Loading...
CEB Minutes 10/31/2008 R October 31, 2008 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida October 31, 2008 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION at Collier County Development Services Center, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Room 609-610, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Gerald Lefebvre Larry Dean Kenneth Kelly Edward Larsen Richard Kraenbring (Excused) Lionel L'Esperance George Ponte (Excused) Robert Kaufman ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the CEB Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director Jen Waldron, Code Enforcement Specialist Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA Date: October 31st, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. Location: Commnnity Development Services, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FI 34104. 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. I. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - September 25th, 2008 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTlONS A. MOTIONS Motion for Re-Hearing 1. BCC vs. Richard and Lisa Karnes CEB NO. 2007060801 Motion for Extension of Time B. STIPULATIONS C. HEARINGS 1. BCC vs. Milano Recreation Association, Inc. 2. BCC vs. James Hargraves 3. BCC vs. Marek Okenka & Lenka Okenkova 4. BCC vs. Frank Paz 5. BCC vs. Nester De La Paz & Lourdes Gonzales Garriga 6. BCC vs. Marvin Ralph Hoeman 7. BCC vs. Grisel Diaz 8. BCC vs. Eleazar Davenport CEB NO. CESD20080010230 CEB NO. 2007110616 CEB NO. CEVR20080003423 CEB NO. 2006081159 CEB NO. 2007090090 CEB NO. CESD20080005124 CEB NO. 2007040121 CEB NO. 2007090117 5. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. BCC vs. Auto Village of Naples 2. BCC vs. Bart and Sandi Chernoff 3. BCC vs. Dagoberto and Maria Saldana 4. BCC vs. Jon and Lisa Meszaros CEB NO. 2007-101 CEB NO. 2007-105 CEB NO. CESD20080000885 CEB NO. 2007110853 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 I. BCC vs. Frank Fernandez 2. BCC vs. Emma Houston CEB No. 2006120290 CEB No. 2007-114 8. REPORTS 9. COMMENTS 10. NEXT MEETING DATE - November 20th, 2008 11. ADJOURN October 31, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd like to call Code Enforcement Board of Collier County to order. Notice, the respondent may be limited to 20 minutes per case presentation unless additional time is granted by the board. Persons wishing to speak on the 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. May I please have the roll call. MS. WALDRON: Good morning. Mr. Edward Larsen? MR. LARSEN: Present. MS. WALDRON: Mr. George Ponte has an excused absence. Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Present. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Kenneth Kelly? MR. KELLY: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Larry Dean? MR. DEAN: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Present. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Richard Kraenbring has an excused absence. Mr. Robert Kaufman? Page 2 October 31, 2008 MR. KAUFMAN: Here. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And our alternate, Mr. Kaufman, will be a full voting member today. Approval of the agenda. MR. DEAN: Motion to approve the agenda. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well-- MR. DEAN: Do we have corrections? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- we are going to have corrections and changes, correct? MS. WALDRON: We are going to have corrections to the agenda. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, let's have those, please. MS. WALDRON: The first -- for the record, Jen Waldron, Investigative Supervisor, Collier County Code Enforcement. We have the following changes to the agenda: Under motion for extension of time, we'll be adding BCC versus Caribe Investments of Naples, Inc. CEB Case No. 2007-030-836. We will be moving Item 4.C.l, BCC versus Milano Recreation Association, Inc. CEB No. CESD200800l0230, under Item 4.A, motion for continuance. We'll be moving Item 4.C.5, BCC versus Nester De La Paz and Lourdes Gonzalez Garriga, CEB No. 2007-09-0090 under stipulations, 4.B.1. And we'll be moving Item 5.A.2, BCC versus Bart and Sandi Chernoff, CEB No. 2007-105 under motions for extension of time, which is 4.A, motion for extension of time number two. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, now may I have approval of the agenda. MR. KELL Y: Mr. Chairman, can I pull the foreclosure authorization item number two, Frank Fernandez, please. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I need a vote for that? MR. KELLY: No, I don't believe so, as long as it's approved. Page 3 October 31, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion -- do I hear a second? MR. KELLY: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You made the motion. MR. KELLY: Oh, no, that doesn't need a motion. I want it pulled. It will just get pulled when everyone approves the actual agenda. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. Do I have approval of the agenda? MR. L'ESPERANCE: So moved. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion is approved. Approval of the minutes from September 25th, 2008. MR. KELLY: Make a motion to approve. MR. DEAN: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 4 October 31, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion is approved. We're going to start off with the public hearings, and the first one will be a motion for rehearing. And it's Mr. and Mrs. Richard and Lisa Karnes. MR. KARNES: Yes, sir. Respectfully ask the board for a motion for rehearing, because we now have representation as of Wednesday of this week. And we'd like representation to be present because it's an appeal. And if there's any discussion to be made, our attorney should be -- I don't know the verbiage used, other than argue the verbiage of the appeal. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And so you're looking actually for a continuance then? MR. KARNES: Yes, sir, that's correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And when are you looking for a continuance till? MR. KARNES: Sir? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: When are you looking to continue till, next meeting? MR. KARNES : Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Do we have the date for our next meeting? MS. WALDRON: This will be a -- just to clarify, this will be a continuance of the decision on the rehearing. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's correct. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, is that your intent, to continue for the decision to rehear it or to rehear it on the 20th? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, they-- MR. KELLY: It's a motion for a rehearing. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion to -- to make a motion on the rehearing, because his attorney is not here and he probably will Page 5 October 31, 2008 want to argue why we want to rehear the case. MS. RAWSON: I think he's making a motion to continue his motion for rehearing. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: For rehearing, right. MS. RAWSON: And the next hearing is November the 20th. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. Any objection from the county? MR. MORAD: No, sir. MR. KELLY: I have just a quick question for -- I guess it would be for Jean. We were included in our packet the actual appeal regulations. Is there any reason why it shouldn't be allowed a rehearing? MS. RAWSON: Well, I think that we have to wait until his attorney comes and makes that argument. He's also, and I don't know if you all have copies of it, filed a request to continue the hearing. So he's requesting to continue the hearing on the motion to -- for rehearing, which is part of that appeal package that you got. MR. KELL Y: Sounds good to me. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We got it this morning. MS. WALDRON: You should have a packet of the letter from the attorney in your -- MR. KARNES: Yes, sir, that's correct. My understanding is that the appeal was approved -- THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, do I need to swear him in? MS. RAWSON: I think you do. And he needs to state his name on the record. (Speakers were duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: And if you could please state your name. Page 6 October 31, 2008 MR. KARNES: Richard Karnes. MRS. KARNES: Lisa Karnes. MR. LARSEN: I just have a question. Your attorney IS Samantha Stephens? MR. KARNES: Yes, sir. MR. LARSEN: Okay. And she's made application to the board for an extension of time, because she's got to be in a court in Orlando; is that correct? MR. KARNES: Yes, sir, she has to be in Orlando today, yes, sir. MR. LARSEN: All right. I move that we grant the continuance. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I -- MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion is approved. MR. KARNES: Thank you, sir. MS. WALDRON: And we're continuing that to November 20th? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: November 20th. MR. LARSEN: And the counsel will be so notified? MS. WALDRON: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, next one will be extension of time, Caribe Investments of Naples. And we should have a letter. Are they present? MS. WALDRON: I don't believe that they are present. MR. LARSEN: Caribe Investments? Page 7 October 31, 2008 (No response.) MR. LARSEN: Is the code enforcement officer for Caribe Investments available? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The problem I have, I do not see in this letter where it states how much more time they're looking for. MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Supervisor Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're going to have to have you sworn in also. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. LETOURNEAU: The letter he's referring to is the most recent one. They're not here today, obviously. They're claiming -- I'll just read basically what they're -- they're having troubles with their contractor. I did check the permit this morning and they did ask for two inspections today. They have a total of 10 inspections on this permit and they filed -- they requested two inspections today. Their letter states that, at the moment it seems we are being held hostage by the contractor, Jerry Germain of Germain Construction. He claims that he is waiting for the revised plan to proceed. We have given him an advance of more than half of the contract price, which is over $4,000. We would like to ask the Code Enforcement Board for assistance in order to correct this problem. Obviously I don't think you guys -- it's in your scope to, you know, go after a contractor, but I believe he's asking for -- we appreciate hearing from you as early as possible. If additional information is required, please do not hesitate to contact this office. MR. KELL Y: Mr. Letourneau? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes. MR. KELL Y: Was this the fire wall issue? MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. MR. KELLY: In an unoccupied building. Page 8 October 31, 2008 MR. LETOURNEAU: It's not occupied at this moment, but they moved the wall and then they made it two units into one. I've got pictures right here. MR. KELLY: I remember this one. Since it's not occupied, I don't think there's an issue granting the extension. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, we don't know what time period they're looking for. MR. KELL Y: I think originally it was 90 days, if I remember correctly. Maybe another 90. MR. LETOURNEAU: I believe so, yes, sir. Yeah, it doesn't give a time period here. MR. LARSEN: But are they even on the agenda today? What are they asking an extension of time from and until? MS. RAWSON: I think they were an addition to the agenda. MS. WALDRON: They were an addition to the agenda. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. KELLY: And it's standard practice, we tell folks, if you need more time just let us know ahead of time and we'll see if we can't grant that for you. So basically we would be amending our original order, Jean, by doing this? MS. RAWSON: Every time you grant an extension of time, it does. I mean, you can't fine them until the time that is on the order of extension of time. MR. LARSEN: Anybody know when the order specifies that they have until to complete the work? MS. RAWSON: I don't have a copy of the order. MS. WALDRON: The last extension was granted on the 25th, until October 25th. On the 25th of September till October 25th, 2008. MR. LARSEN: Okay, so we gave them 30 days. And they're asking for an additional 90 days? Page 9 October 31, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It doesn't say what -- MR. LETOURNEAU: It doesn't specify in this letter what they're asking for. I mean, I wish they would have shown up today, it would have been a lot easier. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right, that's -- MR. KAUFMAN: How many more inspections are there to be-- MR. LETOURNEAU: They have 10 total inspections. They haven't done any yet. They just called for two to be completed today. MR. LARSEN: Well, I don't oppose giving them a limited extension, based upon the letter that they sent to Ms. Waldron. I just don't know, you know, what length of time is appropriate in light of the fact that they're not here today to say what they've done and what they've, you know, tried to -- or attempted to accomplish during the last 30 days. MR. LETOURNEAU: I'm not really sure what they've tried. I know obviously they've called in two inspections today, so that's as far as I know what they've done. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you haven't been in contact with them since this letter's been sent? MR. LETOURNEAU: No. I went out there, let me see, Tuesday and it's not occupied. I looked in there. The situation's the same as it was. They haven't changed anything yet, so -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I seem to sense a large degree of due diligence on the part of the petitioner, and because of that I move that we give them a 30-day extension of time. MR. DEAN: Although I'd like to make one comment. I would think that if somebody needed time for something, they'd certainly show up here and explain to us why. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I agree. MR. DEAN: I mean, this is just floating and we're going to probably do additional 30 days -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Very possibly. Page 10 October 31, 2008 MR. DEAN: -- but I wouldn't do anything after that. MR. LARSEN: All right. Well, I'm going to second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion is passed. MS. RAWSON: You want that on the November the 20th? Because that's not quite 30 days. Do you want that on the November 20th docket or -- the next one would be in January. MR. DEAN: You know, 1-- MR. L'ESPERANCE: That's a good point. MR. DEAN: I think because they didn't show up today -- if they had showed up then I would go a longer. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Do I need to amend my motion to specify the next meeting? MR. KELLY: Normally what happens is staff brings that when they go to impose. So it's up to staff to decide when they want to bring it to us. MS. RAWSON: That's true. MS. WALDRON: Because the 30 days wouldn't be up -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. MS. WALDRON: -- that you granted until after the November 20th hearing, so -- MR. DEAN: So our next meeting. MS. WALDRON: It wouldn't be until the January meeting in that case. Page 11 October 31, 2008 MR. KAUFMAN: How about a 60-day extension instead of30. MR. KELLY: No, sir, the time will still end when it ends, and-- MS. WALDRON: Right. MR. KELL Y: -- it will be up to us if we want to be lenient on the imposition of fines when that comes up, if it comes up. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Good point. MS. WALDRON: The respondent would have to ask for another extension of time, if that's -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. MS. WALDRON: -- what they would need to do. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, the next one for extension of time will be Chernoff, ifI'm not mistaken. CEB No. 2007-105. MS. MacALLISTER: Good morning. We are here. We did file a third motion for extension oftime with the board in September. I don't know how it is that you all don't have your copies of the motion, but I know that the secretary didn't have it either. In that motion -- but I'll recap for you what I said in the motion. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, do we need to swear these folks in? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MR. LARSEN: The attorney doesn't need to be sworn in. (Speakers were duly sworn. ) MS. MacALLISTER: After Mr. Chernoff appeared here in June, along with my letter to the board, we did mediate this matter. This is the matter of the illegal pole barn and the case proceeding through litigation. We did mediate the matter in July. We reached an impasse. We had a bit of difficulty getting the mediator to transmit the notice of impasse to the court. The notice of impasse is what triggers the court then to set the matter on a trial docket. We ultimately got the impasse filed with the court and we are set on a trial docket. We are currently set as the backup case for the Page 12 October 31, 2008 December 8/9 trial docket. But we will know this morning whether or not we are going to be a date certain trial on December 3rd and 4th. One way or the other, we will go to trial in December. The clerk, Judge Ellis' clerk, has assured me that there are a number of cases that have appear to be ready to settle and we're ready to go. So if we don't go on the 3rd and 4th, we will go on the 8th or 9th, in all likelihood, or soon thereafter. So what we're asking for at this point is a 90-day extension. One way or the other the matter will be resolved by final judgment. If you are curious as to what would happen after that, normally the closer you get to trial, the more likely you are to settle. And after you have a judgment, you're really likely to try and settle the case. So we anticipate that 90 days should bring us to resolution of this matter once and for all. MR. LARSEN: Well, I move to grant the 90-day extension. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you want to grant it until the January meeting? MR. LARSEN: Is that 90 days? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It's right around 90 days. Do I hear a second? MR. KELLY: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. MacALLISTER: Thank you. Page 13 October 31, 2008 MR. CHERNOFF: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next one is a motion for continuance. And it is Milano Recreation Association, Inc. MS. WALDRON: Just to advise the board, too, we have three people that would like to speak on this issue. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Well, let's see, if we hear the case, then probably best to let them speak. If we don't and continue the case, then we could probably -- MS. WALDRON: They -- I have a feeling they may be speaking in regards -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: To continuing the case? MS. WALDRON: -- to continuing the case. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. MR. ADAMCZYK: Good morning, Board. Mark Adamczyk, attorney for the Respondent Milano Recreation Association. Number of -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: One minute, please? MR. ADAMCZYK: Oh, sure. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. ADAMCZYK: Board, I would like to start off by noting there's a substantially lengthy packet on your table this morning which was delivered five business days in advance containing a memorandum of opposition of law to the case, and of course with the motion for continuance on top with the memo being attached. I would respectfully request that that be considered seriously and in detail as it contains many arguments on many different legal subjects. I believe in recognition of the time needed to do so in considering the fact I have no witnesses here to put on a meaningful defense, they could not be here today, and I have no earthly idea what the county attorney's evidence will be at not having been disclosed yet, we would move for continuance. And I understand there's no Page 14 October 31, 2008 objection for the county staff on behalf of staff. I understand the next meeting is the 20th. I have witnesses that can't even be here for that date. And before we even decide on a proper date, I would respectfully request that you look at our memorandum. The January meeting may be sufficient, but if there's no objection from Mr. Wright, I would respectfully move at this time, and I'll reserve comment. To the extent that you may hear comment from other public speakers, please note that that is coming from the private complainant. And I'd put an objection on the record that they have the right to interfere with what is a procedural matter and should be between Mr. Wright and I. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. LARSEN: What's Mr. Wright have to say? MR. WRIGHT: Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney for the record. We don't object to the continuance request. And the written request is for 30 days. That puts us past the November meeting into the January meeting. So as long as we're on the same page that the next hearing would be scheduled for January, then we don't object. MS. RAWSON: That would be January 22nd. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. I think the January 22nd meeting, if we do have a continuance, that would be ample time to provide the information needed to get with the county and so forth and also to make sure that your witnesses are here. MR. ADAMCZYK: I would agree. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So I think three months or nearly three months is plenty of time. MR. ADAMCZYK: And there's more reasons than that in our motion. That's just being one of the key problems. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Anymore from the county or Milano Associate attorney? Page 15 October 31, 2008 MR. ADAMCZYK: I don't have anything at this point. I would reserve the right to respond to anything that the private complainant has to say today, that's all. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, we're not going to argue the case today. MR. ADAMCZYK: And I agree with that in full. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Or right at this point. Any questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And if you could please stand up. State your name, please. MR. DEMPSEY: My name is Will Dempsey. I'm from 1836 Harbor Lane in Naples, and I'm here on behalf of the Imperial Golf Estates Homeowners Association and a private property owner to the west of Milano called Marsala (phonetic) Villas, LLC. We have no comments to provide to the board. If it be the board's pleasure that this matter be continued to January 22nd, we would just ask that the matter not extend or not be continued beyond that date, just for the sake of expediency. That's it. Thanks. MR. LARSEN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Both of you are all set? Okay. Any discussion from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to extend. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: To? MR. KAUFMAN: Continue. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Till? MR. KAUFMAN: Till the meeting in January, on the 22nd. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? Page 16 October 31, 2008 MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. DEAN: I'd like to make one comment. I'd like to pass this back, this tree I've got in my hands, so we don't reproduce it again. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Absolutely. MR. DEAN: We'll use that one January 22nd. MR. ADAMCZYK: Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next we're going to be moving on to sti pulati ons. And do we have any other stipulations at this point? MS. WALDRON: Not that I'm aware of. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. It will be Nester De La Paz and Lourdes Gonzales Garriga. I'm not sure if I said that right. We need to have all the parties sworn in. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Please state your name. MR. DE LA P AZ: Yes. I have the permits for the problem -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Please state your name. MR. DE LA PAZ: Oh, my name is Nester De La Paz. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead, sir. MR. DE LA PAZ: Yes. I have (sic) here for the violation. I have all new permit, you know. And I sign one paper with him for the problem, you know. Sorry for my English, but I try. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's okay. Page 17 October 31, 2008 Has everyone read the stipulation? MR. DEAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions of the county? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And I'll have you read it into the record. MR. MUSSE: For the record, Investigator Jonathan Musse, Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And if you could talk slowly. MR. MUSSE: Yes. I was just looking at her. This is in reference to Case No. 2007090090, Board of County Commissioners versus Nester De La Paz Gonzalez and Lourdes B. Gonzales Garriga, dealing with the violation of a separated 25 by 25 foot guesthouse, located on the left rear of the property. Respondent has agreed to enter into a stipulation. Respondent is to pay operational costs in the amount of $86.46 within 30 days of this hearing incurred in the prosecution of this case, and obtaining a Collier County building permit, inspections, certificate of completion within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Or obtaining a Collier County demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until violation's abated. If respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order. Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator to perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: I have one. Is that enough time for you to get everything done before the Page 18 October 31, 2008 fines start to begin? MR. DE LA PAZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. KELL Y: I make a motion we accept the stipulated agreement. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. DE LA PAZ: Thank you. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Chairman, the next item on the agenda, Mr. Hargraves, they are working on a stipulation agreement, so if we could push that -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. WALDRON: -- back and go to the next hearing. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I need to amend the agenda at this point? MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. KELLY: Make a motion to amend the agenda to bring Hargraves down to number nine under C. MR. LARSEN: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. Page 19 October 31, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The agenda has been amended. We're going to move on to Marek Okenka and -- thank you. If you'd please step forward. I knew today was going to be a tough day with names. If you could please swear in both parties. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. O'FARRELL: Good morning. MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to Department Case No. CEVR20080003423, BCC versus Marek Okenka and Lenka Okenkova. F or the record, the respondent and the board was sent a packet of evidence and we would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A. MR. KELL Y: Make a motion to accept the packet. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. WALDRON: This is violation of Ordinance 04-41, as amended, Collier County Land Development Code. Page 20 October 31, 2008 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 mulch. Location/address where violation exists: 11141 Trinity Place, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 760800003. Names and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Marek Okenka and Lenka Okenkova, 11141 Trinity Place, Naples, Florida, 34118. Date violation first observed: 2-5-2008. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: 4-2-2008. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: 4-30-2008. Date of reinspection: 5-20-2008. And the results of the reinspection is that the violation remains. At this time I would like to call Code Enforcement Investigator Susan O'Farrell. MS. O'F ARRELL: Good morning. For the record Susan O'Farrell, Collier County Code Enforcement, Environmental Specialist. This is in reference to Case No. CEVR2008000342. It is the violations of Section 3.05.01 (B) and Section 4.06.05(1). The first violation which I spoke of is for vegetation removal without a permit, and the second violation is for a slope requirement by the county. I would like to present Exhibit B and Exhibit C. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion to accept? Have you seen the -- MR. OKENKA: No. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you could please show them to -- MS. O'FARRELL: Oh, I'm sorry, I thought I showed him out in the hallway. MR. L'ESPERANCE: So move to accept. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, let's see ifhe objects to it first. Page 21 October 31, 2008 Go ahead. Sir, do you object to those? MR. OKENKA: No. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And if you can just bring the mic. close to you. I know you're kind of tall, but if you can just stay as close as possible. Okay, do I hear a motion? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the package. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion is approved. If you could just give us a minute to look at them, please. MS. O'FARRELL: Sure. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And then you can start talking about them. MS. O'FARRELL: I'm sorry, I did destroy a couple of trees. MS. RAWSON: Would you tell me which sections again? MS. O'FARRELL: Section 3.05.01(B). Did I say Section 3.05.01(B)? And Section 4.06.05 -- maybe that's a (1). It's either a (1) or an (1). Let me look at my ordinances. That would be an (1), not a (1). CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Has the board had an opportunity to review the exhibits? Page 22 October 31, 2008 MR. LARSEN: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. MS. O'FARRELL: Mr. Okenka's complaint was generated by a neighbor. He had built a berm around the three perimeters of his property, only not building it across the front. He had mulch, I believe, delivered to his property and he had pushed this up into the berm. So the berm is completely made of mulch. He had also removed a substantial amount of trees and vegetation from his property. That's why we have the vegetation removal on the case as well. I have spoken with Mr. Okenka several times. We have talked about the vegetation removal and the replacement. He does have a lake on the property, but I believe it was excavated historically. He wants to keep the vegetation around that, so that was not declared in the notice of violation. However, he did, as you can see from the aerials, clear quite a bit of property and have mulch delivered. He is using the mulch to create topsoil for his property, and -- yes, that's what I believe. He wants to use his topsoil for landscape beds around his property. We discussed the slope requirements of 4.01, which require -- I'm sorry, did I get that right, the slope section? MR. OKENKA: Yes, you did. MS. O'FARRELL: Okay. The slope requirement for that berm is 4.1 ratio, and it also has to have trees, shrubs and groundcover. We discussed negotiating that amount so that he would really only have to have trees at 25 to 30 feet apart. My last site visit, the berms -- and he would also remove the berms or at least set them back to 4.1. My last site visit before the hearing, the berms had been removed on one side. There were piles of more topsoil and also piles Page 23 October 31, 2008 of new mulch. There had been no trees planted. That is what I observed and that is my case. Mr. Okenka has photos to show you. And I have seen the photos. Do we need to do those as another exhibit? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yeah, that would be Respondent's Exhibit A, more than likely. MS. O'FARRELL: Pardon me? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That would be Respondent's Exhibit A. MS. O'F ARRELL: Okay. So we would like to admit Respondent's -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: He would have to ask for that. MS. O'FARRELL: Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Okenka, it's your turn to speak. MR. OKENKA: All right, thank you. My name is Marek Okenka. And as you hear why am I here, so I like to defend myself why I did this -- MS. O'FARRELL: Mr. Okenka, give them the photos and tell them you would like to show them as Exhibit A. MR. OKENKA: And I would like to show the pictures why and of what I did to my property. MS. O'FARRELL: And if! may speak one more time before he starts. He has been at meetings with me. He has said that he would do these things and I believe that he will. You can make your decision on how much time he will need. Okay, Mr. Okenka. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Before we hear him speak, since you'd like to enter these as an exhibit, we cannot give you these back. These will be given to the court reporter as evidence, okay, so we're not going to be able to, first of all, give you these back. And second of all, if I can hear a motion that we accept Exhibit Page 24 October 31, 2008 A from the respondent. MR. DEAN: Motion to accept Exhibit A from the respondent. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do I hear a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, go ahead, sir. MR. OKENKA: In those pictures, I would like to present the whole idea why I did what I did and what I'm intending to do. I purchased the property in 2000 with the knowledge to be agriculture zoning. And to understand, I have five acres which I can freely use. And by each time when the rainy season will come, I did happen to knowledge (sic) all my property as well as neighbors properties during the rainy seasons all under the water. So I wanted to somehow cultivated (sic) all my property in order to not to have a water at my property. So my idea was to bring natural mulch to my property to raise up the property to the height where I'm not going to have water anymore. And that I did and -- and as I was bringing the mulch to my property trying to spread it around into a certain height on my property, I realized there might be a problem with my neighbors surrounding. I'm not going to create a berms (sic) because I did talk to one of my neighbors. He says you might make a problem with this to bringing to a certain height. I might get flooded, my property might get flooded because I'm bringing this mulch to my property. So I create the berms to -- with the understanding I will somehow separate both properties from each other, if that case Page 25 October 31, 2008 happens to be true that I'm going to flooded him. So I create the berms as I would explain like a swimming pool so the water, it fill my property, would not go over the berms. That was the whole idea of the berms. To this motion, I would like to explain. None of the neighbors, the neighbor which is right next to me on the left, the neighbor which is right next to me on the right, they all agree, and we all agree on what I was doing. It was just one of the neighbor, which was further from us who was complaining about it. So I brought the mulch, I create those berms, that's true. And as you see on those pictures -- I have pictures when we happen to have water on the properties -- and they are the pictures when I bring the mulch and I solve the problem not to have the water. And the whole idea of the mulch was to bring the nutrition to my soil where I can turn this nutrition to the good healthy soil where I can grow more trees, I can have more animals to raise, and have a usage of my property, as well, it was understanding from my neighbors. They liked that idea. We had several meetings together, we had the -- with the code enforcement. I was trying to explain why I did this. They are the pictures where the -- about the removing the trees. As you see on that -- on those pictures, those trees happen to die, all the pine trees. They -- it might be just about one acres, so the pine trees, they happen to die. And I had the feel or need to remove them because they were hazards to if I walking underneath or my family walking or anyone else, the branch might just fell and cause the troubles. That was one thing. Another thing was it looks ugly. So I remove them. In my understanding they are going to be much more new trees putted in as I wish to plant the trees and have a nursery for myself to grow the trees. So I did remove them without the permit. But I thought I got to Page 26 October 31, 2008 do it when there's a chance to do it, so I did remove the trees. And I used that mulch which we shredded from the trees to lay all around my property. That's not the mulch which you see over there, that was brought up from another site. So that was why I did remove those trees, because they were dead. There was no use for them. And as for the creating the berms, I have no problem to remove the berms. I already start, I did it, as well I did it for -- under my neighbors where I did create a berms. But I have a difficulties to comply with code ordinance which they trying to tell me I do have to have a certain slope, which I would understand as well, the slope, I do. It's just it's 660 linear feet of one of the berm. The 330, another 660 linear feet, which is quite a big. To make that slope, no problem. But try to put the sod in 14 feet in that distance and try to put the certain trees which I've been told to in certain distance and certain settings, it's quite a financial burden to me. And I just -- what I want to say, I'm not the developer who's developing the sites for either public use or for later residential sites. I felt like this is my property and I'm trying to create a solution for my property . And so to removing the berm is no problem, but to maybe pushing to PUD the sod and put the trees because my trees dead -- they were dead, the pine trees, and replace them with certain height, 12 feet, three-inch diameter trees which are native trees. Which I don't have a problem, because I'm going to grow a lot of trees. That's why I have that five acres. But I'm pushed into the corner, you have to do it now and it has to be this way, and unfortunately it's going to cost this much. And I just can't in this kind of situation, this economy goes to -- this whole thing, it cost me probably $200,000 to end up as I am when economy, there wasn't enough jobs. So right now I just cannot understand, why do I have to comply Page 27 October 31, 2008 as a developer to solve this problem? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Part of the discussions you had, were any discussions regarding installing sod? MS. O'FARRELL: Of installing sod on the berm? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: He mentioned sod, like grass I guess is what he would mean. MS. O'FARRELL: The requirement for a slope ratio of four-to-one is grass, trees, ground covers, ornamental grasses and shrubs. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. KELLY: Susan, would that be if you were to keep the berm? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. MR. KELL Y: Okay. So he had stated that he would have no problem removing the berm, so then the berm is not an issue. We can fine the violation and then give him some time and he'll get it all grated out. So the sod would then no longer be an issue. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Correct. MR. KELLY: So the only issue remaining in my mind is the removal of vegetation greater than one acre. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's correct. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, a question in my mind is what percentage of those trees removed were dead? MR. KELL Y: Furthermore, if I could add to that, Lionel, the photos given are great because you can kind of see the progression from 2005 to 2008. However, you know, it's interesting because 2005 looks cluttered and 2006 looks light. However, 2007 looks more cluttered and then 2008 looks light. And without a surveyor without measurements, how do you know how much an acre of vegetation was cleared or how much was naturally cleared when he bought the propery versus how much he actually cleared. Because you're allowed up to an acre. Just Page 28 October 31, 2008 given the photographs, I'm unable to find a violation exists, because there's no measurements or areas to speak of. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Okenka, when did you buy the property? MR. OKENKA: 2000. MR. LARSEN: Year 2000. MR. KAUFMAN: Susan, can you seed instead of sod? MS. O'FARRELL: Well, what I was just looking for was that if your berm is no steeper than three-to-one, it requires 50 percent surface coverage at time of installation and 80 percent coverage within one year and avoid soil erosion. But a three-to-one is, you know, a lot less of a berm than a four-to-one. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But I think what we're talking about right now is if the berm is removed, we're just talking about the trees. MS. O'FARRELL: Right. Well, the trees were not -- the berm was not created from the trees that were -- I'm sorry, did I say that right? The berm was not created by the trees that were removed, it was by mulch that was delivered. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Correct. But what we're trying to get at is if the berm is removed, then there would not be any need for seeding or putting ground cover, correct? MS. O'FARRELL: Right, as long as the berm is removed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. O'FARRELL: The problem, if I may, is that the berm and the soil and the mulch has changed the hydrology of the entire -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Site. MS. O'FARRELL: -- area, including his neighbors. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. KELLY: Is that a separate violation then? MS. O'FARRELL: No, I was just adding it in because we're asking for fill and debris to be removed. MR. LARSEN: Right. If I understand the respondent's testimony Page 29 October 31, 2008 correctly, Mr. Okenka, you never intended to use the mulch as a berm, you wanted to spread it across your property to develop better soil? MR. OKENKA: Right, right. That's why I did that. As you see on those pictures, during the rainy season is all water. There's no use for that. So yes, that's why I use the mulch and the berms, to protect the others. The berms are protecting the others. If there is a case, which would never be, because the mulch acts as a sponge. It will absorb the water and it will turn to the dirt and it -- those pictures which are be taken from the satellite, they probably light and dark because this mulch deteriorate itself and it becomes to be from six feet, in two years three feet, and the next it will be up to the one feet, because it becomes to be a smaller amount because it was deteriorating. MR. LARSEN: Right. But if I understand your testimony correctly, it wasn't a problem with removing the berms and spreading the mulch, it was the financial hardship you would endure if you had to go out and purchase the trees for replacement of what you-- MR. OKENKA: Right. MR. LARSEN: -- previously removed, correct? MR. OKENKA: Right. MR. LARSEN: Okay. And do you have any kind of timetable that you would like to propose in regard to complying with some of the county's wishes in regard to rehabilitating the site, putting it back to somewhat what it was like in regard to trees? How long would it take you? MR. OKENKA: My plan was to have probably 1,000 trees right next to each other. Create nice environment for my kids or for any others to look. MR. LARSEN: Right, but the county's asking you to do something. And do you have any kind of proposal you can make as to how long it would take you to satisfy the county's requirements? MR. OKENKA: I will satisfy the county tomorrow to remove Page 30 October 31, 2008 the berms, to spread them out. But it will be for me very hard to tell when I can purchase the sod and purchase the trees. MR. LARSEN : Well, I don't think you're going to need sod if you remove the berms. Is that correct, Ms. Farrell (sic)? MS. O'FARRELL: That's ifhe removes it to a three-to-one ratio. MR. LARSEN: Right. So forget the sod, it's really the trees at that point if he removes the berms, correct? MS. O'FARRELL: If he removes them to a three-to-one ratio he doesn't need the sod. MR. LARSEN: Right. So -- MR. OKENKA: But the trees need to be certain trees. I did not remove any of those trees. I did remove the trees which were dead, the pine trees. I'm going to grow the trees, but I'm going to grow the trees which I wish to grow. MS. O'FARRELL: Well, the question is, is that he has removed more than one acre of vegetation around his house. So he still needs to get the mitigation plan in order to determine what plants were removed and what needs to be replaced. MR. KELLY: I would say that the board has not voted on whether or not that violation exists, and I would disagree. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: There's two issues I have here. The two issues that I have are one, the berm, which you said you're going to take care of. But two, the bringing in fill which raises the property. There's a natural sheet flow that occurs out in the -- anywhere in the State of Florida. And basically by building a berm it stops the sheet flow, the natural progression of water going across the land and eventually out to the Gulf of Mexico. And too, by raising your property it has the same effect. It's no longer able to flow off your property, or it blocks the natural flow. So those are the two issues that I have. One, by taking the berm and removing it takes care of one of the Page 31 October 31, 2008 issues. But the other issue is also raIsmg your property and the removal of trees beyond the one acre. What I have not heard yet is how much do you feel has been removed in excess of that one acre? MS. O'FARRELL: Well, that's up to the environmental specialist. However, I have photos, if we could -- that would be Exhibit E? I think we're up to E on mine, that I can pass through where I've made some notes on how much was cleared in excess of one acre. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. That should have been probably entered a while back. MS. O'FARRELL: Right. Well, my direction has been to ask for the board to determine the environmental investigator -- or the environmental consultant to come out and determine how much has been cleared in excess of one acre. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion to accept -- MR. KELLY: No. I don't agree. I think it's staffs job to prove to us that the vegetation was removed in excess of an acre. It's not our job to make the respondent go out and pay for an expensive environmental engineer to do that for them. MS. O'FARRELL: Okay. Well, I estimate that the amount removed was 25 percent over the one acre. MR. KELLY: And that's an opinion. And I don't see any testimony -- I hate to get belligerent about it, but I don't see any testimony to conglomerate (sic) that. MS. O'FARRELL: Except for the photos that you see that wherever the vegetation has been removed. MR. KELL Y: The photos are taken from a satellite. 20 feet is equal to a half a centimeter. And I actually see more vegetation in prior -- in future years than I do prior years. MS. O'FARRELL: The vegetation that you see along the south side of the photos are shadows from the trees on the other side of the Page 32 October 31, 2008 property line. MR. KELL Y: Okay, I do see those, you're right about that. But if you look at the difference between 2005, 2006 and then 2007, you actually see more clutter in 2007 than you do in 2006, which would be CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, if you look at 2008, there's a huge difference between 2008 and 2005. A lot less vegetation in 2008. MR. KELLY: Agreed. But let's say for instance the property was purchased -- or the original property looked like it did in 2005. You have large areas on which would be the west and the south side that are cleared. Let's say that's the natural condition of the property originally. Then you go all the way to 2008 where it looks quite a bit more cleared. How much of that do we know was cleared and how much of it is an acre and how much of it is in excess of an acre -- you know what I mean -- without measurements or -- MS. O'FARRELL: Well, the measurements that I took because of the direction that I was given came out to more than one acre. If you include the house, the driveway that goes around, the area right behind the house, the area right in front of the house and the area where he has planted a ficus hedge, which is a non-native. So I would definitely say it's been over one acre. Whether that's an opinion of an experienced code enforcement investigator, that's what I'm stating. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I must repeat my question. How many of these trees removed were dead? Were they all dead that you removed or did you -- MR. OKENKA: Yes, they were all dead. MR. L'ESPERANCE: -- remove live trees also? MR. OKENKA: No, they were all dead. MR. L'ESPERANCE: All the trees removed by you were dead? MR. OKENKA: Yes. That's the pictures which I send you. MS. O'FARRELL: Well, I have a hard time believing that, as I Page 33 October 31, 2008 can see where the property in 2008 actually looks as if it's been scraped. I mean, every tree was removed. MR. LARSEN: Based upon the photographs that were previously admitted in regard to the neighboring property or properties next to the berm, you can see that there are quite a few live trees, and seldom do you see a dead tree. I don't know, I -- if you clear a property to that extent, I'm sure there are going to be live trees included in that clearing. MS. O'FARRELL: As well as understory and midstory. MR. LARSEN: But with regard to the satellite photographs -- MS. O'FARRELL: This one dark section to the south of the house that you can see in the 2008 is actually one tree. It's one tree with a large canopy. MR. OKENKA: If I may, I can exactly point out what my pictures are showing on that satellite view? And they are there one year, they are there next year, but they are not showing because they have no canopies. They are just sticks. And those are my pictures. And the next year they are not there. But as I was bringing the mulch, I was spreading the mulch and that's why the pictures show it clearly. Because I covered the grass, I covered the spots where they were green. But there was no trees that I just destroy because I have -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: When were these pictures taken? MR. OKENKA: 2006, I think. And I did take those pictures, because I wanted to show they are really dead. And not only me, it might be some type of disease, because I have neighbors trees are dead as well as that. MS. O'FARRELL: Well, we have already discussed the pine bark beetle and the effect that it has on trees. MR. LARSEN: In your photograph, sir, I see that you have some photographs of some of the trees and they were taken in 2007. Was that before or after you put the mulch on the property? Page 34 October 31, 2008 MS. O'FARRELL: Well, the photos in 2007, if! may, show the two strips of mulch along the western side of the property in 2007. MR. OKENKA: They are the berms. MS. O'FARRELL: And then there's also a berm on the north side. The long strips are actually piles of mulch that have been spread out. MR. OKENKA: Yes. MS. O'FARRELL: Then in 2008 you can see where they have been spread out. Now, I'm not arguing that he cleared the western side of the property on the other side of the lake, but he did clear around the lake and he stated to me that he wanted to be able to use the lake. But what I am arguing is that he cleared around the lake and from that half of the property all the way to the east. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: How much over one acre, not percentage-wise, but how much over one acre do you feel in your estimate that he has cleared? MS. O'FARRELL: While walking-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Acreage-wise. MS. O'FARRELL: -- the property, I would say he's cleared half of the property. MR. LARSEN: Which would be 2.5 acres. MS. O'FARRELL: Right. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So 1.5 acres over what he should clear. MS. O'FARRELL: Right. That's correct. MR. LARSEN: And your opinion is based upon your education, experience and training in this -- MS. O'FARRELL: Well, the amount of properties that I've walked, I know that my stride is two feet per stride. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other discussion from the board? Questions. Page 35 October 31, 2008 MR. KELLY: I have a question. Is there any allowance for dead trees due to, let's say, pme beetles? MS. O'FARRELL: Not if you look at the neighbors property where it obviously hasn't has that affected. Because they don't -- you know, as I've told you, they don't jump from a healthy tree to a suffering tree. They attack a suffering tree. They're opportunistic. They wouldn't kill all the trees on his property and not when they have the healthy trees on the second property move on and keep killing. MR. KELL Y: Is there anything in the Land Development Code that states if the trees were to either die from natural causes or from an insect, let's say, or a hurricane was to blow them down that it would be the property owner's responsibility to then mitigate that loss and bring it back to its natural state? MS. O'FARRELL: Well, that is only vegetation removal. Well, actually, if they're blown down because of a storm, they've broken, that would be a litter case and that would be a standalone ordinance. MR. KELLY: And they would have to revegetate. MS. O'FARRELL: They would have to remove the litter and then we would have a vegetation removal case where they would have to revegetate. Now, if they can photograph and show us evidence, which is what I have always asked for, and if they're saying that there's a hurricane, you know, or a windstorm that's knocked these over, you know, then we have no case, because they're showing the trees were knocked over or destroyed by a natural hazard, natural event. MR. LARSEN: And what about the replacement of that tree that was knocked over by the storm? MS. O'FARRELL: Well, the Board of County Commissioners did pass a standalone amendment. They gave 30 days for people to replace. Page 36 October 31, 2008 So if we're looking at these pictures, they were not replaced within 30 days. They did that after Wilma to give people a chance. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question. This began with a complaint from a neighbor. MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: Have you been in contact with that neighbor recently? MS. O'F ARRELL: Yes, I have talked to him. And his major worry was this berm that was on his property. He had always had water on his property. He was afraid the berm was going to create more water. MR. KAUFMAN: Has that -- has what's been done on the property now resolved that situation, or does it still exist there? MS. O'FARRELL: Well, actually, the last time I went out it was dry. Of course we hadn't had rain, and he had told me that it was dry during a dry period. Mr. Okenka has produced pictures showing standing water, but that would be during our rainy season. And that would actually show what the property is supposed to look like without the hydrology change. It is part and close to the Picayune Strand which is, you know, dependent on that water flow. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions of the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. LARSEN: I move that a violation does exist. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. Page 37 October 31, 2008 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? MR. KELLY: Nay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: One nay. And the rest -- okay, the motion passes. MR. KELL Y: What do you suggest? What does the county suggest? MS. O'FARRELL: My recommendation is for more time. Do we have an exhibit to -- didn't I give you that packet. I gave you that packet. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Speak closer into the microphone. MS. O'FARRELL: I'm sorry. Ms. Waldron has the packet. There should be seven. The recommendation as has been changed according to board's decision, has been left blank in terms of days to require. And I would suggest extra time. I would not suggest more than 60 days, however, because I've been working with Mr. Okenka, working with him, and have given him a lot of time since the beginning of this case. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, the issue we're running into now is the dry season, and it's not irrigated. So the chance of anything that's planted at this point surviving is going to be difficult. MR. LARSEN: Also that basically in this economic environment, that basically people should be given as much leeway in regard to trying to accomplish the goals set out by the county and this board as possible. MS. O'FARRELL: Well, if you want my suggestion, removing the berm first would be the highest priority. He's not going to be able to plant anything on berms and mulch. So that would be my suggestion is the berm first, the planting later, possibly during the ramy season. MR. KELL Y: The respondent mentioned something about trees Page 38 October 31, 2008 placed 25 feet apart or something along those lines. MS. O'FARRELL: That was what I had said, uh-huh. MR. KELL Y: Rather than going through the expense of going through a full mitigation plan, do you have something that you'd be satisfied with? Maybe if you gave him, hey, I want 10 trees or however many trees spaced this many feet apart, this height, this type. MS. O'FARRELL: If he keeps the berm and he restricts it to the three-to-one -- four-to-one, then we could do trees. And I've always, as you know, negotiated the size of trees and the caliper of those trees. MR. KELLY: What about the portion of removal, vegetation removal that he now has to mitigate? MS. O'FARRELL: Yeah, that as well. I mean, I am required by the LDC to have a mitigation report submitted by an environmental consultant who has a certain amount of degree, you know, and experience. But -- and I'm not sure that I can change that. However, with the mitigation plan that is submitted, I can negotiate that sizes can get smaller, numbers can get smaller. Because I've always been in favor of negotiating. MR. KELLY: I know you have, that's why I'm putting it to you. And I remember last month we were under a similar situation where some folks had cleared some of their property and -- MS. O'FARRELL: It was a very similar situation, because they had put the berm up as well. MR. KELL Y: Exactly. And under that order we actually specified the height, the number and the spacing of the trees. And I was wondering if we could try to work towards something for the respondent in this case as well, since he's been working with you. MS. O'FARRELL: I don't remember that we had required a mitigation plan there, because it was basically involving the berm that had created the trees from dying. But -- and I'm not sure if the board can not require the mitigation plan. MS. RAWSON: You've got to follow the Land Development Page 39 October 31, 2008 Code. MS. O'FARRELL: Right, that's what I was thinking. But as I said, the mitigation plan, you know, could be negotiated according to his economic ability. MR. OKENKA: Excuse me. If I may, I'm intending to do the trees on my property. It's just -- they're going to be there. That's why I have everything spread out. I'm going to grow trees. MR. KAUFMAN: Can I ask you, how long do you think it would take you to resolve the berms? MR. OKENKA: Probably -- oh, the berms. Might be m one week. MR. KAUFMAN: So 60 days-- MS. O'FARRELL: See, I've heard that. MR. KAUFMAN: -- would be fine-- MS. O'FARRELL: I've heard that before, yeah. MR. OKENKA: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: -- for the berms. MR. OKENKA: Yes. MS. O'FARRELL: And I also would like to say that they need to be native trees. You know, I've spoken with him, and had a fairly diverse number and, you know, quality of tree and whether it was native and non-native. MR. KELLY: Is there anything that prevents the respondent from planting his property in a nursery effect in order to grow trees? And then I'm going to assume sell them. MS. O'FARRELL: You mean in straight lines? MR. KELLY: Yes, ma'am. MS. O'FARRELL: Our mitigation reports and what I have been supporting is to have the plants done in clusters. They have a higher survivability rate. And if we were using a smaller plant, they're definitely going to survive better. You know, if he's using slash pines and he's planting them in clusters that are, you know, 15 feet apart, Page 40 October 31, 2008 we're going to have more of 100 percent survivability. MR. OKENKA: I'm intending to plant it from the seeds -- MS. O'FARRELL: Oh, see, that's-- MR. OKENKA: -- from the beginning. I have just about collected over 2,000 seeds to go already and do it. Not the native trees. I like to plant the trees which I like. I like to have my properties -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The hearing is closed at this point, so -- MR. OKENKA: Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Okay, I did not know. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions that we ask, you can respond to. MR. OKENKA: Okay. MR. KELLY: So he wouldn't be able to use non-native trees except maybe up to that one acre. MS. O'FARRELL: The one and a half acres he would need to plant according -- with the native trees. And the ceilings are not going to be part of the mitigation plan. However, slash pines grouped in -- you know, in clusters would be a lot more effective and a lot more time effective in terms of solving this case. And I've always found slash pines and cabbage palms grow a whole lot faster and a whole lot better if they're smaller. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Ken, looks like you're writing feverishly. Are you ready to take a stab at it? MR. KELLY: I'll take a shot. Do you have op. costs? MS. O'FARRELL: I don't think I do have the operational costs on mme. MS. WALDRON: $86.71. MR. KELLY: Okay. The respondent is to pay operational costs of $86.71 within 30 days. Number two: Remove the berms within 30 days or a fine of Page 41 October 31, 2008 $100 per day for each day thereafter will be incurred. Number three: Submit a mitigation plan within 180 days or a fine of $1 00 per day will accrue. And number four: Plant vegetation to the specifications described in the mitigation plan within 360 days or a $100 per day fine would incur. And five: Notify code enforcement within 24 hours when the violation has been abated. MS. O'FARRELL: Am I allowed to say anything right now? MR. KELLY: What do you think about the time, Susan? MS. O'FARRELL: 360 days is going to bring us right back into the time period we are now instead of into the rainy season. MR. KELLY: She's right. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It's going to bring us past that, actually. MS. O'FARRELL: Right. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: 180 days, six months from now, so we'll give him a year and a half. MR. KELLY: Well, at the 360 that I had -- I thought it was 360 from today, which Susan is right, it would one year and right back into the dry season. MS. O'FARRELL: So either make it less or make it more. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, if we do 180 days to submit the mitigation plan and then -- how long does it take for a mitigation plan to be approved? MS. O'FARRELL: One day. MR. LARSEN: Yeah, I'm thinking more in line of, you know, 90 days for the mitigation plan and 180 days for completion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Ninety days after the 180? MS. O'FARRELL: Or 90 days from today? MR. LARSEN: No, 90 days from the date of the hearing to submit a mitigation plan. And 180 days for the plant materials to be Page 42 October 31, 2008 installed in accordance with the mitigation plan. Or excuse me, from the date of acceptance of the mitigation plan. MR. KELLY: Let me amend my motion. Amend number three to read 90 days from the date of this hearing for the mitigation plan. And number four: To revegetate to the specifications of the mitigation plan within 180 days of the mitigation plan approval. The fines would be the same, $100 per day. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Kelly, is that a motion? MR. L'ESPERANCE: I have a question about your berm. Do you mean totally remove the berm, or -- MS. O'FARRELL: Remove the berm or create according to Collier County specifications, which is what I wrote in the NOV, notice of violation. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. MS. O'FARRELL: So he could go four-to-one, three-to-one, two-to-one, and then there's one-to-one. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. MR. LARSEN: All right, I'm going to second Mr. Kelly's motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) MS. O'FARRELL: So I just have a question. What did we decide on the berm, recreation or removal? MR. KELLY: It's either/or. Either it's removed or to Collier County specs. Page 43 October 31, 2008 MS. O'FARRELL: So in what time period? MR. KELLY: That was 30 days. MS. O'FARRELL: Thirty days, okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sir, do you understand what we just did? You have 30 days to remove the berm, okay? You have 90 days to get a mitigation plan, or $100 fine. MR. OKENKA: Which I pay for? What's the mitigation plan? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mitigation plan will tell you what you need to do on your property, what you need to plant and what size and everything. MR. OKENKA: Where do I get this from? MS. O'FARRELL: The mitigation plan is submitted and created for you by an environmentalist who has a biology degree or some kind of scientific degree. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you help him with -- MS. O'FARRELL: Oh, yeah -- well, I'm not actually supposed to recommend, but I can give him a list of people that he can call. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That would be greatly appreciated. MS. O'FARRELL: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Seems like he would -- MS. O'FARRELL: Usually I speak in code. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right. And then you will have 180 days after the mitigation plan has been accepted to go ahead and plant according to that mitigation plan. MS. O'FARRELL: And he only needs to plant. He doesn't need to plant the non-natives that he's been talking about -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. MS. O'FARRELL: -- the 100 trees, just what the mitigation plan says. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Just what the mitigation plan tells you to plant. Do you understand that, sir? Page 44 October 31, 2008 MR. OKENKA: Yes, I do. It all depends what the mitigation plan is. MR. KELL Y: Right. MS. O'FARRELL: Right. MR. OKENKA: It might be two million dollars. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But I would strongly suggest that you coordinate with the county to work on this plan, sir. MS. O'FARRELL: Usually the mitigation plan is based on adjacent properties -- we've talked about that before -- so it's not going to cost you a million dollars. MR. OKENKA: 15,000. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much for your time. Would you like to take a break? THE COURT REPORTER: I would, thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right. We're going to take a 10-minute break. We'll come back at 25 after. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd like to call the meeting back to order, CEB meeting back to order. And I'd like to amend the agenda once again and move BCC versus James Hargraves to the next hearing. Do I hear a motion? MR. DEAN: Next hearing? MR. KELLY: So moved. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: To this -- MR. KELLY: Moving it up to now. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Moving it up to now. MR. DEAN: All right. I was slow. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Maybe I didn't explain it correctly. MR. LARSEN: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. Page 45 October 31, 2008 MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEB VRE: Thank you. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: For the record, Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney. There's been a stipulation reached on the Hargraves matter. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We need the investigator up also. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Sorry? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is the investigator here? MR. FLOOD: He's just finishing typing up the -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Well, I'd like to swear everybody in at one time, so that's why -- MR. LARSEN: For the record, this is Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida versus James Hargraves, Respondent, CEB Case No. 2007110616. Counsel, can I have your appearance? MR. FLOOD: Peter Flood, appearing on behalf of the respondent, James Hargraves. MR. LARSEN: On behalf of the county? MS. STUDENT: Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney on behalf of the county. Oh, here's the investigator. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can I have the parties sworn in, please. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead, Investigator. MR. MARTINDALE: For the record, Investigator Ron Martindale, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is reference Case 2007110616, James A. Hargraves -- L. Hargraves, I'm sorry. Page 46 October 31, 2008 We have reached a stipulation agreement on this gentleman. It's reference the structures attached to an existing dwelling without obtaining required permits or certificate of completion. You should each have a copy of the stipulation at this time. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you can read the stipulation into the record. MR. MARTINDALE: Certainly. The respondent is ordered to pay operational costs in the amount of 86.45 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of the hearing. To abate all violations by applying for a Collier County variance by November 15th, 2008, and obtaining a Collier County building permit, all required inspections and certificate of completion within 120 days of variance or application, or $200 a day will be imposed each day for the violation. Or number three: He can obtain Collier County demolition permit with all required inspections, certificate of completion and remove all related debris to an area intended for such use within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed each day any violation remains. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection and confirm abatement. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Hargraves has agreed to this, correct? MR. FLOOD: That's correct. MR. HARGRAVES: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions of the board? MR. KELLY: Just one point I'd like to point out. Page 47 October 31, 2008 Under number two it says that they're granted 120 days from the variance application. And let's say they go all the way to the deadline, November 15th. That will give them till March 15th. If there's a situation where the variance is not approved and you need more time, let us know. MR. FLOOD: Right. We talked about that amongst ourselves. What we'd do is come back in. But I think based on the way the economy is, they're expediting that stuff. So we're hoping to get it done. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions? MR. LETOURNEAU: Can I add one thing? I just notice on the stipulation -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Have you been sworn in? MR. LETOURNEAU: Earlier I was -- okay. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement Supervisor. I notice on the stipulation we didn't have the ordinances that need to be cited on the top there. So I think those need to be introduced as part of the stipulation. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes, if you can add those in and then we can have the respondent initial them. And also, if you want to read them into the record. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay, I'll read them in the record. The violation of Ordinance 2004-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(I)(a)(e)(i), and Florida Building Code 105.1, 111.1 of the Code and Laws of Ordinances, Section 22, Article Two. Hold on one second here. Florida State Building Code 105.1 and the Code of Laws and Ordinances, Section 22, Article Two, 104.1.3.5. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. And before the respondent leaves, please make sure that you fill that in and -- Page 48 October 31, 2008 MR. MARTINDALE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- and they sign it, initial off of that. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to approve the stipulation as submitted by the county and the respondent. MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion is passed. MR. FLOOD: Thank you. MR. MARTINDALE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're going to move on to BCC versus Frank Paz. Can I have both the respondent and the investigator step forward. Is the respondent not here? MS. O'FARRELL: No, he does not appear to be here. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you please swear m the investigator. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to Department Case No. 2006081159, BCC versus Frank Paz. F or the record, the respondent and the board were sent a packet of evidence and we would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A. MR. LARSEN: I make a motion to accept the package Exhibit A on behalf of the county. Page 49 October 31, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. WALDRON: Violation of Ordinance 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 3.05.01(B), vegetation removal, protection and preservation. Description of violation: Property has been cleared in excess of one acre without required permits. Location/address where violation exists: 2864 1 Oth Avenue Southeast, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 4098650006. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Frank Paz, 2864 Tenth Avenue Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34117. Date violation first observed: 8-21-06. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: 2-1-07. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: 3-1-07. Date of reinspect ion: 9-29-08. Results of reinspection were that the violation remains. At this time I'd like to call Code Enforcement Investigator Susan O'Farrell. MS. O'F ARRELL: For the record, Susan O'Farrell, Collier County Code Enforcement, Environmental Specialist. I would like to present as evidence B, photos, C, photos and D, aerials of the property. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion to accept? Page 50 October 31, 2008 MR. KELLY: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. LARSEN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. O'FARRELL: Okay, the exhibits -- my assistant may not have understood what I told him to do, so everything is in packets. I'm sorry about that, having the packets all together like that. MR. KELLY: Susan? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. MR. KELLY: Do you know how large this property is? MS. O'FARRELL: Let me find that for you. 2.27 acres. Does everyone have a packet B, which would show photos, a packet C, which would show the latest photos, and D, which would show the aerial photos? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MS. O'FARRELL: Rip them apart, Mr. Kelly. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you maybe explain quickly the time frames that are listed? The date of violation is August 21 st, '06. MS. O'FARRELL: Right. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Notice of violation is February 1st, 2007. Violation to be corrected 3-01-07. And then date of reinspect ion was September 29th, 2008. MS. O'FARRELL: Yes, that was on the statement of violation Page 51 October 31, 2008 that Jen read. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But can you explain those? I mean, those are some -- between the date of first observed and when the violation was given is nearly six months. MS. O'FARRELL: Okay. The date of violation and the -- we would give a certain amount of time for restoration, negotiation with the property owner. Then there was three months where I went to engineering and was working as the PUD monitor and then returned. In that three months that I was gone, there was discussion between Marlene Serrano, who was my supervisor, and Jennifer Waldron, who was also a code enforcement investigator. When I returned from engineering, Jennifer Waldron was still an investigator and I was given the case a little bit later than that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. LARSEN: Ms. Farrell (sic), there appears to be in packet C photographs which include dump trucks and other commercial vehicles. Is this property being used for commercial purposes? MS. O'FARRELL: This property is being used for storage of dump trucks; debris that's been incurred because of his property. In Collier County Estates, they are allowed to store their trucks as long as they're registered in that person's name. And I believe it needs to be behind the house. MR. LARSEN: Right, but other than storing the trucks on the property -- MS. O'FARRELL: They are not allowed to leave all the debris and the -- you know, the trash and -- MR. LARSEN: Right, but I see mounds of dirt or possibly stone and things like -- is there any indication that they're actually using the property for other than residential purposes, besides storing the trucks? MS. O'FARRELL: Well, only by the evidence of the photographs. MR. LARSEN: Okay. Page 52 October 31, 2008 MS. O'FARRELL: The evidence of the dumped construction debris after they've used the property. MR. KAUFMAN: Was this reported by a neighbor, or how did this begin? MS. O'FARRELL: I had a case on the next door neighbor and I had happened to look over. And they had given me permission to go on their property. They ultimately decided to fence their property and put animals in there. But from their property you could clearly see the violation for this property. Without peeking over a fence. MR. KELLY: And the litter portion is not part of this case, correct? MS. O'F ARRELL: This would have been a different investigator, as I only do the vegetation removal. MR. LARSEN: And what is it that you determined is in violation on this specific property? MS. O'FARRELL: Well, the property has been completely cleared. The front yard is not cleared, which is probably about -- based on my stride, I would say 60 feet by the width of the property, which I believe is 330 for the 2.7 acres. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: 2.25? MS. O'FARRELL: 1.25? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No, you said 2.25 I think is what you said was the acreage. MS. O'FARRELL: No, 2.27. MR. KELLY: That's it, 330. MS. O'FARRELL: Minus the one -- so they cleared everything except for the yard in the front, which would contain the septic. So we're talking about 70 feet by the width of the property, which I believe is 330 for the two and a half acres. MR. KAUFMAN: Probably 180. MS. O'FARRELL: 180? Page 53 October 31, 2008 MR. KAUFMAN: Two and a half acres would be 330 by 660. MS. O'FARRELL: Okay. MR. LARSEN: Right. And based upon the photographs that have been marked D-l through D-5, what is your conclusion as to the difference between 2004 and 2008? MS. O'FARRELL: 2008 I see as being clearly cleared. 2006 is when the property -- when the case started, which it is obviously completely cleared. 2004 has a fairly substantial amount of vegetation on it. I'm sorry, that was 2005. And 2004 there's even more vegetation. MR. LARSEN: So the clearing occurred, in your estimation, as early as when? MS. O'FARRELL: 2006. MR. LARSEN: Thank you, I have no further questions. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And how much did you say was cleared? If it's 2.27 acres. MS. O'FARRELL: That's requiring me to do some math in my head. So we're going to take 2.27 acres and subtract by 70 by 180. So if one acre is 4,350. MR. DEAN: 43,560. MS. O'FARRELL: Okay, thank you very much. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: 70 by 180? MS. O'FARRELL: Right. MR. KAUFMAN: Have you had conversations with the property owner? MS. O'FARRELL: Mr. Paz was in contact with me when I was doing the case. I explained to him the conditional use of this property where he could fence it in completely and have a certain number animals. He's restricted to, I believe it's eight hoofs per acre, but if he wanted to have, you know, two goats or eight goats, that's what he could have. He worked with Marlene Serrano to get an after-the-fact Page 54 October 31, 2008 vegetation removal permit. She visited the property and decided that wasn't enough animal to be on the property and had required mitigation. I guess she had two or three meetings with him, because she speaks Spanish and he also speaks Spanish. And since those meetings, I have had no contact with Mr. Paz. I did post his property with the notice of hearing and did not have anybody come to the door. But I do believe someone's living at the house because it's not in foreclosure and there has been no foreclosure sale. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The math, 70 times 180 equals 12,600. MS. O'FARRELL: So we're talking about with the house he's cleared a little bit more over one -- he has not cleared a little bit over than one acre. If it's a 2.27. MR. KELLY: I'll make a motion a violation exists. MR. LARSEN: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Do you have a recommendation? MS. O'FARRELL: Do they have the recommendation in the packet? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No, we don't have recommendations in our packets. Page 55 October 31, 2008 MR. LARSEN: Ms. Farrell (sic), what's the cost? MS. O'FARRELL: $86.43. MR. DEAN: You know, when you answered that, when you talk about operational cost, it doesn't include all this paperwork that you do. In the air pictures and -- MS. O'FARRELL: I'm going to go out and plant like three trees in order to -- I'm going to go plant like three trees in order to make up for the -- MR. DEAN: No, but I mean in operational-- MS. O'FARRELL: Well, if! plant them in certain areas, I don't need permits. MS. WALDRON: No, that's not in the operational cost. MR. DEAN: Okay, that's what I want to know. Thanks. It should be. MS. WALDRON: Usually we have a visualizer. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any comments from the board? Any suggestions? MR. KELLY: How about a suggestion similar to what we voted on today, 90 days to submit and 180 days from that point to comply. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And $100 fine? MR. KELLY: Yes, sir. MS. O'FARRELL: Did you say a daily fine of$150? MR. KELLY: One hundred is what I said. MS. O'FARRELL: $100? MR. KELLY: Yes. MR. LARSEN: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 56 October 31, 2008 MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion's been approved. MS. O'FARRELL: Did you give me a -- I've got the mitigation. MR. LARSEN: Also, in regard to cost-- MS. O'FARRELL: The number of days after the mitigation is proposed? MR. KELLY: 180. MR. DEAN: 180. MS. O'FARRELL: How many days? 180. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And that would include operational costs of86.43. MS. O'FARRELL: Right. We also have if the respondent fails to abate the violation the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order. MR. LARSEN: Right, I understood that motion to include all of the provisions submitted by the county in regard to their recommendation. MS. O'FARRELL: The order above. MR. LARSEN: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes, correct. MR. LARSEN: Next case. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That should be it? MS. O'FARRELL: I have proposed my case. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You're all set, thank you. The next case will be BCC versus Marvin Ralph Hoeman. If I can have the investigator and respondent step forward. And if I can have the investigator sworn in, please. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. PAUL: He doesn't seem to be present today. Page 57 October 31, 2008 MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to Department Case No. CESD20080005124, BCC versus Marvin Ralph Hoeman. F or the record, the respondent and the board were sent a packet of evidence, and we would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. LARSEN: I move to accept the package into evidence. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KELLY: Second. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. WALDRON: Violation of Ordinance Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Buildings and Building Regulations, Article Two, Florida Building Code, Section 22 to 26.B, 106.1.2, 104.5.1.4. Description of violation: Owner did not obtain certificate of completion for Permit No. 2006071567 for a home that was built. Location/address where violation exists: 5513 26th Avenue Southwest, Naples, Florida. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Marvin Ralph Hoeman, 7012 Tanyard Road, Winchester, Tennessee, 37398. Date violation first observed: June 3rd, 2008. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: June 9th, Page 58 October 31, 2008 2008. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: July 3rd, 2008. Date of reinspect ion: July 4th, 2008. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. At this time I would like to call Code Enforcement Investigator Renald Paul. MR. PAUL: For the record, Investigator Renald Paul, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20080005124, dealing with violations of the Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Buildings and Building Regulations, Article Two, Florida Building Code, Section 22-26.B, 106.1.2, 104.5.1.4. The owner did not obtain a certificate of completion for Permit No. 2006071567, which was the permits for the actual home. They did obtain a permit. There was a permit obtained, but they had never gone through and got the inspections and stuff to get the C.O. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I missed it, pardon me, but have we sworn in the investigator already? MR. PAUL: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. MR. L'ESPERANCE: We have? Thank you. MR. PAUL: Location address is 5513 26th Avenue Southwest, in Naples, Florida. The service was gone out, and a green card was returned. On June 9th the owner did sign for the green card, and it was Mr. Marvin Hoeman that signed for it. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits. As you'll see in your packet, you have Exhibit Band C-l and C-2. MR. KELLY: Make a motion to accept the exhibits. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? Page 59 October 31, 2008 MR. LARSEN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, we don't want to see the recommendation -- MS. WALDRON: Put that in the back. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Was the house never completed? Is that what it looks like? MR. PAUL: It seems that the house was completed, just the inspections were not done. He has over 18 different inspections that still need to be done on the home. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, I see plywood on one picture here. I can't -- and then I see a light fixture missing. MR. PAUL: I don't know that the exterior -- I don't know what needs to be done with the house. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Were these pictures taken on the same day? MR. PAUL: The po stings were, but the first picture that you have was on a different day. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. That would make sense, because one has plywood on -- MR. PAUL: The plywood was later put on the house. The house was left totally open. The garage was open, the doors were left unlocked, everything. And somebody went in there and placed plywood over everything. Page 60 October 31, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is there a garage door on? MR. PAUL: Yeah, the garage door was on, but they just left it open. Everything was just left open. MR. KAUFMAN: Is there any evidence that anybody has ever lived in this house? MR. PAUL: Not that I know of. I've never seen anyone go in or out of this house. MR. KAUFMAN: Do you know whether or not the electricity has been turned on in this house? MR. PAUL: I've never seen any lights on on the property. I don't know, though. MR. KAUFMAN: And do you know what inspections were performed on the building permit? MR. PAUL: I have it here. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Do you know if there are any mechanical liens from subcontractors? MR. PAUL: Not that I show. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: How about foreclosures? MR. PAUL: It's not foreclosed on. There was a lis pendens that was sent out sometime in I believe June, but it hasn't been foreclosed on. There's a number of inspections that were done. I don't know if you want me to -- there's several inspections that were done. But there's still a lot that weren't completed, though, so I don't know if you want me to -- MR. KAUFMAN: On one of the photos it looks like there are lots of notices that were placed. I don't know if you -- MR. PAUL: That's at the courthouse. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LARSEN: Investigator, have you been able to contact the property owner? MR. PAUL: No, I haven't. My supervisor did get a contact Page 61 October 31, 2008 number and called the owner, but all he got was fax tones from the number. MR. LARSEN: All right. And has the property owner attempted to contact the County Code Enforcement Board (sic), to your knowledge? MS. WALDRON: The respondent did contact Marlene Stewart and Marlene Stewart did take the phone number that he gave, which is the one that Supervisor Letourneau tried to call back on. MR. LARSEN: But to all indications this property looks like it's abandoned. MR. PAUL: Yes. MR. LARSEN: And when was the last time you were out at the property? MR. PAUL: On 10-28 I went out to the property. Same condition, it's all boarded up. They haven't done anything with it. MR. LARSEN: Well, today is 10-31, so you were out there this week three days ago, correct? MR. PAUL: Correct. MR. LARSEN: And is there any indication that anybody's been there to remediate or fix any of the problems you've previously identified in your notice of violation? MR. PAUL: No. MR. LARSEN: I've got no further questions. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Are there any other violations as to vegetation or anything that you -- MR. PAUL: There was a grass violation. That was taken care of. We contracted somebody to go out there and cut it. So all those weeds that you see on the first picture aren't there anymore. There was a humongous mound in front of the property that was practically covering up the whole house, but that had been flattened out. Page 62 October 31, 2008 MR. KAUFMAN: For safety purposes, though, it's sealed up so no kids can -- MR. PAUL: Correct, the whole house has been sealed up. MR. KELL Y: Do you know the date of the last inspection that was approved? MR. PAUL: Hold on. 9-28 of'07. MR. KELLY: There you go. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions of the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. LARSEN: I move that a violation does in fact exist. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. We have a recommendation in front of us. MR. PAUL: The county asks that the owner pay the operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and to abate all violations by: Respondent is required to obtain any and all permits as required by Collier County for the home that was built, or obtain permits for the removal of this property and obtain all required inspections and certificate of completion within "X" amount of days of this hearing or be fined "X" amount of dollars for each day that the violation remains unabated. Page 63 October 31, 2008 If respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order. The respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement so that he can go out and perform a site visit. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What are the operational costs? MR. PAUL: It's $87.57. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you probably want to include to be paid within 30 days of this hearing. MR. PAUL: Correct. MR. KELL Y: I'll make a stab at it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sure. MR. KELLY: I make a motion we accept the county's recommendation with the addition of number one, pay operational costs of$87.57 within 30 days. Number two then would stay the same. The "X" would be within 90 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day. That's it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What was the operational cost once again? MR. PAUL: $87.57. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, thank you. MR. KAUFMAN: I have one point. Why would you make it 90 days? It looks like this thing is going into foreclosure if there's a lis pendens on it. And maybe this would motivate the bank to do whatever they're going to do sooner. MR. KELLY: Perhaps. But there's no foreclosure on it just yet, so there's a chance that the homeowner might want to try to resurrect this. And realistically, if they did come back, re-app. their permits and then have to hire a contractor to finish the rest of the work that's in there, it may take as much as 90 days. There's still 18 inspections left open. That's quite a bit of interior Page 64 October 31, 2008 work that needs to be done. And some of this is probably going to be after the fact. So that means either permit by affidavit through an engineer or walking with the building officials through the site. It might take a series of meetings. That's why I said 90 days. And the gentleman lives in Tennessee, so it would be doing everything remotely where he'd have to come down and do it. MR. LARSEN: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Next case is BCC versus Grisel Diaz. Is the respondent present? (No response.) (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. PEREZ: Good morning. For the record, Senior Investigator Cristina Perez. MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to Department Case No. 2007040121, BCC versus Grisel Diaz. F or the record, the respondent and the board were sent a packet of evidence and we would like to enter the packet of evidence as Exhibit A. MR. KELLY: Motion to accept the exhibit. MR. LARSEN: Second it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. Page 65 October 31, 2008 MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. WALDRON: Violation of Ordinances 04-41 of the Collier County Land Development Code, Sections 1O.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06(B)(I)(e), and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i), and Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Section 22, Article Two, Section 104.1.3.5. Description of violation: Addition improvements constructed to existing structure without first obtaining a Collier County building permit and related inspection. Addition is of an open lanai type structure. Location/address where violation exists: 1119 Madison Avenue, Immokalee, Florida, 34142. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Grisel Diaz, 1119 Madison Avenue, Immokalee, Florida, 34142. Date violation first observed: March 29th, 2007. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: March 29th, 2007. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: April 29th, 2007. Date of reinspect ion: October 7th, 2008. Results of reinspection: Violation remains, no permit has been applied for. At this time, I would like to call Code Enforcement Investigator Cristina Perez. MS. PEREZ: Good morning. For the record, Senior Investigator Cristina Perez. Page 66 October 31, 2008 This case is in reference to Case No. 2007040121, dealing with violation of addition/improvements constructed to existing structure without first obtaining a Collier County building permit and related inspections. Addition is of an open lanai type structure, located at 1119 Madison Avenue, in Immokalee, Florida, 34142. The notice of violation was given on March 29th, 2007. Notice was served to property owner's mother, Grace Molina. I would like to present case evidence in the following: Exhibit B, pictures taken on October 14th, 2008. Exhibits B-1, B-2 and B-3. MR. KELL Y: Make a motion to accept. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any anyways? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. PEREZ: This case was initiated as a patrol case on March 29th, 2007 in regards to a lanai addition to the rear of the house. At that time I was able to make verbal contact with a gentleman at the home and explained the violation. I then received a call from the owner's mother, Grace Molina. I met with her at the location in question, discussed the unpermitted addition and notice of violation was explained and served to Ms. Molina, who indicated she was an occupant of the home. A meeting was then conducted on April 20th, 2007 with Ms. Molina and staff from the permitting department to explain the -- to Page 67 October 31, 2008 explain what direction was needed to come into compliance with a valid building permit. I was able to make contact multiple times via telephone with Ms. Molina. According to her, the property owner, her daughter, was making attempts to obtain the required documentation, but financially it was a burden to obtain the blueprints being requested. Yet after several phone conversations and numerous unreturned calls, no further action has been taken to come into compliance. On October 14th, observed the home was vacant and violation remained when the property was posted for today's hearing. Court records indicate a lis pendens has been issued. Attempted to make contact with attorney's office who issued the lis pendens to advise of violation and proceedings. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions of the board? MR. KAUFMAN: That's the picture, Exhibit B-3, to show it's vacant? MS. PEREZ: Yes. MR. LARSEN: What's Exhibit B-3? MS. PEREZ: That's of the home that's now -- it's vacant. MR. LARSEN: Right. But it has no -- MS. PEREZ: No, that's just to show that there's no one living at this location. MR. KELLY: I make a motion a violation exists. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 68 October 31, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. PEREZ: At this time I would like to read the county's recommendation to the board members. The county recommends that the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $88.14 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of to day's hearing and abate all violations by: One: Applying for and obtaining a Collier County building permit for such improvements, or demolition permit to restore building to its original permitted state. All related inspections and C.O. within "X" amount of days of this hearing or a fine of "X" amount per day will be imposed until violation has been abated. If the respondent fails to obtain (sic) the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of the order. Also number three, the respondent must notify code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any suggestions? MR. KELLY: I happen to have a suggestion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. KELLY: I make a motion we accept the county's recommendations; that number of days under number one would be 90, and the amount would be $200 per day. Everything else would stay the same. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The violation we're talking about is the addition of that -- appears to be -- MR. DEAN: A makeshift lanai. Page 69 October 31, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- screened in lanai area; is that correct? MS. PEREZ: It's not screened in, yeah, but it's like a large overhang that she described as a lanai. MR. DEAN: My main concern is the time. I mean, to me it should be 30 days. And the reason being, sure, it's vacant now, it could be rented tomorrow. And I know I see there's kids toys around the picture. So what are we letting ourselves in for? It looks like a makeshift lanai made of wood. Who knows if it's not ready to fall down. And we're giving them 90 days, I'd like to shorten that to 30 and get it done. MR. KELLY: I can amend my motion to 30 days. MR. LARSEN: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. PEREZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next case will be Eleazar Davenport versus -- BCC versus Eleazar Davenport. IfI could have the parties sworn in, please. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to Department Case No. 2007090117, BCC versus Eleazar Davenport. For the record, the respondent and the board was sent a packet of evidence, and we would like to enter to packet of evidence as Exhibit Page 70 October 31, 2008 A. MR. KELL Y: Make a motion to accept the packet. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. WALDRON: Violation of Ordinance 04-41, as amended, Land Development Code, Section 10.02.06(B)(I)(a), 1 0.02.06(B)(I)( d), and 1O.02.06(B)(1)( d)(i). Description of violation: Conversion of garage to living space without Collier County building permits. Location/address where violation exists: 4584 17th Court Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Eleazar Davenport, 4584 17th Court Southwest, Naples, Florida. Date violation first observed: September 5th, 2007. Given owner/person in charge given notice of violation: September 6th, 2007. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: September 20th, 2007. Date of reinspection: September 11 th, 2008. The results of the reinspection is that the violation remains. At this time I would like to call Code Enforcement Investigator Page 71 October 31, 2008 Carmelo Gomez. MR. GOMEZ: Good morning, board members. For the record, my name is Carmelo Gomez, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. 2007090117, dealing with the violation of a conversion, garage and screen patio to living space, which is located at 4584 17th Court, Naples, Florida. Service was given to Mr. Ferguson (sic) on September 20th, 2007. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits of photos marked B-1 through 10 and C-l. MR. KELL Y: Has the respondent seen them? MR. GOMEZ: Yes, he has. MR. KELLY: I'd like to make a motion to enter the exhibit. MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. GOMEZ: Excuse me, Mr. Davenport, I'm sorry. Yes, it is Davenport. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Has he been served, Mr. Davenport himself? MR. GOMEZ: Well, Mr. Davenport and Mr. Ferguson are co-owners of the property. MR. KELL Y: Mr. Gomez, are there any permits at all relating to any of this work? Page 72 October 31, 2008 MR. GOMEZ: Well, as I was going to put in my narrative, he did try to take out building permits. They were rejected three times. So Mr. Davenport decided to cancel the building permits and obtain a demolition permit instead. MR. KELL Y: I apologize, I didn't want to mess up your -- MR. GOMEZ: That's quite all right, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. MR. GOMEZ: Okay, thank you. This case started in September 24th of 2007, at which time the respondent and permitting personnel Carol Stachura and Wanda Warren met to discuss necessary permits. On November 24th, 2007, Mr. Davenport hired a permit consultant, Ms. Maria Cruz, to assist with the permitting. January 25th, '08, plans were submitted and a permit was issued in an apply status. Between February 27th of 2008 and May 15th of 2008, the application was rejected three times. And Mr. Davenport decided then to cancel the building permits and obtain a demo permit instead, which was issued on September 4th of this year. MR. KAUFMAN: Can you tell us why they were turned down? MR. GOMEZ: Apparently -- I believe Mr. Davenport can explain that better than I. MR. KELLY: And Mr. Gomez, is there any -- has there been any inspections called in on the demo permit? MR. GOMEZ: No, as of yet there has not. MR. LARSEN: Investigator, it appears from the notice of violation that there was a garage converted to living space, correct? MR. GOMEZ: That's correct. MR. LARSEN: Okay. And is this a residential property? MR. GOMEZ: Yes, it is. MR. LARSEN: And it's located at 4584 17th Sourt Southwest, Page 73 October 31, 2008 Naples, Florida? MR. GOMEZ: Yes, sir. MR. LARSEN: And to your knowledge, whether or not -- is he able to convert -- is the respondent able to convert that garage to living space? MR. GOMEZ: The garage section could have been done, but the rest of the additions were not permittable (sic). MR. LARSEN: What are the rest of the additions? MR. GOMEZ: I believe that was an open -- first of all, you have to understand, this was a case that was handed down to me. I did not do the initial inspections. But from what I understand was that he enclosed a screen patio with CBS block and installed a bathroom, full facility bathroom, with shower and sink, which you'll see in exhibit -- MR. LARSEN: B-6? MR. GOMEZ: That's correct, sir. MR. LARSEN: All right. So what is it actually that the Collier County Code Enforcement is complaining of that this respondent did wrong? MR. GOMEZ: Well, sir, according to records, that the additions were done without sufficient permits or C.O.'s. MR. KELLY: I believe the reason why Mr. Larsen's asking is because the NOV is not specific to the area, and the statement of violation only lists the garage to living space, it doesn't say anything about a lanai or additional CBS construction. So it's two separate areas then, correct? MR. GOMEZ: Yes, sir. MR. LARSEN: All right. And you've got a picture of a garage door, but it doesn't look like there is any indication that there is actual living space in the garage. MR. GOMEZ: Okay, the reason for that, sir -- you're talking about C-l? Page 74 October 31, 2008 MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. GOMEZ: Would that be photo C-l you're referring to? MR. LARSEN: Right. MR. GOMEZ: Yes, sir. I went to Mr. Davenport's home, because he claimed to -- he called me and told me that he did start some of the demolition work. So to show what kind of progress he made, I went over there and took a picture. So far what he's done was remove the closet space, everything that was included in the garage, and restored it to storage. As you can see on the right side of the picture are the seams where he took down the wall that was covering the garage door from the interior side and put it back to original state. MR. L'ESPERANCE: What we're looking at is the progression of partial demolition? MR. GOMEZ: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: When was the last date you were there? MR. GOMEZ: That was day before yesterday. Excuse me, it was actually yesterday, right? Yes, yesterday at 4:00. MR. LARSEN: Well, it says that the date the violation was first observed is September 5th, 2007. MR. GOMEZ: As as I explained before, sir, that was another investigator. And when we had a complaint from a neighborhood -- I guess not the respondent but a complainant that we weren't moving fast enough on the case, the case was given to me and then we just started. MR. LARSEN: All right. But in regard to the date of reinspection, you did the reinspection on September 11 th, 2008. MR. GOMEZ: That's correct. MR. LARSEN: Okay. And at that point the garage was not being used for living space? MR. GOMEZ: That's correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any -- go ahead, sir. Page 75 October 31, 2008 MR. FERGUSON: First and foremost, thank you for allowing me to be here. And my -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Just state your name. MR. FERGUSON: -- name is Larry Ferguson. Should I be reswore in? Because you swore me in as Davenport. MR. KELLY: It doesn't matter. MR. FERGUSON: I purchased this property two years ago. And the purpose of purchasing the property is because the work that was done in the property -- and I purchased it from a real estate attorney. Not knowledge (sic) about buying property, I did not know that all this work was done without a permit. If I'd known that, I would have never purchased this property. After purchasing the property, I pretty much went bankrupt with this house, because I had to do a lot of work as far as putting a new AC unit in and a lot of stuff that I didn't think that was going to have to be done. And then after having it a year, someone called and said that I converted the garage into living. But it was already like that when I purchased it. I did not do none of the work, I did not do nothing to the property. That was the purpose of me buying the property, because it was set up like that. I didn't understand it; I was very ignorant to whatever was going on. And so I tried to get in touch with the previous owner who sold me the property, trying to find out what was going on. He's not -- hasn't been found. I went and talked to a lawyer to see how I can try to fix this, and I can't fix it. When it first was brought to my attention, all they was talking about was the garage. That's when I got in touch with Marie, the consultant who came and introduced me to an architect. He came out and he did -- he drew me up plans to get a permit. And that cost me a couple grand, a couple thousand dollars. Page 76 October 31, 2008 After getting the plans drew up and everything, she submitted it, charging me a number of hundred of dollars to submit this. I -- at that time I -- we were just looking at the garage. Then I was approved. The permit was approved. I was approved. And then after I got approved then I paid -- after getting all this stuff approved, then they said that I had to raise the elevation of the floor in the garage. I had to go back and get another arch -- get the same architect to come in and draw that up. I came in, I bought a lot of materials to bring the floor up in the garage. And then at that time they told me that if I bring the floor up that everything else that was approved would not pass the permit. So at that time that's when I was -- I was working with another code enforcement (sic) at that time, and that's when I think I got introduced to him. And he came out and we was -- then all of a sudden the -- the pictures of the back of the lanai, I don't think that's there. It's a disaster. It is -- when I sit and I think about this, I get emotional, because there's no way in the world that I'm going to be able to bring this house up to code. The back side ofthe house that is not here, it's all blocked in. It's cinder blocks. It's concrete. I mean, it's going to cost -- if I was to try to bring this up to code, it would probably cost me 100 grand. To tear it out and put it back to where it -- a closed-in screen enclosure is going to probably cost probably $50,000 just to put it back to the original state the way it was. I honestly don't know how I got here this morning, because I've tried to do everything that they asked me to do. I went to -- they asked me to pull a demolition permit. I came in to pull the demolition permit and the county would not give me the demo. They gave me two weeks to pull it. I came in to pull it, they would not give it to me. I came back, and that's when I talked to Ms. Warren who works over there. And at that time they looked at the paperwork again and seen Page 77 October 31,2008 that I was able to pull the permit, but I pulled the permit one day too short. It was one day that I didn't pull the demolition permit. And then that's how we ended up here that I'm here. I've never fought the system, I've never tried to say I'm not going to do this, I'm not going to do that. I have converted the garage back into a garage. I don't know -- like I said, I don't know how I ended up here this morning, but, you know, I'm going to lose regardless of what you all do to me or what I do I'm going to lose. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Ferguson, may I ask you a question, please? MR. FERGUSON: Yes, sir. MR. LARSEN: Did you convert this garage? MR. FERGUSON: No, I didn't do none of the work. MR. LARSEN: Are you using this garage as living space today? MR. FERGUSON: It's a storage. MR. LARSEN: But you're not using it as living space. MR. FERGUSON: No, I'm not. MR. LARSEN: Okay, I have no further questions. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Are we just talking about the garage or are we talking about the lanai also? MR. LARSEN: It's only a violation of the garage. Conversion of the garage. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. Any other questions? Are you done, sir? MR. FERGUSON: I can be done, but there's another issue that's going to come and knock at my door again. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, we're here pertaining-- MR. FERGUSON: About the garage. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- to the garage. So let's handle that. MR. FERGUSON: The garage is back to being a garage. It's not a -- I mean, he came in the other day and took pictures of the garage. It's not -- the bathroom is ripped out, the closet is ripped out, the sink Page 78 October 31, 2008 is ripped out. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Did you do that without a -- MR. FERGUSON: No, I pulled-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You had the permit. MR. FERGUSON: I pulled the demolition permit to have that done. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good, okay. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman, if I may, one of the problems, with all due respect to the investigator, is that basically he has no personal knowledge of what the violation was on September 5th, 2007 when it was first observed. It would be a different story if they had photographs of the garage as living space which were dated September 5th, 2007, or could be introduced as business records at this time to give us an indication that the garage was actually converted to living space. Additionally, there's no testimony that there is personal knowledge or other evidence to indicate that during that period of time that the violation actually existed, that the garage was living space. So I find it hard to find that based upon this statement of violation that the county has submitted sufficient proof to this board to find that a violation did occur on September 5th, 2007, or when the owner was originally given notice on September 6th, 2007, or that basically the date by which the violation was to be corrected, by September 20th, 2007. In regard to the other aspects of the testimony by the county in regard to other areas, I just note that they are outside the scope of the violation. And we're restricted by what the violation notice pertains to, which is conversion of garage to living space. So I'd find that basically no violation existed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, let me ask: These pictures are showing the utility room as in B-1, B-2. Is this the garage -- MR. FERGUSON : Yes. Page 79 October 31, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- do you know? MR. GOMEZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That is the garage. MR. GOMEZ: Yes, sir. MR. LARSEN: Is it a separate utility room or is it actually the garage itself? MR. GOMEZ: It's the garage itself which he divided. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So these pictures are of the garage area that's been enclosed? MR. GOMEZ: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: As of yesterday, do you consider a violation there still exists or has gone? MR. GOMEZ: The way we're reading it, the only way a violation still exists in the garage now is because it has not been C.O.'d by the county. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So in fact we can find that there was a violation -- MR. LARSEN: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We can find in fact that there was a violation but it has been corrected and we could have an inspection done and then he -- that the demolition permit would be a certificate of completion, I guess. MR. GOMEZ: Yes, sir. MR. LARSEN: But did I misunderstand your testimony? Did you take these photographs? MR. GOMEZ: No, sir, I did not. MR. LARSEN: Okay. And when you went out, did this condition exist? MR. GOMEZ: No, sir. When I went out, the condition -- it would be picture C-l. MR. LARSEN: But these B photographs were taken back in September of 2007, correct? Page 80 October 31, 2008 MR. GOMEZ: That's correct. MR. LARSEN: And you didn't take these photographs. MR. GOMEZ: No, sir. MR. LARSEN: And you don't know when they were taken and what they were taken of. MR. GOMEZ: All I can tell you, that they were taken on the date signifying on each photograph. MR. LARSEN: All right. You have no other knowledge ofthese photographs? MR. GOMEZ: No, sir. MR. LARSEN: Or the condition of the garage back m September of 2007. MR. GOMEZ: No, sir. MR. LARSEN: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But we had the respondent just state that these pictures are in fact the garage by his own admission. So we can actually find that in fact there was a violation, but the violation has been corrected. We've done that before where -- MR. LARSEN : Well, I just disagree. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is it necessary to rule that there is a violation? Because when we're presented the case and the evidence we see today, the most current evidence dated 2008, there's not a violation. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes, we have found in prior cases that respondents have corrected situations before coming in front of us. And in doing so, we rule that in fact there has been a violation found. And then with that violation found, obviously there would be no fine or anything, but in finding of in fact that there's been a violation, if they would come in front of us again, the fines would be substantially much harsher. MR. KELLY: Investigator Gomez? Page 81 October 31, 2008 MR. GOMEZ: Yes, sir. MR. KELL Y: The demolition permit that has been pulled by the respondent, does it specify whether it's the garage or the lanai area? MR. GOMEZ: Give me one second, please. MR. KELLY: The reason why I'm asking is because if we find that a violation did exist and that all that's left is to C.O. this demo permit, maybe the demo permit's linked to both issues and that might be outside of what we can rule on. MR. GOMEZ: Okay, the permit is marked R addition and alterations. MR. LARSEN: R meaning remove? MR. KAUFMAN: No scope of where? MR. GOMEZ: No, sir. MR. KELLY: No diagram to go with it? MR. GOMEZ: No, sir. MR. FERGUSON: Can I say something, please? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Hold on a second. MR. GOMEZ: Yes, according to the CD Plus records, it's to restore garage and lanai. MR. LARSEN: It kind of complicates things. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yeah, it does. Because we're only here for the garage, not the -- MR. KELLY: If we simply find that a violation does not exist right now today, the rest of it's inconsequential. MR. LARSEN: Because we're not dealing with the lanai. MR. KELLY: And we have testimony from both that it has been restored to storage, so it does not exist today. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I just don't feel comfortable doing that, because in most times when we find -- there has been a violation, in my feeling. And if he were to convert it back to living space again, the fines would be much more substantial. And I'd rather find in fact that there is. But if that's going to complicate the second half of it -- Page 82 October 31, 2008 MR. KELL Y: And usually in those cases county comes to us with that request, that we simply hear this to enter it as a finding of fact that a violation did exist for those purposes. In this case I didn't hear anything from staff for that reason. MR. LARSEN: Right. I also think that there's still a failure of proof. There was a change of investigator and, you know, usually we have the initial investigator come and testify this was what the condition was when the violation was issued. MR. KELLY: Not to mention there's going to be a whole nother case on the lanai. MR. LARSEN: Right. MR. KELLY: And we'll have to go through all this again. MR. LARSEN: And the lanai is the issue. I mean -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other ideas or views from the board? MR. LARSEN: Well, I make a motion that a violation does not exist. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KELLY: Second. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. The case has been dismissed. MR. KELLY: Mr. Gomez, do you know if there's anything else pending against the property? MR. GOMEZ: No, at this moment there is not. Page 83 ._""'~N'~"'__'_'_~'~"_~~"_""'_~_____~' October 31, 2008 MS. RAWSON: You said all in favor, so you should say all opposed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. RAWSON: Because I'm not sure it was unanimous. MR. KELL Y: Was there anyone opposed to that last vote? THE COURT REPORTER: Well, he didn't ask, that's why-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Were there any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I thought I heard all that were in favor. We're going to move on to old business. Motion for imposition of fines and liens. BCC versus Auto Village of Naples. MS. WALDRON: For the record for this case, this case was heard by public petition at the BCC on October 28th, and the BCC is requesting that we push this imposition of fines hearing out six months to give them more time. MR. KELLY: I'm not going to argue with the boss. MR. LARSEN: Yeah, I make a motion that we push this out for hearing for a period of 180 days. MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion. MR. MORAD: Can I say something? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yeah. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. MORAD: For the record, Senior Investigator Ed Morad. The order has been satisfied. She's gotten her certificate of occupancy, inspections and permits. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So the violation's been taken care of? MR. MORAD: Abated, yes, sir. MR. DEAN: So what had not complied is now complied is what you just said? MR. MORAD: That's correct. Page 84 October 31, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So we don't need to move this out for six months; is that correct? MR. MORAD: I don't -- MR. LARSEN: Ms. Waldron? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Jean? MS. FLAGG: It would be better to let the respondent speak. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. HALL: My name is Holly Day Hall. This is my third time in front of you guys. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes, you look familiar. MS. HALL: So third time is a charm? Because I am not going to cry today. Everything's good. I went to the commissioners, and they agreed that some of these things we had to do were ridiculous. So I got our T.C.O. and the C.O. and we still have the stipulation to do a few small things that have nothing to do with safety or health. And I don't know what you're going to do about the fines, but we are completely broke. We used both our IRA's and every bit of our equity in our home. And I have some photos, if you're interested in seeing them. So I request that the fines be abated and I invite all of you to come out to Auto Village and see the most beautiful salvage yard in Naples. MR. KELLY: I make a motion, given the fact that it was an original stipulated agreement that was voluntarily entered into by the respondent, that the violations have been abated and that the operational costs have been paid, that we abate the fine of$114,400. MR. LARSEN: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 85 October 31, 2008 MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No nays. Motion passes. MS. HALL: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Have a great day. MS. HALL: Come see me. MR. KELL Y: Happy halloween. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next case will be BCC versus Dagoberto and Maria Saldana. Is the respondent here? (No response.) (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. KELLY: So this is only for op. costs? MR. MUSCA: Yes, sir. MR. KELLY: Seeing that there's no respondent, I make a motion in CEB Case CESD2008000885 that we impose the lien for $279.33 for unpaid operational costs. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: With no nays, the motion passes. Page 86 October 31, 2008 MR. MUSCA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next case, BCC versus John and Lisa Meszaros. Is the respondent here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I don't see anyone in the audience so he or she is not here. MR. LARSEN: Ms. Rawson, before we have this witness sworn in, is it necessary to reswear the investigators each time they come up to testify during the same day? MS. RAWSON: I think it is, because each one of them is a different case. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. DEAN: I asked that a year and a half ago. MS. WALDRON: Do you guys want me to read through the details, or -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I don't think you have to. MS. WALDRON: You didn't have it last time, so -- MR. KELL Y: Only because I jumped in and read the case number. But we should at least have the case number entered into the record. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead and read the-- MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to Code Enforcement Case No. 2007110853. And for the record, the respondent is not present. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. MR. KELLY: Investigator, when's the last time you were out there? And do you know if it is in compliance now? MR. PAUL: It's not in compliance. I was out there about two weeks ago. They vacated this horme. They're not there anymore. And any numbers I had from there are all disconnected. And the property has not been foreclosed on. It's in lis pendens Page 87 October 31, 2008 status, so I don't know where they're at. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. LARSEN: I move to impose the lien. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: With no nays, motion passes. MS. WALDRON: Jean, do we have to specify what the lien amount is -- MS. RAWSON: We do. And-- MS. WALDRON: -- on the record? MS. RAWSON: -- I think that there's an addition mistake on the recommendation. 600 and 302.69 is 902.69, I think, not 4,000. MR. LARSEN: Good thing we didn't specify it then. Because I'm going to amend my motion to indicate that the recommendation is to impose a lien. The motion is to impose a lien, fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period between September 20th, 2008 and September 22nd, total of three days, for a total of $600. Fines continue to accrue thereafter. And operational costs of $302.69. So I amend my motion for the imposition ofa lien in the amount of$902.69. MR. KELLY: I amend my second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And do I hear a vote? MR. KELLY: All in favor. Page 88 October 31, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion is approved. MR. DEAN: Can I ask one question? When you have to change the numbers, you have to vote out that first motion, don't you, and then we vote in a new motion? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Probably not as long as you say this is an amendment to -- MR. DEAN: As long as we did it real quick it was okay? MS. RAWSON: Well, you know, the first motion probably was an incomplete motion because you didn't mention the amount of the fine and the costs, or the total for the lien. And so it would be hard for me to write an order unless I had some numbers. So the second motion -- maybe the first one was just out of order. The second motion was fine, because at least now I have numbers that I can put in my order. MR. DEAN: I agree then. I thought the first time around you had the -- that's good, thank you. MS. RAWSON: Yeah. I mean, I know it's late and we all want to go trick or treating, but be sure you give me enough stuff on the record so my orders make sense. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. KELLY: If it pleases the board, I had a chance to discuss at the break with staff about my objection to the consent agenda, and that's been rectified, so I do not need to discuss anything. Page 89 October 31, 2008 I'd like to go ahead and make a motion that we approve the liens and the fines to go forward to the county attorney's office for foreclosure. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion is approved. MR. DEAN: You're a good PR man, Mr. Kelly. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any new business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any reports, comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next meeting is November 20th, 2008. MR. KELLY: Is that here or BCC? MS. WALDRON: It will be here. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Here again? MS. WALDRON: Yes. MR. KELLY: This is our new home? MR. DEAN: I want to say thank you for the coffee there. That was very mce. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And I'd like to take a vote to adjourn, ifthere's -- MR. DEAN: Motion to adjourn. Page 90 October 31, 2008 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- nothing else. Do I hear a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And certainly there's no nays. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :45 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 91 .-~,~--------_.,",--"~--_..--