200 per day for 160 days. MR. KRAENBRING: Is this the Davis case? Do we have -- I have $17,000-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It's changed. MR. KRAENBRING: Oh, until May 15th, I see. I'm sorry. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right. I guess the question is, we have a recommendation to impose fines. And are you here to look for a reduction of fines? I mean, maybe you want to explain why it took-- when was it in compliance once again, as of yesterday? MS. MARKU: As of yesterday, July 30th, 2008. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And explain why it took so long to come into compliance. MR. DAVIS: Yes, sir, I am for reduction in fines, because of all the hold-ups I've had throughout the whole ordeal of getting this thing done is being held up by the county, getting permits and whatever. And when I got to the point to where I was supposed to plant the sod and all that stuff, the county enforcement, which was Mr. Campbell at that time, he advised me not for put down sod or trees, anything like that because of the water situation. I wasn't going to be able to water. So the stuff just laid there for months and months with me doing nothing, ready. And that's why. Even this last ordeal here, it took me a whole month to get a fence permit. It's just I've been held up by the county. It's not that I didn't -- I would have had the job done. It has not been all my fault. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Did we swear them in? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir, I was sworn in. For the record, Supervisor Kitchell Snow. I have been in contact with Mr. Davis and monitored the property for the last -- since I took Page 96 July 31, 2008 over the case from Investigator Tom Campbell. Mr. Davis and Mrs. Davis have tried to be compliant. As you know, when you're doing site development plans, site improvement plans, things just happen. And unfortunately this progressed and they reached the compliant state. As you remember, we brought it before you last time because he didn't get this fence C.Oo'd. His contractor said he'd had it C.Oo'd., but it wasn't C.O.'d. That was just done yesterday. He does have his business tax receipt, or the old occupational license to be on that property, so everything's been done. The county would support any reduction and leniency that the board may impose. We feel he's been diligent in doing what he was supposed to do. His engineer was very diligent in what he was supposed to do. There were delays as there always are with site improvement plans and site development plans. And he was responsive and he did keep in contact with the county, as did his engineer, to let us know what was going on. But unfortunately it's one of those cases that just ran long. MR. KELL Y: I make a motion that in light of testimony and the fact that opp. costs have been paid, that we abate the fine. MR. KRAENBRING: I second that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Motion passes. MR. DAVIS: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You're welcome. Have a good day. Page 97 July 31, 2008 Next case, BCC versus Anthony Gualario. MS. MARKU: This is in reference to Code Enforcement Board Case No. 2007-94. For the record, the respondent is present. MR. GUALARIO: Good morning, gentlemen. MS. MARKU: This case came before the Code Enforcement Board on September 27th, 2007. The Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. Copy of the order is attached for your review. At this time, county's requesting imposition of fines at a rate of $100 per day for the period between May 24th, 2008 to June 13th, 2008, 21 days for a total of $2,100. The respondent has complied with the CEB order and the operational costs of 373.54 have been paid. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: On this one it says respondent has complied with CEB orders as of September 27th, 2007. MS. MARKU: The orders there were issued on September 27th. MR. DEAN: As of '017 (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. SANT AFEMIA: Good morning. For the record -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, it's still morning. MR. SANTAFEMIA: Barely. For the record, John Santafemia, Property Maintenance Specialist for Collier County Code Enforcement. As stated, Mr. Gualario is in compliance. I know that he is a little bit over past the date of compliance. I don't know if he wants to address that as far as his fines are concerned. But at this time everything has been taken care of and abated. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead, sir. MR. GUALARIO: My chance? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes, sir. MR. GUALARIO: This has been an arduous undertaking. I appeared before this board about 60 days ago, at which time I was Page 98 July 31, 2008 given 60 days to make certain improvements that just been permitted. The day before I met with you folks, I had called a fire protection company to do the necessary extensions to the fire suppression system. On April the 7th, about 11 days later, they supplied me with a proposal to do that work. I signed that proposal and gave it to them the very same day. It took them from April the 7th to May the 7th to physically do the work, make their drawing, get their permit, come out and do the work. They had an inspection, and that inspection failed. They corrected the work, but it took until May the 21 st for that correction to be done. Now I'm just a couple of days before my 60 days is about to expire. They did not -- but they secured a fire inspection that was satisfactory, but they did not turn that inspection over to the county. So on June the 2nd, I went to their office, picked up the yellow ticket, brought it to the county and thought I was done. But I noticed on that Certificate of Occupancy that the permit was different than the main permit that I had been issued sometime before. So I found out that there was an overriding fire inspection that should have been done at the same time. It wasn't done. So I contacted the fire department to do that. They did that about a week later. And I was able to secure the final Certificate of Occupancy on June the 13th. I've been very diligent in getting all of these things done, and I've not wasted any time. And on that basis, I'm asking for waiver of the fines. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. LARSEN: I move we abate the fines. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 99 July 31, 2008 MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. GUALARIO: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next case, is BCC versus Teudis Zamora. MS. MARKU: This is in reference to Code Enforcement Board Case No. 2006120209. On January 24th, 2008, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion oflaw and order. A copy of that order is in your -- is attached in your packet. As of today, July 31st, 2008, the respondent has not complied with the Code Enforcement Board orders issued on January 24th, 2008. As a result, county is requesting imposition of fines at a rate of $50 per day for the period between May 24th, 2008 to May 29th, 2008, for a period of six days for a total of $300. Fines continue to accrue. Operational costs of 251.65 have not been paid. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. MS. SCAVONE: This is an imposition of fines, and I have not had any contact with the owner whatsoever. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions? MR. KRAENBRING: I'm just curious, we're imposing fines for a period in May. Is this something that we normally do? MR. KELL Y: I just thought it was strange that the other case Page 100 July 31, 2008 they extended it right up to today but this one stopped in May for some reason. MR. KRAENBRING: I'm just wondering from the county, is it MS. MARKU: The other one extended to yesterday because they came in compliance yesterday. This case is not in compliance. So this was done May 29th, because that was when we sent the notice to them, and that is why we put the language fines continue to accrue. MR. KELLY: Good answer. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. I make a motion that we impose the fines. 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. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Next case will be BCC versus Naples Property Services, LLC. MS. MARKU: This is in reference to Code Enforcement Board Case No. 2007050653. On January 24th, 2008 the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. A copy of the order is attached for your review. As of today, July 31st, 2008, the respondent has not complied with the Code Enforcement Board orders of January 24th, 2008. Page 10 1 July 31, 2008 The county is requesting imposition of fines in the amount of $2,000, which is $200 per day for the period of May 24th, 2008 to June 3rd, 2008 for a total of 10 days in the amount of 2,000. That is the fine amount. And then fines continue to accrue since the case is not in compliance. Operational costs of357.86 have been paid. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: May I have the parties sworn in, please. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. PETRULLI: This case is, as Bendisa said, still not in compliance. Mr. Siragusa is the owner of the property, and I think he would like to speak to the board about some problems he's had coming into compliance. THE COURT REPORTER: Could you spell your name, please. MR. SIRAGUSA: Sure. S-I-R-A-G-U-S-A. First name Charles. As background, these violations existed when I purchased the property. There's a Notice of Violation that was issued, and I was before you on January 24, 2008. I recognize four or five of you that were here at the time. You may recall that you engaged in quite a lengthy dialogue, you spent a great deal of time and thought on the order that should be entered. The order was entered, and when I was here before you, I said I know the violations exist, I inherited them, I had knowing to do with them, I will correct them. I'm in process of doing that and in fact I've complied with the order. And although I hesitate to bring it to your attention, we need to look at the order to see that I've complied with both the letter and the spirit of the order. First it says I was to apply for the permit by April 23rd, 2008. I did apply for the permit on April 21, 2008. During the time between January and April 21, I needed to find an architect, retain an architect, find a contractor, make sure he was a contractor who could do the work and he was licensed, because Page 102 July 31, 2008 obviously he had to have a general contractor's license. I found the contractor. I found the architect. He prepared the plans, the plans were submitted with the building permit on April 21, 2008. Thereafter, the response came back from the county that certain corrections needed to be made to the plan. There were very, very few corrections that were needed that showed the plans had a great deal of thought and they were done to the greatest extent possible to comply with all the building codes. The only significant thing that was in the county's response that needed to be done was a site improvement plan. Now that I needed a site improvement plan, which I didn't know what it was, had never done one, I had no experience with it, I talked to the architect and I said what do we do now. He said get an engineer. I retained Edixon Engineering, Inc. There's a person there that does a lot of work, 1.1. Bombassaro. Very, experienced. He knows many of the people in the Collier County building department. I retained him. He said -- I said what do we do next? He looked at the plans and he said we need to schedule a pre -- an SIP pre-application meeting, or a pre-application meeting to determine what would be needed in terms of the site improvement plan. The pre-application meeting was on July 16th, 2008. I attended with Mr. Bombassaro, there were about eight representatives of Collier County, all the different departments that had reviewed the plans. There was minutes taken of the meeting. Here are the minutes. Now, regrettably you don't have a copy of all this. And the reason is that it was delivered by UPS. to Collier County, and you didn't get it. I prepared actually a petition to clarify the order entered on January 24, 2008, and you'll see why once you look at it. I had this -- attached to this was the rejection by the county, a letter from 1.1. Bombassaro requesting the pre-application meeting, a copy of the minutes from the pre-application meeting. I gave this to UPS. on July 25th, 2008. It was received by the county on July 28th. Page 103 July 31, 2008 Now granted, it wasn't five days before, but for whatever reason, the county has this petition to clarify the order and all the exhibits that were received Monday, but they haven't come to you. So I have a copy this, if you wanted to see it. Now, the reason I prepared this petition to clarify the order is we need to look at paragraph two of the order. I have complied with the letter and spirit of the order, including paragraph two. The order says once the permits are obtained by completing all work through related inspections and the issuance of the C.O. within 120 days. I haven't obtained the permit because it was rejected. It was rejected because I needed a site improvement plan. I've gone through the steps to now obtain the site improvement plan. I'm in the process with Bombassaro from Edixon Engineering of now retaining a landscape architect so that we can prepare, gather a landscape architect plan. One of the documents that I submitted or I attached to this petition to clarify the order was in fact a letter from J.1. Bombassaro, which unfortunately I don't have here, because I attached all the copies of the 15 copies of this petition. In there he indicates that based on his experience, and I have a feeling you gentlemen know better than I do that I'm surprised at the length of time, he said to submit all the -- to prepare the documents needed to submit a proper site improvement plan, to then have it reviewed by the county, to have any response, to make any changes, to get the site improvement plan completed, approved and then to get the building permit based on the completed site improvement work that's done pursuant to the plan would literally take six to seven months. And he estimated it would be November, December, before I would literally have the permit, before all the work would be completed and I would be able to get the C.O. because of the time needed to submit the site improvement documents to the county, get them approved, then do the work pursuant to the site improvement Page 104 July 31, 2008 plan. Now, again, when you look at the order, it says I have 120 days from the date that the permits are obtained to complete the work and get the C.O. Regrettably on the end of the second line of paragraph two there's a parenthetical, May 28th, 2008. Well, it's absolutely impossible for me to have obtained a permit that's satisfactory, do all the work pursuant to the permit when I now need a site improvement plan, and to have done that by May 23,2008. I obviously didn't see this order before it was prepared. And I know the gentleman over here has spent a great deal of time to try to figure out how to give me the time to do the work but at the same time keep my feet to the fire to make sure I would do the work. And regrettably I can only say that the parenthetical of May 23 is inconsistent with getting 120 days to finish the work and get the C.O. from the date that I applied, which would be no later than April 23, 2008. Now, for whatever it's worth, I contacted a lawyer and he actually found some cases from the Florida Appellate Court that dealt within inconsistencies in an order of court. I mean, I could show them to you. There's one here. MR. KELLY: Can I interrupt for just a second? MR. GUALARIO: Sure. MR. KELLY: I remember this case plainly, and number two was my language. And the reason why I wrote it exactly the way it's written now is because we talked about a site improvement plan. And at the time, in remember correctly, it was a year's time frame that we were throwing out there. So we never put a time frame between when the submittal and the pick-up or the work was to be done for that reason. I'm actually very upset that county's even bringing this to us. It clearly states once the permits are obtained. And it was written as such for that reason. Now it might have been a typographical error if Jean put the date Page 105 July 31, 2008 at the end of that line, but it's not right. And we can go back to the minutes and verify that it wasn't right. I remember this clearly. MR. GUALARIO: I can understand the county wanting the work to get done because the building has been this way for many years before I purchased it. But it's vacant, it was a former day care center, the people left the place. MR. LEFEBVRE: This is the one where there was a wall that was open and we sard we don't want to duplicate things, close it up and -- MR. GUALARIO: Demolish two sheds, and plans, provide for all that -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I don't want to go back to the case, but now I remember. Do we want -- possibly one option would be to clarify our order at this point? Could that be done, Jean? MS. RAWSON: Well, we can do that. It basically says once the permits are obtained, he has 120 days. MR. KRAENBRING: And he didn't know about the site improvement plan so he doesn't have his permits. I guess we're just going to, at some point -- this is just discussion, we're going to be hearing this case again. I mean -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Not hearing it but -- MR. KRAENBRING: Not hearing the case, but hearing the motion for -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Imposition of fines. MR. KRAENBRING: Right. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can we strike May 23rd, 2008. Would that clarify it that he has 120 days from the time that he receives permits? MS. RAWSON: Yes. May 23rd, 2008 was probably 120 days from the date of the hearing. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Exactly. Page 106 July 31, 2008 MS. RAWSON: But if you read the sentence, it clearly says once the permits are obtained then he has 120 days. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So let's strike May 23rd and give you 120 days, in understand this correctly, from when you get your permit. MR. KRAENBRING: So really at this point, I guess the favor of the board right now seems to be that we're not going to be imposing fines now, we're going to wait and see. Once you get your permits, then you have 120 days. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I don't see how we can't because right here it says he has 120 days. And I think the only conflict is that May 23rd, 2008. Ifwe-- MR. KRAENBRING: Can I just ask the county, do you have an opinion on this? MS. MARKU: We can withdraw the case and bring it back for future imposition of fines, or if they comply with the order, then we can close the case. MR. KRAENBRING: Is it better just to have them withdraw than to not impose the fines? MS. RAWSON: I don't think we can impose the fines ifhe has 120 days from when the permits are obtained. MR. KRAENBRING: But I'm saying they're asking us to impose the fines and we're going to say we're not imposing the fines. Or is it better for them just to withdraw -- MS. RAWSON: No, I think it's probably better to withdraw, because it's prematurely here. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can we mod -- hold on a second. Can we modify -- MS. RAWSON: I can modify the order. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Take out the 23rd. MS. RAWSON: Sure, not a problem. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: May 23rd. That will eliminate -- Page 107 July 31, 2008 MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman, just a comment. Reading the language here, I agree with what people are saying, what the board is saying in regard to paragraph two. But is there a time frame for the permit to be issued or denied? MR. KRAENBRING: One more time. MR. LARSEN: Is there a time period for permits to be issued or denied by the county. Because now we're saying 120 days from the issuance of the permits. And if the permits aren't issued in 2008 or 2009, now we're going into. MS. PETRULLI: He had a permit issued on April the 21st of this year. MR. KRAENBRING: But not the site improvement plan. So he really can't -- MS. PETRULLI: No, but the permit was issued. MR. KRAENBRING: The permit was issued. So if there's any error in this order, it's that we didn't know about the site improvement plan. MR. KELL Y: But we did. It was discussed. It was discussed at the time. We can pull the minutes. But I think quite pointedly, I think everyone agrees that we need to give him the 120 days from the time all of the permitting processes and everything related to that permitting processes have been pursued. I share in Mr. Larsen's concern, that was brought up. And I believed if you look at the minutes, it just simply stated that the respondent would do due diligence to continue with the process until it was obtained. MR. GUALARIO: And I know two things. It also says 120 days after the issuance of the C.O. So obviously I have to get the C.O. as well, not just -- and also the May 23 appears in two location, in paragraph two and paragraph four. MS. RAWSON: I'll fix that. MR. KRAENBRING: I think at this point, though, everyone's Page 108 July 31, 2008 discussion seems to be in line in that the county is willing to withdraw it. So read it into the record. MS. MARKU: Would you like me to make a motion to withdraw? MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion to withdraw. Go ahead. MS. MARKU: The county makes a motion to withdraw this case, and the order will be corrected with the correct date. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And how are we going to correct line number four and where it says order of the board by? If we take out May 23rd what are we going to put in there? MS. RAWSON: 120 days after the issuance of the permit. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. MS. RAWSON: We can amend that nunc pro tunc. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good. MR. GUALARIO: Thank you, you made my day. And a very bad economy, if I can add, with a vacant building where I'm going to have to spend 30 to $35,000 on a building that isn't worth what I paid for it. But that's life. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sorry you had to wait three-and-a-halfhours to -- MR. GUALARIO: It's all right. The result was worth it. MR. KRAENBRING: Good luck. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion for reduction, abatement of fines. Do we have any? MR. KELL Y: I do have a question about that. I don't know if we should bring this up under new business or if now is the time. But if you look, you have two motions for imposition of fines and liens, one under old business, Section 5, and then under Section 7 under the consent agenda. I don't remember us approving it to be moved to consent. I thought the only thing that was going to be moved to consent were the cases that were going to the county attorney's office for foreclosure. Page 109 July 31, 2008 MR. KRAENBRING: Is that what that is? MR. KELLY: Well there was no cases listed under it. Obviously we did hear motions for imposition of fines. So should we have that taken out of the agenda? MS. MARKU: On your rules and regulations it states under seven, consent agenda, motion for imposition of fines and liens. MS. RAWSON: I think it did go to the consent agenda. MS. MARKU: And then B, it says for foreclosure. So based on the rules it states that. MR. KELL Y: In other words, all those cases we just heard technically were approved the minute we approved the agenda. Because once it's under consent, unless it's pulled at the time the agenda is approved, it is automatically passed. That's agendas work, right? MS. RAWSON: Well, last time we had a discussion and you changed the rules, you moved to move that to the consent agenda. But what happens, and what happened today in all but one case is you have a respondent appear and ask either for a motion to reduce or abate fines or, as this gentleman did, say I have complied, we're here too early. But the other one really could have been on the consent agenda. MR. KELLY: So is that the will of the board? Is that what we really decided? I don't remember. MR. PONTE: I think that what we were trying to do is to take those cases where we've spent time just automatically rubber stamping and there was nothing going on, and create a category of a consent agenda. However, leaving it open to -- so that a respondent who wanted to appeal the fining process for whatever reason could make a case for reduction or abatement. So it's just a matter of where you position it on the piece of paper here. But there's honestly no real way of knowing in advance of what Page 110 July 31, 2008 respondent is going to decide to ask for an abatement for reduction. MR. KELLY: Right. Now there is a process -- MR. PONTE: So I guess that what you have to -- okay, I'm sorry . MR. KELL Y: Well, there i& a process now if the respondent wants to request an abatement or reduction of fine. They can submit a simple form. They can actually hand write the form out and then submit that for the upcoming agenda, and then in that case we can have it pulled. But what about the folks that just show up at 9:02 when we all just quickly run through our changes in the agenda and then accept it if we don't ask who's in the audience in attendance, who would like to speak on that item so that we could pull it, it would just be approved. MR. PONTE: That's true. MS. FLAGG: Mr. Chair, I would offer that -- MR. PONTE: It sounds like something that ought to be in the next workshop for nuts and bolts. MS. FLAGG: I would offer that. It is up to the board, but you're welcome to amend your rules. And we would just have to get BCC approval. MS. RAWSON: Well, we usually have a workshop every year and it seems like we amend the rules every year. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We missed that workshop this year. MS. RAWSON: I think we have. But I don't remember when the last approval by the commission of the last, you know, change in your rules. But you did put that in the consent agenda. So that's something we should probably discuss again. MR. KELL Y: In the meantime, can we leave it as it is now where it's under old business where we get the chance to address each case. MS. RAWSON: Well, it's fine with me, because what you're doing literally is changing the agenda at that time, moving the others Page 111 July 31, 2008 to the consent. MR. PONTE: But if we do it that way, then what we've done is just go right back to the old way where we sit here for ten minutes and just parrot the answers and then we approve and fall asleep and approve and fall -- we know it's just going through. So it's just rubber stamping. MR. DEAN: George, I don't fall asleep. MR. KELLY: I agree with you, George; however, if it's that one respondent who has a legitimate issue, like for instance the one we just heard, I'd hate to see that slip through because he was five minutes late and didn't get the change to raise his hand and say I want that pulled from consent, I want to speak on mine. MR. PONTE: So what you're suggesting is we get rid of the consent? MR. KELLY: No, the consent is fine for forwarding things to the attorney's office, that's pretty much rubber stamp. But the imposition of fines, I would say at least 50 percent of the respondents are here. MR. PONTE: Yes, I think that's right. MS. RAWSON: And even though they get our rules and the rules do tell them how to file a motion to reduce or abate fines, not many of them do it. MR. KELLY: I personally stood in front of the Board of County Commissioners and asked them to keep our rules and regulations separate from the special magistrate, telling them that it would be easier and that we work with the respondents and it would be easier for the respondents to understand our rules if they were left separate. And I think we should, as a board, if that's the will of the board, I think we should try to stick with that, that we make our processes as simple as possible and give people the benefit of the doubt. Because there are times we get confused, and they're our rules, let alone a lay person who doesn't understand these proceedings. It can be quite Page 112 July 31, 2008 daunting. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Should we talk about maybe doing a workshop in the near future? MS. RAWSON: I think it's a great idea. I don't think we've done one in a while. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Diane, I know we discussed this -- MS. FLAGG: Is there any particular time frame you all are interested in? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you want to look at something before the next meeting? Would that be -- MS. RAWSON: Well, the next meeting is in about three weeks. MR. KRAENBRING: Yeah, that's short -- MR. PONTE: Before the September meeting. Before the September meeting. August meeting is next, it's only three weeks from now. MR. KRAENBRING: Yeah, sometime in the fall. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So in between the August meeting and September meeting. We want to throw out some dates and then see how many of us can attend it. Okay, and we can discuss that. And we could probably discuss the stipulation process -- MR. PONTE: I think so too, yeah. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. And one other thing I'd like to bring up under -- I guess we're going to move into new business at this point. Under new business, I did meet with Diane and a couple other people a week-and-a-half ago and discussed a few items, a few issues. And one of the old cases regarding conversions and so forth where we don't know the time frame of when, let's say as an example, a garage has been converted. So we discussed a few options on how to maybe correct that issue. I don't know if Diane's followed up on any of those issues, but Page 113 July 31, 2008 maybe we should talk a little bit more about those issues in the September workshop. MS. FLAGG: You'll notice, too. I don't -- he is here. I don't know if you all have met Mr. Dave Scribner. He's actually the manager over all the supervisors and the investigators. And he will be attending your meetings and making notes to the items that you're looking for. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. PONTE: So what we're saying is really items at the workshops will be the consent agenda, stipulation and -- test my memory. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I guess, I guess -- MR. KRAENBRING: Old cases -- MR. PONTE: Cold cases -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I guess I don't know what -- MR. KELLY: I do have one more issue to possibly bring up, if it's okay. Investigator -- or, sorry, Supervisor now. Supervisor Snow mentioned today that our local codes were found federally unconstitutional. And I'd love to know more about that and how that affects us and our ruling in future cases. MR. PONTE: Me too, yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: There was one other item, I can't remember what -- MS. RAWSON: It was the sign code. MR. DEAN: Right. That was the moving sign. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We had something else in a meeting that we were going to have a workshop to -- something about a process? MS. FLAGG: What I discussed with the Chairman is as I've -- in my short time here, I've recognized both in the special magistrate process and the Code Enforcement Board process that a large Page 114 July 31, 2008 percentage of your cases are situations like what we heard today where they purchased a home in good faith, they purchased a business in good faith, and then they find out later that permits were not properly applied for. So our number one priority is to figure out if we can develop a mechanism through the assistance of yourselves and the BCC and possibly looking at an ordinance. There are other communities in the United States that require inspections and permit reviews before a facility can be sold. So we may not be able to fix what's happened in the past in these cases that are ongoing, but our goal will be to basically stop the bleed, to create a mechanism whereby when someone buys a property in good faith that they don't get a surprise a week later, a month later, 10 years later. MR. KELLY: On that note, I have one more thing to add. Since our computer records only go back to I believe it is 1989, can we also work towards an ordinance that says anything that was pre '89 we can't find permits for, we rule on the side of the respondent rather than leaving all of the -- sorry, I don't know the word, but the responsibility up to them to find something that may not exist or maybe does and just was lost. MS. FLAGG: Absolutely. And I would welcome that if you have any suggestions to that as we're developing the agenda or any specific suggestions, we'll include that in the agenda on the workshop. But really, all of that certainly we can discuss. MS. RAWSON: And before the workshop, I would suggest that you all pull out your rules and dust them out and read them and be sure that they say what you want them to say. MR. KELL Y: Bendisa or J en, you want to send us a copy of what our current rules are. Some of us might have old ones. MS. MARKU: After this meeting I can provide you with a copy of the rules. Page 115 July 31, 2008 MR. KELL Y: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So are we moving on to reports? Any reports? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: None. Comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: There's still one person here in the audience. Is there a -- MS. FLAGG: He translates for you all. MS. RAWSON: The interpreter. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Oh, okay. Thank you very much. MR. KELLY: In reference to number 10, the meeting date, I'd like to request an excused absence as I won't be in the country for the next meeting. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next meeting date be -- MR. DEAN: Motion denied. MR. KRAENBRING: Motion denied. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The 22nd of August. And to I have a motion to adjourn? MR. DEAN: I make a motion to adjourn. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 116 July 31, 2008 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:30 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD GERALD LEFEBVRE, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on presented or as corrected. , as Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 11 7