Loading...
CEB Minutes 08/22/2008 R August 22, 2008 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida August 22, 2008 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Gerald Lefebvre Larry Dean Kenneth Kelly (Excused) Edward Larsen Richard Kraenbring Lionel L'Esperance George Ponte Robert Kaufman ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the board Bendisa Marku, Operations Coordinator Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA AGENDA Date: August 22nd, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. Location: Collier County Government Center, Third Floor, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Building F, Naples, FI 34112. NOTICE: THE RESPONDENT MAY BE LIMITIED TO TWENTY (20) MINUTES FOR CASE PRESENTATION UNLESS ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE BOARD. PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. ALL PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN THE PUBLIC HEARING ARE ASKED TO OBSERVE ROBERTS RULES OF ODER AND SPEAK ONE AT A TIME SO THAT THE COURT REPORTER CAN RECORD ALL STATEMENTS BEING MADE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 31st, 2008 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. MOTIONS Motion for Continuance Motion for Extension of Time 1. BCC vs. Joseph Feria Francois CEB NO. 2006-52 B. STIPULATIONS C. HEARINGS 1. BCC vs. James Bachmann 2. BCC VS. Florida Metal Master, Inc. 3. BCC VS. Carlos Perez 4. BCC VS. William and Laura Mara 5. BCC vs. Patriot Square, LLC. 6. BCC vs. Empire Developers Group, LLC. 7. BCC VS. Amanda Rosario Puhiera 8. BCC VS. United Parcel Service, Inc. 9. BCC vs. United Parcel Service, Inc. CEB NO. 2006090001 CEB NO. 2007090640 CEB NO. 2007080099 CEB NO. CESD20080004753 CEB NO. 2007060341 CEB NO. CESD20080007919 CEB NO. 2007070743 CEB NO. CEPM20080003788 CEB NO. CELU20080003784 5. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. BCC VS. Jeffrey Macasevich 2. BCC VS. J. Peaceful, L.C. 3. BCC vs. Ascention, Inc. CEB NO. 2006100314 CEB NO. 2007060387 CEB NO. 2007100552 B. Motion for Reduction/Abatement of Fines/Liens 6. NEW BUSINESS 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens B. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office 8. REPORTS 9. COMMENTS 10. NEXT MEETING DATE - September 25th, 2008 11. ADJOURN August 22, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm going to call the Code Enforcement Board meeting 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 an 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 the record. Roll call, please. MS. MARKU: Good morning. Bendisa Marku, representing Collier County Code Enforcement. Mr. Edward Larsen? MR. LARSEN: Present. MS. MARKU: Mr. George Ponte? MR. PONTE: Here. MS. MARKU: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. MARKU: Mr. Kenneth Kelly has an excused absence. Mr. Larry Dean? MR. DEAN: Here. MS. MARKU: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. MARKU: Mr. Richard Kraenbring? MR. KRAENBRING: Here. Page 2 August 22, 2008 MS. MARKU: Mr. Robert Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Here. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And also, on the record, Mr. Kaufman will be a full voting member today at this meeting. Any changes to the agenda? Which there are going to be several. MS. MARKU: There are going to be several changes to the agenda. County is requesting to withdraw item number 4.C.7, which is Board of County Commissioners versus Amanda Rosario Puhiera, due to foreclosure. Under Item 4.C.l, under hearings, Board of County Commissioners versus James Bachman will become Item No. 4.A.l. It's a motion for dismissal. Item No. 4.C.2, under hearings, Board of County Commissioners versus Florida Metal Master's, Incorporated will become Item No. 4.A.l, motion for continuance. Item No. 5.A.l under motion for imposition of fines, Board of County Commissioners versus Jeffrey Macasevich will become Item No. 4.A.2, motion for continuance. Item No. 5.A.2 under motion for imposition of fines, Board of County Commissioners versus 1. Peaceful, LC, will become Item 4.A.3, motion for continuance. Item No. 4.C.3, under hearings, Board of County Commissioners versus Carlos Perez will become Item No. 4.B.l, which is a stipulation. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion to approve the agenda? MR. DEAN: Motion to approve-- MS. MARKU: I'm not completed. MR. DEAN: -- the agenda. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Hold on a second. MS. MARKU: I have one more stipulation. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm sorry, I thought you were done. Page 3 August 22, 2008 MR. DEAN: Withdraw my motion. MS. MARKU: And item No. 4.C.5, Board of County Commissioners versus Patriot Square, LLC will become Item No. 4.B.2. And that will be all. MR. KRAENBRING: That's also a stipulation? MS. MARKU: That is also a stipulation. MR. KRAENBRING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Let me just write down the changes. Just a question. Where did you put Bachman again? MS. MARKU: Bachman is a motion for dismissal, so I put it under motions. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Now do I hear a motion to approve the agenda? MR. DEAN: I'd like to make a motion to approve the agenda. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KRAENBRING: I'll second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Okay. Approval of minutes from last meeting. Do I hear a motion? MR. PONTE: Make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? Page 4 August 22, 2008 MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. And we will go on to motions. To Bachman. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. Good morning. For the record, Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney for the county. And we seek and move to dismiss the rehearing request that we had. And the reason is we feel that this is more appropriately dealt with on the zoning side of the house. And I have a letter from Mr. Flood. We've met with Mr. Flood. He has agreed to pursue permits for the pool. And if there is an issue over there and his inability to get one, he's going to pursue an interpretation of the code. And that process works: You go for code interpretation, the land zoning development director issues it, and if you have an issue with that, you appeal it to the Board of County Commissioners, and if you still have an issue, then you go into circuit court. And I just want to read for the record, if I may, a letter that I received from Mr. Flood. Dear Mrs. Stirling: Weare asking to dismiss the hearing set for Friday, August 22nd, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. We are taking the matter to zoning for further review. If you should have any questions regarding Page 5 August 22, 2008 this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office. Very truly yours, Peter T. Flood. And of course he represents Mr. Bachman. Thank you. MR. KRAENBRING: And again, it is the county that's requesting -- MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yes, and he's -- MR. KRAENBRING: -- dismissal? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: By this letter he's joining in on it. I would construe it that way. And I just want to make it clear, though, that he has agreed to go to zoning and go through those processes. MR. KRAENBRING: Do we need to make a ruling on this, Jean, or just -- MS. RAWSON: Yes, you need to approve the motion to dismiss. Or disapprove. MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that we approve the dismissal. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion for continuance. And first Page 6 August 22, 2008 one will be Florida Metal Masters, Inc. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. MR. HOLZEM: Good morning. I'm Scott Holzem. I'm appearing for Peter Flood who got tied up in Michigan on family matters. And he wrote a letter, basically asking that this matter be continued, since he couldn't be here today. He's been representing for about a month, and he hasn't had time to really review the matter sufficiently to adequately represent the client. And basically I'm not prepared to argue any of the merits, because I got this file last night because he needed somebody to show up to ask for this continuance. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: County has no objection. MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that we grant the continuance. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Next one will be Jeffrey -- MS. RAWSON: Would that be continued till the next meeting? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MS. RAWSON: And I believe that the next meeting is going to be at the Code Enforcement Board office. Page 7 August 22, 2008 MR. KRAENBRING: Do we just need to advise him of that? Are you going to waive -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you could have him just come up again for a minute. MR. KRAENBRING: Again, just check with the county to make sure that they're prepared for next month. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I think they've been prepared for the past few months. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. Are you going to just waive notice? MR. HOLZEM: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And the meeting is? Can you check the date, please. MS. RAWSON: September 25th. And it's going to be on Horseshoe Drive. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Just for the record, if I might, those meetings are at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive in the Community Development and Environmental Services building, and they're usually in Room 610. So I just want -- I'm not sure it will be in 610, but that's where they usually are. So since people are waiving notice, I just wanted to put that on the record. MR. KRAENBRING: Just waive written notice so it just saves Jean some -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Jean, was that the 25th or 26th? MS. RAWSON: 25th. MR L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. The next case will be an imposition of fines, continuance for imposition of fines. Jeffrey Macasevich. MR. KEEGAN: Good morning. For the record, Thomas Keegan, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. (Speaker was duly sworn.) Page 8 August 22, 2008 MR. KEEGAN: The county has no opposition to the request. MR. KRAENBRING: The respondent is not here today? MR. KEEGAN: No, sir. MR. KRAENBRING: So we have written -- MR L'ESPERANCE: Uh-hum. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. I make a motion that we grant the continuance. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. KEEGAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next one will be BCC versus 1. Peaceful, LC. MR. CHAMI: Good morning. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Good morning. If you could just hold on a minute, we'll have the investigator come up and we'll swear both you in at the same time. MR. CHAM!: Sure. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead, sir. MR. CHAMI: Thanks a lot for -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you state your name, please. MR. CHAMI: My name is George Chami and I represent 1. Peaceful, LLC. Page 9 August 22, 2008 I asked for continuance, since I was not able to be here this morning. But since I was being requested to be present for the continuance, so basically I would like to present my case and explain to you basically what's the situation with the lien and for different infraction I have. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. So you're not asking for a continuance? MR. CHAMI: Not anymore, no. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Then we will take your case in the order that it is, and if you could -- MR. CHAMI: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- wait until after the regular cases are heard. Thank you very much. Do I need to change the agenda again or -- MS. RAWSON: You can move that one back to 5.A.2. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion to move it back to 5.A.2? MS. RAWSON: Well, I guess it would be 5.A.l now. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, 5.A.l then. MR. LARSEN: So moved. MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that -- MR. LARSEN: Go ahead. MR. PONTE: I make a motion that it be moved to 5.A.1. MR. KRAENBRING: Who wants to go first. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: I second it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. Page 10 August 22, 2008 MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. Okay, the next one will be a motion for extension of time. And that is BCC versus Joseph Ferio Francois. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. BRUGGER: My name's John Brugger. I'm speaking on behalf of Dr. Francois. We had a meeting with the staff earlier this weekend. Our request is to withdraw the motion at this time. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Does the county have any -- MR. LETOURNEAU: No objection. MR. KRAENBRING: So are we hearing a case today? MR. LETOURNEAU: No, it's just the status quo. As the case is going on, the fines are continuing. And they've agreed to bring this property into compliance one way or the other as soon as possible. MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that we grant the extension of time. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. MR. KRAENBRING: Oh, they're withdrawing the motion for extension of time. MS. RAWSON: I don't think it requires as vote. If they withdraw the motion, we don't need an order. MR. KRAENBRING: Very good. We're being too efficient. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. Next we're going to move on to stipulations. And the first one will be Carlos Perez. (At which time, the respondent, the county and Interpreter Jesus Fernandez were duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: For the record, Investigator Kitchell Snow. Page 11 August 22, 2008 The respondent and the county have reached a stipulation agreement, and the stipulation agreement reads as such: That one, they agree that there was a violation on the property and they will pay operational costs in the amount of 88.43 incurred in the prosecution of the case within 30 days ofthe date of the hearing. And two: A, abate all vio -- obtain all valid Collier County after-the-fact building permits for the unpermitted construction/remodeling/additions of the structure within 30 days of the date of the hearing or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed until such time as the permit is obtained; and obtain all inspections through certificate of completion, C.O. for the construction/remodeling of the structure within 60 days of the date of after-the- fact permit issuance, 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 all construction/remodeling/additions within 90 days of the date of the building 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. And three: The respondent must notify the code enforcement that the violation has been abated and request the investigator to come out and perform a site inspection. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Does the board have any questions? MR. DEAN: I have one. What kind of time frame do you think you're giving on this for completion? MR. SNOW: Well, sir, the code states when there's after-the-fact permits, they have to give 60 days -- we have to give six days. And I think this is -- they're well in the process of obtaining the permit, so that's where the 30 days is from. And I also want to add that for the record, if they get close to Page 12 August 22, 2008 any of these time frames that they need to request to come back and get an extension of time. But this is the case that we heard last time and we asked for more time and the board denied that, so that's why we've adjusted this a little bit. MR. DEAN: Okay. Because I was looking at the '07 September, and here it is August, '08. And so I'm just trying to follow a time. MR. SNOW: Yes, sir, understood. MR. DEAN: It seems long to me. MR. SNOW: This case was one of the cases that was an investigator's leave, or retire, it was one of those things that got passed on. And it was eventually passed on to me. And as you know, it takes probably 90 days to take this to frutation (sic) to the board, and that's basically where we're at. MR. DEAN: Okay, thank you. MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Does Mr. Perez understand what his responsibilities are? THE INTERPRETER: Yes, he does. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions from the board? MR. KRAENBRING: I'll make a motion that we grant the stipulation. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? Page 13 August 22, 2008 (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Next stipulation will be BCC versus Patriot Square, LLC. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. PATTERSON: For the record, Sherry Patterson, Collier County Code Enforcement. The respondent has agreed to the terms and conditions set forth in the stipulation and therefore it is agreed between the two parties that the respondent shall pay all operational costs in the amount of 89.75 incurred in the prosecution of the case within 30 days of this hearing. Two, abate all violations by obtaining an after-the-fact demo permit for the removal of the sign and to ensure all safety and electrical components -- safety concerns has been abated within seven days of this hearing or a fine of $150 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. By removing the remaining portion of the sign and all the debris associate with the sign within seven days of this hearing or a fine of $150 per day will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Three: The respondent must notify the code enforcement officer that the violation has been abated and request that the investigator come out and do a site inspection to confirm final abatement. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And again, can you just state your name for the record. MR. CLAUSSEN: Justin Claussen. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And your relationship to Patriot Square? MR. CLAUSSEN: Property manager. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You are the property manager? MR. CLAUSSEN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So you have the authority to sign on behalf -- MR. CLAUSSEN: Yes. I'm also the owner's nephew. Page 14 August 22, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You have the authority to sign on behalf of -- MR. CLAUSSEN: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- Patriot Square? And you agree to the stipulation here? MR. CLAUSSEN: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Have we had the case before us before? MS. PATTERSON: Yes, we have. This case was heard on February 28th, actually, to be exact. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Of this year? MS. PATTERSON: Yes. There was a clerical error and so we re-noticed, and so that's why we're here today. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It did sound familiar. Any other questions of the board? MR. LARSEN: I have a question. Is the county satisfied that this gentleman appearing here today has the authority to bind Patriot Square? MS. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. MR. LARSEN: Because it appears that just being related to the property manager and not being a registered agent or a member of the organization is questionable. MS. PATTERSON: I have been working a bit with Mr. Justin Claussen here. He and I have been corresponding on behalf of his uncle, Dennis Claussen, and I believe he does have the authority to SIgn. MR. LARSEN: Okay, I have no further questions. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Jean? MS. RAWSON: I don't have any problem with it. We don't always get the registered agent. As long as they testify and swear on the record that they have the authority. Ifwe ever found out that wasn't true, you know, then we could set it aside. But generally as Page 15 August 22, 2008 long as you put it on the record. He also has the same last name, which makes it easier. And you've got the testimony of the county. So I don't have any problem with it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good. Do I hear a motion? MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that we accept the stipulation. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. PATTERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right, we're going to move on to hearings. First one will be BCC versus William and Laura Mara. MS. MARKU: I believe that item has been stipulated as well. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, did I miss that? MS. WALDRON: No, we're waiting for the stipulation agreement. He's making copies right now. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do we want to set this aside and then bring it back? Page 16 August 22, 2008 MS. WALDRON: Sure. MR. MARA: Do I sit down now? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yeah, I guess they're still working on a stipulated agreement and there would be no reason to have you come in front of us at this point. MS. WALDRON: Actually he's here right now so we can go ahead and do it. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. MARTINDALE: Good morning. For the record, my name's Ron Martindale, Investigator for Collier Code Enforcement. This is reference Case No. CESD20080004753. Mr. William and Laura Mara are the respondents. This is reference a modification to the rear of a dwelling located at 4550 Boabadilla Street, in Naples. I have some accompanying photographs I'd like to submit. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. KRAENBRING: Make -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept? MR. KRAENBRING: Yeah, I make a motion to accent the exhibit. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARTINDALE: Mr. MaraMara has agreed to sign a stipulation to abate the situation. Page 1 7 August 22, 2008 As you can see, this is the rear of a duplex unit. His former tenant enclosed the rear lanai, made it into a living area. MR. MARA: That was without my permission or knowledge. MR. MARTINDALE: In essence, the respondent turned himself in. He called to complain of the additions the complainant or -- MR. MARA: Isn't that stupid? MR. MARTINDALE: -- the tenants made. MR. DEAN: That's a first. MR. MARA: Yeah, you try to do something right. MR. KRAENBRING: Just for expediency sake, ifhe's agreeing to the stipulation, I don't know how much testimony we need from the county. MR. MARA: You know, I just wanted to make one comment. I agree to the stipulation, I turned myself in. Mr. Martindale worked with me. I'm on disability for my knees and my back. I wanted to get my knees operated on this month, but the 30-day stipulation will naturally interfere with that. I have to go and hire a licensed contractor. That means getting four or five estimates. It's hard for me to walk. I just wanted like six months. Not only that, but I own like six, seven houses in Collier County and a business that's seasonal. And where that used to be boasting years ago, now you can see I'm getting nickeled and dimed from every venture I've been in in Collier County, subsequently going broke. I just wanted a little time to get into season so my business picks up and we could pay for all these permits and things like that. MR. KRAENBRING: Do you feel that the 90 days on the stipulation is -- MR. MARA: That will force me to postpone surgery. I was supposed to meet with my surgeon today, but I canceled because of this, so that's been postponed till next week. But I would like to get out of pain as soon as possible. Page 18 August 22, 2008 But if it's your desire for me to continue this in the 90 days, well, then I'll have to put my back and knees on hold and work on this while my wife is running the store. We own Patio People of Naples, and as you know, it's a seasonal business. And our season's coming up in October, and then we would be able to have the finances. MR. KRAENBRING: So how much time are you looking for? MR. MARA: Well, maybe four months, five months. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I've got a couple of questions. First of all, is the property currently occupied? MR. MARA: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It is. That enclosed area looks like it was enclosed with a piece of plywood which looks like a door. MR. MARA: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Which is one way of egress and mgress. And I understand your plight. But being that it is an occupied dwelling, that is a way of escape. MR. MARA: There's a door on the other side -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Oh, okay. MR. MARA: -- of the plywood. So they do have an escape at the back of the door of the house. He just merely -- if I could. These walls were here. THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, could you get on the mic, please. MR. MARA: The bottom half of the walls were always there. Above where the plywood was was screened. So he put plywood at the door and the sides of the house because his daughter had a baby. So that came up with the son-in-law living in there and the daughter. So he went ahead and just put plywood over there. And on the inside put sheetrock and painted, badda-boom, in the room. And that's August 22, 2008 what he did. So you can see that the exit, that's all one room there. So there is the door over there. And there's no electricity. There's nothing in that wall but the plywood. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: When was the case initially initiated, I guess. MR. MARTINDALE: April 14th, sir, of this year. He's had sufficient notice and time. It is a relatively simple, I would estimate, job to demo. It's not like removing anything structural. MR. KRAENBRING: So what you're going to be doing is removing this plywood, removing the drywall and then I guess restoring screens or windows to that area? MR. MARA: Yes. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. MR. MARA: It would be inexpensive, but by the time I get a licensed contractor to fill out the -- what's that, where you tear things down permit. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Demo. MR. MARA: Demo permit. And then having a -- I have a handyman that works for me, and I was just going to have him take that down and repair it. It will get costly. I'm probably looking at a three to $5,000 job, depending on the man. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions of the board? MR. DEAN: I just have one. I'm always concerned about the safety factor, that if you have somebody living in there and it's unpermitted, it's not a healthy situation. MR. MARA: Well, like I said, there is an exit over there. There is no electricity or plumbing in that wall. MR. DEAN: In that room there's nothing but a bed? MR. MARA: Nothing but a bed. MR. DEAN: That's it? Page 20 August 22, 2008 MR. MARA: That's it. MR. DEAN: Okay. MR. KRAENBRING: Can I make a comment? We could handle this one of two ways. One is we can just accept the stipulation, the 90 days, and then if there's an issue he's going to come back to us and ask us for an extension of time, or we can grant him some additional time, just to sort of keep our housekeeping in order, you know, so we don't have to rehear the case. I think 90 days is a fair amount of time to complete this work. And I would -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: I would agree with you. MR. KRAENBRING: Yeah, I would make a motion that we accept the stipulation as approved by the county and the respondent. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I will second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: No. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We have one nay. MR. DEAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion is passed. Do you understand, sir? MR. MARA: You know, I'm not being flagrant in just ignoring the violation. My -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We already made a decision. MR. MARA: -- wife works, we have three children, so I'm the primary caregiver, if you would. Page 21 August 22, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sir, we already made -- MR. MARA: My health is hard. So it wasn't like I was just flipping you off, so to speak. I did know I had to do this. I was waiting for the time and the finances. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sir, we already heard the case, we made a decision, and you will have 90 days. If for some reason you can't complete it within 90 days, you can come back to us and we will look at it at that point. MR. MARA: Okay, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. MR. DEAN: Can I just ask a question of our attorney? Jean, I just had a question. If they didn't have a permit to put it up, why do you need a permit to take it down? Nobody knows it was there or not. But now you do. MS. RAWSON: Well, any time you demolish things you have to have a demolition permit I guess is the simple answer to your question. MR. DEAN: Never a permit to put up? MS. RAWSON: Well, you've got to have a permit to take it down. MR. MARTINDALE: If! may, sir, it's so it can be inspected after the fact to make sure everything's done to code. MR. DEAN: Okay, I just wanted to bring that up for now. Thank you. MR. KRAENBRING: Can I ask you a question? Was that the basis of your no vote? MR. DEAN: No, no, not at all. My basis is safety. You have somebody sleeping in an unpermitted room. If we have a fire, how do we look? Not good. MR. KRAENBRING: So you felt that the time should have been shorter? MR. DEAN: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. If there's a fire, we don't look Page 22 August 22, 2008 good. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next case will be BCC versus Empire Developers Group, LLC. MR. SLA VICH: Good morning. I'm Bill Slavich, president of Empire Developers Group. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. BALDWIN: For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Code Enforcement Investigator. MS. MARKU: For the record, the board and the respondent were sent a packet of evidence, and that packet is marked as Exhibit A, County Exhibit A. MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion that we accept the packet. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. SLA VICH: Actually, we're asking if we can get a continuance in this case until your next meeting. Weare currently working with Development Services and Joe Schmitt and transportation and commissioners on a -- I'll call it an impact fee deferral program recommendation that -- I believe we've met a couple of times and have some staff support in this and are going to be bringing it to the commission meeting in September. MR. KRAENBRING: Jean, are we hearing this case or just as to form, continuance? Page 23 August 22, 2008 MS. RAWSON: Well, he's just made what's called an ore tenus or oral motion on the record for a continuance, so you have to deal with his motion. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. And does the county have an opmIOn on -- MR. BALDWIN: The county would just like to say, there hasn't been an agreement reached as of yet. We wouldn't go against the motion for continuance, we would agree with that, pending the board's results on September 9th. But as of yet there hasn't been an agreement reached. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What's the relevancy to this case and the board's decision? MR. SLA VICH: Well, really it was more of an economic stimulus package, so to speak. I mean, the financing in today's market on land deals is getting extremely difficult. In our specific case, although we are renewing an existing bank loan, we are being required to pay 100 percent of the improvements and the interest reserve. The stumbling block here is in round numbers, $400,000 of transportation impact fees. And we've already installed a landscaping berm for the residents of Olde Cypress. I actually live in that community myself. So we're -- the proposal that is actually going that we have met with Joe Schmitt and Nick at transportation on is to actually pay 25 percent of the transportation impact fees and post a letter of credit for the balance. That is the deviation. It obviously needs to go through the Board of County Commissioners' meeting. But we have actually met with the County Commissioners and we were told that if we had support by staff and transportation, that they saw no reason for them not to support that either. So that is going to be a recommendation coming out of development services, which is the reason we're asking for the continuance until the next meeting. We Page 24 August 22, 2008 believe that we'll have this resolved by the first commission meeting in September. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I still don't understand the relevancy that you have dust control issues and getting this impact fee reduction or what it may be. I just don't see how that's going to correct this. MR. SLA VICH: Well, it's coming up with an additional $400,000 on top of the already two and a half million that we're coming up with to put the improvements in. And it was just a timing issue. It's taken a little longer than we anticipated. And although there really isn't a dust control issue now with the amount of rain that's out there, so -- and it took some time to get everyone together as far as transportation and development services and to coming up with what we thought was a feasible plan and what they thought was going to be amenable to them. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So are you saying that you have to pay impact fees before you start the infrastructure of the property? MR. SLA VICH: That's correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And in doing the infrastructure, it will take care of the dust? MR. SLA VICH: That's correct. Actually, the total infrastructure and paving and everything scheduled is somewhere between 90 to 110 days from start. Which we would anticipate that we would be able to start -- we have all permits ready to pick up. We would be able to start essentially a couple of days after the Board of County Commissioners' meeting. MR. BALDWIN: MR. BALDWIN: Mr. Chair, the county would have no objection to the continuance. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion to continue to the next meeting? MR. LARSEN: I make a motion to continue to the next meeting. MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion. Page 25 August 22, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. SLA VICH: Thank you very much. MS. RAWSON: Again, the next meeting is September the 25th, and it will be held at the Code Enforcement Board office on Horseshoe Drive. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Slavich, do you waive notice? MR. SLA VICH: I waive notice. Ifwe actually get it, I guess the question would be if -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It would probably be withdrawn. Or potentially be withdrawn. MR. BALDWIN: MR. BALDWIN: Correct. MR. SLA VICH: Thanks. You all have a nice day. UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: May I say something? I did put my name in for this. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We already made the motion, so-- MS. RAWSON: She did. She asked to actually speak at the public hearing. So it's up to you, since it's not going to actually be heard till next week (sic). MR. LARSEN: Next month. MS. RAWSON: Next month, sorry. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We made a motion to -- UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: But I did put my name in before this started, before you even get it. That's what Page 26 August 22, 2008 you do for the BCC meeting. And I have -- I have some Land Development Code issues here. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Actually, you need to be on the mic. Being that the case is not heard, do we need to hear her? MS. RAWSON: It's up to you. It's not going to hurt anything, because you haven't heard the case yet. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Or would it be more relevant -- MS. RAWSON: It would be much more relevant for her to be heard on September the 25th before you make a decision. You haven't heard any of the evidence from the county yet. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I would lean towards that way too, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Do I need to have a motion not to hear, or -- MS. RAWSON: Well, she did put in a request to be heard. So, you know, maybe you should have a discussion and a vote on that. Because whatever she has to say is probably extremely relevant at a hearing, which you're not having. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But not at a continuance. MS. RAWSON: Right. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm going to open up to discussion of the board. MR. PONTE: I think it's out of order to hear it now and I think it could be prejudicial. We'd be getting information before the hearing, and in order -- and to carry it forth for a month to perhaps hear it again. So I would think that the petitioner should appear at the meeting in September. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I would agree with you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And to make it formal, I'd like to have a motion that we not here it until next month. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll put forth that motion that we defer hearing from the public on public opinion matters for this particular Page 27 August 22, 2008 case until we actually hear the case at the September meeting. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRlNG: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. The next case will be BCC versus United Parcel Services, Inc. And we have two cases. MR. PONTE: Can these cases be combined? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yeah, that's what I was going to ask. MS. RAWSON: You can combine them. They are a little different, however. And I think the alleged violations are different. And I'm going to have to write two orders, so -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Are the facts somewhat similar? Because if they are, then -- MS. RAWSON: Well, and the property is the same. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Does the county have a problem with combining these two cases? MR. SNOW: The only issue would be is the operational cost. There's operational costs in -- separate operational costs. And as your attorney said, the violations are a little different, so I would prefer to keep them separate just in the fact -- and just to let you know, these fines are abated so all we're asking for is a finding of fact. It's not going to be -- MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. And the thing is, we can just hear the facts of the case -- Page 28 August 22, 2008 MR. SCOTT: Sure. MR. KRAENBRING: -- combined and then we can rule on them separately. MR. SNOW: Okay. (Ronald Acoff, John Brucato and Investigator Snow were duly sworn. ) MS. MARKU: This case is in reference to Department Case No. CEPM20080003788. The respondent and the board were sent a packet of evidence, and I would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A. MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion that we accept the packet. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MS. MARKU: Violation of ordinances Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Buildings Article 6, Property Maintenance Code, Sections 22-241 (2)(N). Description of violation: Parking on property in other than designated parking spaces. Location/address where violation exists: 971 Commercial Boulevard, Naples, Florida, 34104. Folio No. 00281840005. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: United Parcel Service, Incorporated, Corporation Service Company, 1201 Hayes Street, Tallahassee, Florida, 32301. Registered agent: United Parcel Service, Incorporated. Attention Page 29 August 22, 2008 tax department, PO Box 28606, Atlanta, Georgia, 30358. Michael L. Eskew, P-55 Glen Lake Parkway Northeast, Atlanta, Georgia, 30328, property owner. Date violation first observed: March 6th, 2008. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: March 24th, 2008. Date onlby which violation to be corrected: April 18th, 2008. Date of reinspection: April 30th, 2008. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. At this time I would like to turn the case over to Code Enforcement Investigator Kitchell Snow. MR. SNOW: For the record, Investigator Kitchell Snow. Just to -- these violations have been abated. The county is asking for a finding of fact that there was a violation on the property and that they pay operational costs in the amount of 88.10 within 30 days of the date of the hearing. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Would you like to-- MR. ACOFF: No, I'd like to say that we've taken the necessary steps to ensure that this doesn't happen again. We've moved cars. We've also addressed the behavior aspects of it from the employees parking there. We also have a permit to expand the facility, which creates another 30 cars, 30 jobs there, along with long-term parking that's going to take us to the next 10 to 15 years. That permit is on file and we're waiting to hear from that. So we feel that we -- we're somewhat apologetic for having to be here, but we'll take care of it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Could you state your name for the record and your relationship to United Parcel Service? MR. ACOFF: I'm Ronald Acoff. I'm the district plant engineering manager for south Florida. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you're representing them? Page 30 August 22, 2008 MR. ACOFF: Yes, I'm representing u.P.S. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you -- MR. BURCA TO: My name's John Burcato. I'm the business manager for the Naples facility in Collier County. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that a violation did exist. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: Second. MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Take your choice. All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. And can we hear the recommended -- you did state it, but -- MR. SNOW: 88.10, just pay operational costs of88.10. And there was a finding of fact that there was a violation of the property, so CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Within 30 days? MR. SNOW: Within 30 days, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion that we accept the recommendation of the county. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. Page 31 August 22, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. We'll move on to the next case. United Parcel Service, Inc. MS. MARKU: That is in reference to Department Case No. CELU20080003784. The respondent and the board were sent a packet of evidence, and I would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A. MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion that we accept the packet. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MS. MARKU: Violation of ordinances, Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 2.02.03, 4.05.01(A), and 4.05.01.(B)(3). Description of violation: Utilizing of street parking spaces for other than parking of motorized vehicles. Page 32 August 22, 2008 Location/address where violation exists: 971 Commercial Boulevard, Naples, Florida, 34104. Folio No. 00281840005. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: United Parcel Service, Incorporated, Corporation Service Company, 1201 Hayes Street, Tallahassee, Florida, 32301. Registered agent, United Parcel Service, Incorporated, attention tax department, PO Box 28606, Atlanta, Georgia, 30358, Michael L. Eskew, P-55 Glen Lake Parkway, Northeast, Atlanta, Georgia, 30328. That's the property owner. Date violation first observed: March 6,2008. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: March 24th, 2008. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: April 22nd, 2008. Date of reinspection: April 30th, 2008. Results of reinspection: A violation remains. At this time I would like to turn the case over to Code Enforcement Investigator Kitchell Snow. MR. SNOW: For the record, Supervisor Kitchell Snow. This case started by citizen complaint of -- they had loading platforms dropped, blocking handicapped parking spaces. The violation has been abated. I have talked to Mr. Burcato, and Mr. Burcato has been very attentive to what he needs to do for his center. He's always been very cooperative with us. We're asking that a violation did exist on the property and we're asking for operational costs paid within 30 days in the amount of 88.43. MR. ACOFF: No contest on it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Again, if you could state your name, please. MR. ACOFF: Ronald Acoff, district plant engineer -- plant engineering management, south Florida. Page 33 August 22, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Again, you do have the authority -- MR. ACOFF: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- to represent United Parcel? MR. ACOFF: Yes, I represent u.P.S. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And again, state your name, please. MR. BURCATO: John Burcato, the business manager for the facility in Naples, Florida. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. Do I hear a motion? MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that a violation did exist. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. SNOW: Thank the board. MR. KRAENBRING: I'll make a motion that we accept the recommendation of the county for the imposition of operational costs. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. Do I hear a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. Page 34 August 22, 2008 MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right, we're going to move on to imposition of fines. BCC versus Ascension, Inc. MR. L'ESPERANCE: We have a hearing, Peaceful hearing to hear. MS. WALDRON: Yeah, 1. Peaceful. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. KRAENBRING: He's here. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, I apologize. Imposition of fines. We're going to move to 1. Peaceful, LC. I apologize. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. CHAMI: Good morning again. MS. MARKU: This is in reference to Code Enforcement Board Case No. 2007060387, Board of County Commissioners versus J. Peaceful, LC. This case came before the Code Enforcement Board on March 27th, 2008, and the board issued a finding of fact, OR 4347, Page 0585. The respondent has not complied with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of today, August 22nd, 2008. As a result, Collier County is requesting to issue an order imposing a lien in the amount of $22,598.70 for fines of a rate of $150 per day for the period between May 27th, 2008 to August 8th, 2008, 74 days, for a total of $11,100. Fines continue to accrue. Operational costs of 398.70 have not been paid. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is the -- how do you come up to the Page 35 August 22, 2008 lien amount of $22,598. 70? MS. MARKU: Please, I would like to have a second to recalculate that amount. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. MARKU: I apologize. For the total amount oflien it should be $11,490.70 -- 98.70. MR. KRAENBRING: So that's for the 74 -- yeah, 74 days. MS. MARKU: That is for 74 days, and the operational cost. So it's a total of $11,498.70. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Which the fine would be $11,100 and then 398.70 for the operational costs. MR. KRAENBRING: The $22,000 figure, are there additional fines from a different period? It's just a misprint? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Miscalculation. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead, sir. MR. CHAMI: First of all, I really would like to apologize for wasting your time again. I came in front of you on March 27, and I asked from you the opportunity to extend from I believe 30 days to 60 days at that time. And you were very nice by approving this particular extension at the time for me to be able to fix this particular sign. What we have to understand here is we're talking about a small sign which cost me at that time when we put it seven years ago $800. Now, this is a sign on my building which is basically -- I own a 11,000 square feet building on Immokalee Road. And unfortunately I have no excuse whatsoever beside we're going through a major trouble right now, major financial trouble, like everybody else is going through. I believe it's very appropriate to say when it rains, it pours. And frankly, it's like every -- when you made the recommendation at that time and you extended the time for me to do it, we went ahead and we tried to call contractors to do this particular Page 36 August 22, 2008 order, sign contractors. I thought it would be very easy to be done, probably 400, $500, since the sign itself cost $800. Now, nobody want to touch it because it is a contour sign, is not a regular sign. And basically the company who did it, for reason which I will like not to go through it right now, is we called them at least five times. They never returned the calls. And two other companies who came to see it, one of them, they decide not to touch it. Basically some neon inside are broken. So they need for replace it all. They don't have the digitizing for it, because the sign is contoured, so basically they don't have -- it's not a square box. So basically they have to really cut the whole plastic inside. It's a very easy job if somebody want to do it. So the cost was around $3,600 to do it. And frankly, every week we're trying to survive, week after week, thinking that basically we'll be able to make it in a couple of weeks. Seven years we're in business. Seven years never once through this hard trouble ever. We believed always that basically the more you go in time, the more you move forward the better it is. We're going backward. We did everything we have to do. We did a lot of marketing on -- with the Naples Daily News, on Val-Pak and different things to get business in. And even people tells me we're doing good. I showed Mr. Snow my bank accounts. I'm not proud at all; in fact, I'm very embarrassed now talking about this one here in public. But it is extremely tough. We're meeting with our bank to refinance. And the banks, as you know, they're not refinancing anything. We're going through a very tough time. And the $3,600 plus the permitting fees, because nobody want to touch that particular sign, basically every week we think that it's better to spend this particular money what really need to be done to pay vendors, to pay employees, Page 37 August 22, 2008 to pay mortgage. Then we were late on our mortgage for three months, basically. But we're able to refinance, or redo something with the bank based on interest only for a few months. So basically we're hoping to get the season back, hoping to get better times, hoping to -- but frankly, I don't know what to tell you. I have no excuse whatsoever. I was in front of you last time. It was been approved for I believe 30 days. You doubled the time to make sure that I will not be in front of you. I had all the intention to do it. Unfortunately it's not better off. Not that I don't want to do it, I'm not able right now to do it. I hope, I really hope that before November, October, November I would be able to get better financial situation for me to spend the $3,600 on a sign for the cleaner. Which is basically it's the only sign showing the cleaner on the building. If I take it out, I will be without a sign, meaning my business will be going even lower. At this violation, yes, I have no excuse. I have no excuse. But frankly, I don't know what to do. MR. L'ESPERANCE: May I ask a question. Would it be less expensive to simply put a new sign up instead of repairing the old sign? MR. CHAMI: It is basically the company, Sign Tech, who gave me the price. They have one in their backyard for $3,600 plus permitting fees. If they have to go for a new one, they want around $6,000 for a channel letter. The contour nobody want to touch. So I had a company who want to do it and they saw the neon broken, they decide not to touch it. So Sign Tech decided ifthey have to repair that particular one it would be at least $3,000 before they take it to their shop, so -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Investigator Snow -- Supervisor Snow, what are your recommendations for an inexpensive way for this gentleman to solve his problem? Page 38 August 22, 2008 MR. SNOW: The county feels for the respondent. And there are tough economic times. The only solution would be to remove it, but then it limits his exposure to the community, so we're caught between a rock and a hard place. If an extension were given by the board to do that, is it a health and safety issue? It's got electric in it, it's got neon in it, it's open. We've gone through two hurricanes. It -- I was out last week and took a look at it. There's been no further damage. But fines continue to accrue no matter what's going to happen. If you extend it, fines are going to continue to accrue. And are we promulgating a problem or are we trying to fix it? I don't know what the solution would be other than to remove it. And you're killing his business -- we're killing his business then. And so we're caught between a rock and a hard place, just as he is. But it is a violation and it continues to -- fines continue to accrue. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you have a time frame of when you're going to have this fixed? MR. CHAMI: If it's my call, I will do it in a week. It's my financial problem. I show Mr. Snow before my accounts, and I show him basically before. And I never thought in my life I would be here in front of public hearing saying what I'm saying right now, but it's a matter of fact now. Definitely I'm across the street from a high school and from the school. Basically I hope that -- the school started two dates ago and it was our worst day in three years. So I hope that in the few days coming later will be better than the first day of school. But basically the school across the street where we have the high school and the elementary school are the main part of generating business for us. And we hope by November, when all the football season is going, the parents are more used to the whole area and the whole pattern how to do it, our business will pick up. Now, we hope by then we need to do it. Page 39 August 22, 2008 It's not a major issue, frankly, if it's on the side of the building. But it's not -- it is a violation, I understand this very well. But it's not -- I'm not trying to find excuses here. The only issue I'm saying -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What I'm asking you is we have a couple decisions to make. But you're not giving us any -- if we were extending your time, we need to know when it's going to be done so you don't have to come in front of us again except to say I've corrected the problem. So that's what I'm looking for. MR. CHAMI: Last time I came in front of you and you asked me the question and I told you two months I will do it. I lied. MR. KRAENBRING: Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. KRAENBRING: Jean, I need to ask you a question. MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. KRAENBRING: We're looking at an imposition of fines. MS. RAWSON: Right. MR. KRAENBRING: We can either choose to impose them now or impose them later. MS. RAWSON: Correct. MR. KRAENBRING: He's just going to keep extending his time until he gets it fixed. So it's not really as if we're saying it has to be done by a certain date. He's just going to wait until -- MS. RAWSON: He's got an order of the board which you extended. It's over. So you can either impose the fines today and ask him to come back for an abatement, or you can not hear the case today and impose the fines another two months or so. That's really your only choice. MR. KRAENBRING: What would be easier for just housekeeping? Just to wait? MS. RAWSON: Well, you know, probably need to ask the ladies from the Code Enforcement Board department. I would think to impose the fines and ask him to come back Page 40 August 22, 2008 when he has abated it. Because you don't have the authority really to abate the fines for him now, because he's not in compliance. MR. KRAENBRING: That's right. That's my sense of it too. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: He was asking -- he said that he was trying to refinance with the bank. If we do place a lien on any of his property or anything, then that may -- MS. RAWSON: It will show up. There's a lien already, because there's an order already. And so the order of the board wherein you gave him so many days to do it is already recorded. MR. KRAENBRING: So it's going to show up either way. MS. RAWSON: It is. MR. KRAENBRING: And he's going to have to explain that away or -- MS. RAWSON: It was recorded April 8th, 2008. So it's already going to show up. MR. KRAENBRING: I think that we're going to be hearing more and more of these cases, just like we're hearing foreclosure cases. And, you know, basically this gentleman's just asking for our common sense. I would think that -- I would agree with Jean that we impose the fine, but that this gentleman comes back and he corrects it, that at that time we can look at abating the fine or reducing it. My one concern is that if you did wind up selling this business that that violation would then become a problem. Because the new person may not know about it. But that may not really be any of our business. So -- MS. RAWSON: Well, they would know about the lien if they did a title search. MR. KRAENBRING: Right. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I would have to agree with Mr. Kraenbring. Any other discussion of the board? Page 41 August 22, 2008 MR. DEAN: I'd like to ask Mr. Snow one thing. It says in here that the respondent didn't contact the investigator. Have you been in good communication with this gentleman? MR. SNOW: Not since the hearing, no. I haven't heard anything from him. I've talked to him today. That's not unusual to do. We did post the property, he was given notice. MR. DEAN: Thanks. MR. PONTE: Just for clarification, so what we're considering is just to let it run until the respondent reports to code enforcement and says okay, the violation's been abated. And at that point he can come before the board and ask for a reduction of fines or elimination of fines. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's correct. Either we can impose them now or impose them -- MR. PONTE: Or just let it run. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. KRAENBRING: I would just say let's impose the fine as requested by the county, and then let this gentleman come back. I think everyone's sympathetic to his plight, the financial issue. I mean, that's -- we abate fines for varying reasons all the time. MR. PONTE: If we just let it run and not impose a fine right now, does that in any way affect what appears on his record in the lien? In other words, if we imposed the fine now, there's a greater lien, isn't it, so it's -- MS. RAWSON: Well, if you impose the fine now, then there's a second lien that's been recorded, which is the imposition of fines. So there would be a specific lien of 11,000 -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: 498. MS. RAWSON: -- 498.70. Now there is just an order of the board that tells him he will be fined if he doesn't do something within so many days. MR. PONTE: I think we ought to just let it run now. Page 42 August 22, 2008 MR. KRAENBRING: Yeah, I think if that's the case, just to help the gentleman with his refinancing, if it just takes away one more hurdle that he has to go over, then we're not -- MS. RAWSON: Well, procedurally then what you're doing is you're asking the code enforcement -- well, the county to withdraw it and put it back on the agenda next month or the following month, because that's the only way you can let it run. You're just not going to issue an order. MR. KRAENBRING: Does the county have an opinion on that? MR. SNOW: We yield to the discretion ofthe board. MR. DEAN: Can I interject one comment? Did I not understand you paid $800 for that sign seven years ago? MR. CHAMI: Eight hundred. MR. DEAN: Eight hundred. So it cost you $100 a year. So the sign's not really a good sign at this point, right? MR. CHAMI: Nobody want to touch it. It's contour. But basically to have a new one right now, it's $3,600. You have to understand, at that time it was part of $50,000 packet. This sign was 800. I thought just to fix the front -- it's not the sign itself. The box itself is fine. Now, just at that time, I thought it was just the Plexiglas on top. They told me the neon inside also is broken. But I'm ready right now. The only way to do it is to throw it and get basically -- see with one of these contractors in town who has a used one. Sign Tech used to have one I believe three months ago, or when we met, they used to have one in their backyard. Do they still have it for 3,600 or what it is? Hopefully in November if! have the money, and I believe hopefully by November I should have secured my position with the bank to be able to do it by end of November at the latest. MR. DEAN: You know, it's much, much more profitable for you to have a new sign, isn't it -- MR. CHAMI: I know. Page 43 August 22, 2008 MR. DEAN: -- and eliminate this problem that we have. MR. CHAMI: No doubt. I agree with you. MR. SNOW: I just want to -- I'm not going to submit this as evidence. I just want the board to see what we're talking about. Is that permissible to do that? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Jean, if we look at anything, we have to have it -- MR. SNOW: Okay, I'll submit it as evidence. MR. KRAENBRING: I'll make a motion that we accept the photo. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Now, what sign are we talking about? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The cleaners sign. MR. SNOW: The cleaners with the face plates missing. MR. DEAN: Okay, got it. MR. SNOW: Exposed neon. MR. KRAENBRlNG: Yeah, it needs to be repaired or replaced. That's not even what we're being asked for today. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. Do I hear a motion to possibly -- MS. RAWSON: I think what you're doing is probably the Code Enforcement Board is making a motion to continue the case. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. Page 44 August 22, 2008 MS. RAWSON: And if you want to give it a specific dates, you can do that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: How about 90 days or till our November -- MR. PONTE: Yeah, I think it has to be longer than that, because what we're talking about is a bigger problem than just getting it done. We're talking about finances and we're talking about a whole raft of things. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: How about December? MR. PONTE: Yeah, we'll take a look at it in December. MS. WALDRON: We don't have a scheduled hearing for December at this point because it fell -- MR. PONTE: We'll make it January -- MS. WALDRON: -- on the 25th. MR. PONTE: -- that will be good. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: January? MR. LARSEN: I'd like to ask a question. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sure. MR. LARSEN: Supervisor Snow, is there any harm or danger resulting from the neon or any electrical being exposed of this sign? MR. SNOW: My initial thought is it's a pretty high sign. If somebody could get into it or walk into it, that would be my initial thought, it would be a health and safety issue. Is it an imminent health and safety issue? It's been through at least one hurricane that tore the front off and a tropical storm last year and this year. It suppose it depends on the way you would look at it, sir. I would probably say yes. Because if it's a question in your mind is it a health and safety issue, I think we have to err on the side of caution. MR. LARSEN: Thank you. My only other comment is basically a stipulation was executed by this gentleman on March 27th, '08, at which time, you know, additional time was granted. And during this period of time it seems Page 45 August 22, 2008 that no activity was taken place in regard to the repair. I understand that he solicited proposals or estimates but never moved forward. And my inclination is to impose the fines, which is what is before the board today. And then should the gentleman want to come back before the board and seek an abatement of those fines at a later date, that's his prerogative. But my inclination is to approve the county's motion to enforce the order. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I have a motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any more discussion of the board before we have a motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, go ahead. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue this until the January, 2009 Code Enforcement Board hearing. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? MR. DEAN: Nay. MR. KRAENBRING: Nay. MR. LARSEN: Nay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Three nays. The motion passes. MR. CHAMI: Thank you very much. God bless you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You do understand that the fines are still -- MR. CHAMI: I understand that we're talking about big money here. I understand that I need to get it right. I understand that I don't Page 46 August 22, 2008 feel good in front of you because I never told you the right thing first. I was thinking that I was doing it. So it will be done before November. I will do it. MS. RAWSON: We don't have a schedule for 2009 yet, but my guess is that will be January 22nd, assuming that we are on the, you know, same Thursday. MR. KRAENBRING: That we don't float away? MS. RAWSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right, the next one will be BCC versus Ascention, Inc. MS. MARKU: This is in reference to Code Enforcement Board Case No. 2007100552. F or the record, the respondent is present. On March 27th, 2008, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion oflaw, and an order was issued in OR4347, Page 0573. As of August 14th, 2008, the respondent has complied with the Code Enforcement Board orders. At this time the county is requesting to issue an order imposing lien in the amount of $7,500 for fines at a rate of $150 a day for the period between April 27th, 2008 to May 6th, 2008, 10 days, for a total of$1,500. Fines at a rate of$150 per day for the period between July 6th, 2008 and August 14th, 2008 for the total of $5,100. Operational costs of $404.16 have been paid. (At which time, Mohan Raj, Fydil Hassad and Supervisor Snow were duly sworn.) MS. MARKU: The county has a correction to make. Under order item number two and order item number four, fines should be at a rate of$150 for 40 days for $6,000. MS. RAWSON: So the total is 7,500? MS. MARKU: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Would you like to start? Page 47 August 22, 2008 MR. SNOW: Sir, and members of the board, we're here for-- obviously for imposition of fines. I will say, the county feels that the respondents have been very diligent in trying to get the sign permitted. Initially, just to refresh your memory a little bit, I investigated this property on a complaint. He already had the sign erected. He paid a large amount of money to have the sign done. The gentleman who did the sign never got the sign permitted. Couldn't find the gentleman, he goes out of business. I come on the property, I talk to Mr. Raj, he said no, it's permitted. And the same 'ol story we always hear. He had to get another guy to do the sign. He had to resubmit. He had to pay them to bring it up. There were some things wrong with the sign. They needed some engineered drawings. So he had to pay twice for the sign. They attempted to get permits. There were a little few holdups on permits. Again, he was a few days late. The sign is in fact C.O.'d now, the violation is abated. As far as any fines or adjustment of fines, the county yields to the board's discretion on this, but they have been diligent in trying to get the sign done. MR. RAJ: We basically agree with what the officer said, and hopefully at the discretion of the board, you can reduce the fine a certain amount that we can handle. MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that we abate the fine. MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 48 August 22, 2008 MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. RAJ: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: On the consent agenda, we already took care of the motion for imposition of fines. That's all set. Request to forward cases to the county attorney's office. MS. MARKU: We have none. MR. KRAENBRING: We have none. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any reports? MS. MARKU: The county has none. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Comments? MR. PONTE: I have a question under comments. Just curiosity on my part. I've noticed that the operational costs that are being imposed have been reduced substantially. They were in the area of $80, $90. Before it used to be $100, $200, $300. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: $500. MR. PONTE: So what new efficiency has been now in operation that has resulted in such a reduction in the cost of operation? MS. WALDRON: There has been a recent circuit court case that has ruled in the favor that we can't justify the charging for investigators' time on cases. So we have taken that cost out of our operational cost, and it's just hard costs now for filing and paperwork and things like that, mailings. MR. PONTE: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And the case numbers have changed too. You see some of them are CELU2008. MS. WALDRON: That's due to our new computer system we have. It's assigning a prefix number according to what case type it is. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The -- under comments, we also have a workshop, correct? MS. WALDRON: Yes. And I will be sending everyone an e-mail with the details on that. It should be in September. Second Page 49 August 22, 2008 week of September, I believe. But I will send out an e-mail and an agenda. MR. PONTE: Do you have a couple of suggested dates for this at this point? MS. WALDRON: I do. I don't have them with me right now. I believe it was the 11th or 12th of September. Do you remember? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I think it was the 12th. MS. WALDRON: The 12th? From 10:30 to 12:00 or 1:30 to 3:00. MR. PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next meeting will be September 25th, 2008. And do I hear a motion to adjourn? MR. DEAN: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 50 August 22, 2008 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:18 a.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 Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 51