Loading...
CEB Minutes 01/22/2009 R January 22,2009 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida January 22, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Gerald Lefebvre Larry Dean Kenneth Kelly Edward Larsen Richard Kraenbring Lionel L'Esperance George Ponte Robert Kaufman James Lavinski ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Code Enforcement Board Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director Jen Waldron, Code Enforcement Specialist Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA AGENDA Date: January 22nd, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. Location: Collier County Government Center, Third Floor, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Building F, Naples, FI 34112. NOTICE: THE RESPONDENT MAYBE LIMITIED TO TWENTY (20) MINUTES FOR CASE PRESENTATION UNLESS ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE BOARD. PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. ALL PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN THE PUBLIC HEARING ARE ASKED TO OBSERVE ROBERTS RULES OF ODER AND SPEAK ONE AT A TIME SO THAT THE COURT REPORTER CAN RECORD ALL STATEMENTS BEING MADE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF 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, WmCH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 20th, 2008 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. MOTIONS Motion for Extension of Time 1. BCC vs. Caribe Investments of Naples, Inc. 2. BCC vs. Bart & Sandi Chernoff 3. BCC vs Ahmet Melissa Celik CEB NO. 2007090454 CEB NO. 2006030500 CEB NO. 2007110592 B. STIPULATIONS C. HEARINGS 1. BCC vs. Milano Recreation Association, Inc. 2. BCC vs. Brian and Dara Gorman 3. BCC vs. Katia Sanchez 4. BCC VS. James Patrick & Laura S. Guerrero 5. BCC VS. Ibran Turcios 6. BCC VS. Kenneth J. Blocker Sr. & Kenneth 1. Blocker Jr. CEB NO. CESD20080010230 CEB NO. CESD20080008567 CEB NO. CESD20080007967 CEB NO. CESD20080008804 CEB NO. CESD20080011952 CEB NO. CESD20070000587 5. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of FineslLiens 1. BCC VS. Juan Hernandez & Adrianna Garcia 2. BCC VS. Jean Claude Martel 3. BCC VS. Vanderbilt Devco, LLC. 4. BCC VS. Tereso Bautista & Emiliana Vasquez 5. BCC VS. William & Laura Mara 6. BCC vs. J. Peaceful, L.C. CEB NO. 2006081209 CEB NO. 2007080353 CEB NO. 2006070496 CEB NO. 2006100651 CEB NO. CESD20080004753 CEB NO. 2007060387 B. Motion for Reduction/Abatement of FineslLiens 1. BCC vs. Jamie Lam, Don Lee CEB NO. 2006031099 6. NEW BUSINESS 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Motion for Imposition of FineslLiens B. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office 1. BCC vs. Jeffrey Macasevich 2. BCC vs. 6240 Collier Group, Inc. CEB NO. 2006100314 CEB NO. 2007080153 8. REPORTS 9. COMMENTS 10. NEXT MEETING DATE - February 26th, 2009 11. ADJOURN January 22, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board meeting to order. I'd like to call the meeting to order. January 22nd, 2009. Notice, the respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation, unless additional time is granted by the board. Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes, unless the time is adjusted by the chairman. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Roberts Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and, therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. And if you would introduce the new member, please. MS. WALDRON: Sure. We've got-- MS. FLAGG: Mr. James Lavinski has joined the Code Enforcement Board. MR. LEFEBVRE: Congratulations. MR. LA VINSKI: Thank you. MR. KAUFMAN: Welcome. MR. LARSEN: Welcome. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And on that, we have one member that this is his last meeting. George Ponte decided to retire from the board after roughly 12 years being on the board. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Now can I have roll call. MS. WALDRON: Good morning. Mr. Ed Larsen? Page 2 January 22, 2009 MR. LARSEN: Present. MS. WALDRON: Mr. George Ponte? MR. PONTE: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Ken Kelly? MR. KELLY: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Larry Dean? MR. DEAN: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Richard Kraenbring? MR. KRAENBRING: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Robert Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Here. MS. WALDRON: And Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LA VINSKI: Here. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Before we approve the agenda, we're going to have some changes. So if you can go through the changes slowly, please, so -- MS. WALDRON: Sure. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- the board members can make their changes. MS. WALDRON: Sure. Under number four, public hearings/motions, we will be moving Item No. 5.A.2, BCC versus John Claude Martel, Case No. 2007080353 for imposition of fines. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'm sorry, that's being moved to where? MS. WALDRON: It's being moved right in front of motions, number four. The first item. Under 4.A, motions, we have two motions for continuance. The first motion will be Milano Recreation Association, Inc., Case CESD20080010230. Page 3 January 22, 2009 And the second motion for continuance will be Item C.2 under hearings, BCC versus Brian and Dara Gorman, Case No. CESD20080008567. MR. KRAENBRING: That will be moved to motion for extension of time? MS. WALDRON: Motion for continuance. MR. KRAENBRING: Continuance, okay, thank you. MS. WALDRON: And we also have an addition to the agenda, which is a motion to amend the order. This is BCC versus Empire Developers Group, Case No. CESD20080007919. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And is that it for the changes? MS. WALDRON: And we also have two stipulations. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. You stuck those in on me. MS. WALDRON: I did. I just got them. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, go ahead. MS. WALDRON: The first stipulation will be Item C.6, BCC versus Kenneth J. Blocker, Sr. and Kenneth 1. Blocker, Jr. Case CESD20070000587. And the second stipulation will be Item C.3, BCC versus Katia Sanchez. Case CESD20080007967. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And is that it for the changes? MS. WALDRON: I hope so. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We should have just started anew. Do I hear a motion? MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion to approve the changes in the agenda. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And may I have a vote. All those in favor? Page 4 January 22, 2009 MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Approval of minutes from January 20th, 2008. Do I hear a motion? MR. DEAN: I'll make a motion to approve the minutes, November 20th, 2008. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. We're going to start off with public hearing/motions/imposition of fines. And it will be Claude Martel. (Speakers were duly sworn.) Page 5 January 22, 2009 MS. WALDRON: This is, in reference to Code Enforcement Board Case No. 2007080353. F or the record, the respondent is present. On January 24th, 2008, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. And that order is attached for your review. The respondent was found in violation, and the respondent has not complied with the board's orders from January 24th, 2008. At this time, the county is recommending imposing a lien for the fine at a rate of$200 per day for the period between May 24th, 2008 to January 22nd, 2009, for a total of244 days in the amount of $48,800. Operational costs of 265.34 have not been paid. The total requested lien amount is $49,065.34. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: When's the last time you've been out there to look at the property? MR. KEEGAN: I'm out there pretty much every other day. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Every other day, okay. And has any progress been made? MR. KEEGAN: None at all. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Martel? MR. MARTEL: Yeah, I've did demolition. And I only got two over here where I did my homestead, 3190, and 3176. And I'm demolishing 3152. And I have five (phonetic) property cleared off over there. MR. KEEGAN: He's talking about properties that have been demoed by the county by orders of the special magistrate. He's talking about other cases, other properties. 3190, which is the case we have imposition of fines today, nothing -- as I said, nothing has been done, no attempt has been made. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And there's been no permits or anything pulled on this property? Page 6 January 22, 2009 MR. KEEGAN: No, sir. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Martel, could you speak more directly into the microphone, please? Maybe pull the microphone toward you closer. MR. MARTEL: I looked for -- what do you call that anyway? The building is already built over there for 35 or 40 years ago. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, that's not what we're questioning today. We're just asking you if any work's been done. If it hasn't, which according to the testimony of the investigator it has not been done, we don't have much choice but to impose the fines. MR. MARTEL: Well, I ain't got no money, I'll tell you that right now. I ain't got no income. And the county, they steal my property, two of my property. And I'm fed up with this bullshit. You know what I'm talking about? I got up to here, man -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right, sir. I'm going to close the public hearing at this point. Any questions of the board? (No response.) MR. KRAENBRING: Is this a homesteaded property? MR. KEEGAN: Yes, sir. I'm sorry. MR. LARSEN: What is the unpermitted development? MR. KEEGAN: It's village residential, the property. And what was permitted was a single-wide mobile home. Another unpermitted mobile home was attached. Cement structure in the rear, a wooden structure on the side, and another wooden structure on the other side of the property was all built without permits, inspections, everything. And what it is, if I may, if I could get into it, there is some new members of the board. No? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No. Page 7 January 22, 2009 MR. KEEGAN: No problem. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yeah, we're not hearing the case, so MR. KEEGAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We just wanted to know your testimony if any work has been done on the property. Any other questions of the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion that we impose the fines. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. KEEGAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're all set, Mr. Martel. MR. MARTEL: What? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We are all set with you. We imposed the fines. MR. MARTEL: I don't want that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: There's nothing that you can do about it, except for clean up your property and then come in front of . us agaIn. Page 8 January 22, 2009 MR. MARTEL: The county did clean it up. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: According to testimony of the investigator, it was another property that was cleaned up, not this one. So we're all set. MR. MARTEL: How much the fine here? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The fine total is $49,265.34. MR. MARTEL: We're going to have a war, I guess. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. MARTEL: It's the crookest (sic) son of a bitch I ever seen in my life. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're going to move on. We're going to move on to motions for continuance. And next one will be Milano Recreation Association, Inc. MR. ADAMCZYK: Good morning, Board. Mark Adamczyk, attorney for the Milano Association, present. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is the investigator here? Ifwe could have them sworn in, please. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: For the record, Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney, with Ed Morad, the investigator. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. If you could swear him in, please. You won't need to be sworn in as the attorney. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. MR. ADAMCZYK: Board, good morning. On or about December 12th, 2008, we -- Milano, the president and myself as registered agent, was served with an amended notice of violation, demanding compliance by January 12th, 2009. We responded with some defensive motions which were filed timely and should be in your defense packet. Subsequent to that, leading up to today's hearing, I had a Page 9 January 22, 2009 discussion with Assistant County Attorney Jeff Wright regarding a continuance and a stipulation on the continuance, based mainly on the fact that his witnesses could not be present today and needed subpoenas, as do mine. And I think Attorney Student that's covering for Mr. Wright will be echoing that. And at this point we would move for a continuance to March, only -- the reason why we need until March, a minimum of 60 days, is there is a concurrent lawsuit filed by the private complainant, Imperial Golf Estates, regarding this matter, seeking access over our client's property. Which is set for trial February 25 through 27th. I understand the next available hearing would be February 26th. Counsel, including myself, will be unavailable, we'll be across the street at the courthouse at that time on a trial set by Judge Murphy. So we would at the minimum request a 60-day continuance. And I understand that there's no objection to the continuance. The only discussion may be on when it would be continued to. I have a motion to dismiss that I filed concurrently with my motion to continue this morning, which I have agreed to defer until the next Code Enforcement Board date in recognition of the fact that Mr. Wright is not here today. And we would request to argue that motion as a preliminary matter to any evidentiary hearing at the next set date. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: For the record, again, Marjorie Student-Stirling. Yes, the county concurs on the motion to continue for the reasons put on the record by the attorney for Milano. And also, it's my understanding from Mr. Wright that the motion to dismiss at this juncture should be withdrawn without prejudice so you could refile it later. That is what I have in an e-mail from Mr. Wright. So if you would amend yours to withdraw that motion with leave to file it at a later time, I think that's in keeping with my understanding from Mr. Wright. Page 10 January 22, 2009 MR. ADAMCZYK: Yeah. In the phone call, I agreed to defer hearing on the motion. I don't see any material difference in withdrawing it and refiling before the next hearing, and -- if that's what his notes are. And we're not -- I don't think there's an argument over that. We will be refiling it so that the board can hear it at a later time. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Just for my personal knowledge, usually when a court date is set or a trial date is set, is that pretty hard and fast? I don't want to see you come back here in March and say I need continuance again. MR. ADAMCZYK: Well, I understand, sir. And as of now, the trial date is set, unless the judge finds a reason to continue the trial. I don't -- I'm not aware of any conflicts that counselor the client has in March. There's nothing we can do to -- pertaining to the judge's decision. But right now there's an order setting the trial for February 25th, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good. Any other testimony? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: None other. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Any comments? MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that we grant the continuance till March. MS. RAWSON: March 26th. MR. KRAENBRING: March 26th. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. Page 11 January 22, 2009 MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ADAMCZYK: I'm sorry, one additional matter. Were you going to be requesting the issuance of a subpoena for a witness? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Oh, yes. The county was going to be requesting that, and I understand -- I believe Ms. Waldron has it for signature by the chairman. MR. ADAMCZYK: At this point, the Milano Recreation Association would request, we need subpoenas for two witnesses to appear at the next code hearing. Mr. Joseph Schmitt, who's the administrator of the CDES, and Mr. Wayne Arnold with Q. Grady Minor & Associates. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Do we need to make a motion to -- Jean? MS. RAWSON: You have to issue the subpoenas. I don't know if you have to vote on it, because I think it's sort of automatic. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. RAWSON: You know, I guess it's just between me and Ms. Student, who's prepared it. If you've got it prepared, Gerald, you need to sign it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. I'll go ahead -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: There's one prepared, so may I approach? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sure. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: If I may. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And just for the record, since we have a full board the two alternates would be able to be involved in Page 12 January 22, 2009 discussions but not in any vote. That would be Mr. Kaufman, if I'm not mistaken. You're an alternate, correct? MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And Mr. Lavinski. MR. ADAMCZYK: Chairman, if I may? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes, sir. MR. ADAMCZYK: It's my understanding I needed to request the subpoena and have that request granted. I would need to prepare the subpoenas and submit them for the Chairman's signature. Is there a -- can I do that through the mail ? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Actually, I go to Ms. Rawson's office usually on Monday or Tuesdays when all the orders are prepared. At that point I can sign at that same time, if that's okay. MS. RAWSON: You know what I'm going to do is I'm going to give him my e-mail address. He can e-mail me over the subpoena. If you'll put it for Mr. Lefebvre's signature, we will do it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. MR. ADAMCZYK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You're welcome. Thank you very much. The next one, next continuance or asking for continuance will be Brian and Dara Gorman. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. WHITE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Patrick White, the law firm of Porter, Wright, Morris and Arthur, representing Brian and Dara Gorman. I apologize for not having enough information early enough in time to know to file the request within the 15 days, but I did have it to staff day before yesterday, I believe. I appreciate your indulgence in considering it this morning and moving it up onto the agenda for consideration. The factual circumstance we found ourselves in in our efforts to Page 13 January 22, 2009 work to abate this violation were such that I did not have the next needed piece of information from the Department of Environmental Protection until inside the 15-day window. So I had the choice between spending my client's money to prepare and file a motion timely or trying to continue to work to actually abate the violation before the hearing date so we could appear today and have the matter disposed of. Although I did get the information from the DEP, that next step is to talk with the county staff. I attempted to do that Tuesday morning. The individual I needed to speak with didn't return to work until today. So we're in a position where I believe we're very close to resolving the somewhat complex factual issues of ownership and getting ourselves in a position to be able to have a permit issued in order to abate the violation. But I feel we need a little more time in order to be able to do that. And I request your indulgence today and the request for a continuance. If there's any questions, I'd be happy to try and address them. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: How many days for a continuance? MR. WHITE: I would say until your next meeting should be plenty. MR. DEAN: Just a quick question. Is the boat dock and lift in operation? MR. WHITE: I do not know, sir. I would assume that it is, but this time of year it's tough to say. The water's been very, very low. MR. MUSSE: It appears to be operational, but I didn't actually see them run it. They had the boats on there. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What is the county's opinion? MR. MUSSE: No objection to the continuance. MR. WHITE: I'd indicate for the record that the Assistant County Attorney has agreed, no objection. Page 14 January 22, 2009 MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. For the record, Marjorie Student-Stirling, County Attorney's Office, is in agreement. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions of the board? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion that we allow the continuance. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Till? MR. KRAENBRING: The next meeting. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I have a second? MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. WHITE: Thank you, Board. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: See you next month. MS. RAWSON: February 26th. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: One other thing -- hold on a second. Do we -- are we going to notice him or is this his notice? MR. WHITE: We'll waive notice. February 26th, I believe. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MR. WHITE: Thank you. Page 15 January 22, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. All right. We're going to move on to motion for extension of time. Caribe Investments of Naples, Inc. (Speakers were duly sworn). CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: State your name, please. MR. ARCE: Yes, my name is Efrain Arce. I'm with Caribe Investments of Naples. I have requested an extension. But as far as we're concerned, I have pictures here that the job has been completed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Would you like to enter that as evidence? MR. ARCE: Yes. Yeah, the walls are finished and they're painted and the labels. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You do understand that we will keep those as evidence -- MR. ARCE: Sure. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- and those will not be returned to you. MR. ARCE: Yeah, no problem. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion to accept -- MR. DEAN: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN 'LEFEBVRE: -- package A or Exhibit A? Second? MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. Page 16 January 22, 2009 MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. If you'd like maybe to explain the pictures? MR. ARCE: Oh, that was because of the final inspection, it was passed, subject on getting the labels put up. And then afterwards they put up the labels stating that the -- you know, the information on the walls. That's picture number one. That's one of the walls that's been painted on one side. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I can't distinguish what that is. MR. ARCE: No, you can't. See, that's the left wall. It's to have the roof -- I mean, the ceiling has to be painted, put in there. That's the other wall. That's the other side of the wall. That's also same wall, looking the other way. And that's including the attic that usually you don't paint the attic, you paint from the -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right, from the drop ceiling down. MR. ARCE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. Okay, has there been substantial work completed since he was in front of us? MR. LETOURNEAU: They've done quite a bit of work. The only thing they need to do now is get the C.O. on the permit and he'll be done. For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement Supervisor. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. And how long before you think you will be done with this? MR. ARCE: The holdup now is the -- they asked to revise a bathroom with handicap. I was there last week at the county and we're Page 1 7 January 22, 2009 having problems with the builder over the contractor. And the permit's still there. Hasn't been picked up yet. You know, the wall was finished, and this was something that just came up. And we're going to be working on it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: How much time would you need for continuance? MR. ARCE: Well, I have the business owner, he's the one that -- usually when we lease a unit, we ask the tenant to make sure that they pull the permits and, you know, any addition. And he's been dealing with the contractor. But I don't know if he -- his license is active or -- MR. LETOURNEAU: I checked yesterday the permit, and it came up as the main contractor's certificate is not active. I called the contractors licensing and what they did is he had -- he hasn't submitted any recent paperwork for his Workmen's Comp., so the permit has his inspections on hold until he comes forth with that paperwork. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Or the other option would be to get another contractor, correct? MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. MR. ARCE: We tried to do that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: How much time would you be looking for as a continuance -- or not a continuance but more time, I guess. MR. ARCE: It's hard to say. You know, if we'd done -- I mean, I know that this fellow -- that this contractor told him that he was going to file a lien if we didn't pay him. One of the reason that it's been delayed, he wanted to get paid up front. And, you know, the permit's still there and he wants to get paid up front. And I guess it's not the way of doing business. You know, I have no idea how long it will take for us to go ahead and cancel this guy out if he doesn't file a lien against our property . CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I've asked several times and the Page 18 January 22, 2009 question I'll ask once again is how much time will you need before you'll be complete? That's how we're going to base our decision. MR. ARCE: Two months? He say around two months. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sixty days. MR. ARCE: Sixty days. Is that what you need? Yeah. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Any questions of the board? MR. KELLY: A comment, perhaps. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. MR. KELLY: Seeing as how if the board graciously decides to grant this extension, it will be the third. And I would just like to say to the respondent, I understand your circumstances and I appreciate explaining them to us, because it does help us in understanding what you're going through. But being as this might be the third extension, the board might not be as lenient next time. So make sure that it's done in 60 days. MR. ARCE: Oh, we're going to do our best. MR. KELLY: Sorry you had to go through that with the contractor, though. It's a horrible situation to be in. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I mean, the other thing is just to leave the fines running and then let him come back in front of us when everything's completed. MR. KELLY: Have they been imposed? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Not yet. MS. RAWSON: No. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I don't think they have. Comments from the board? Thoughts on the board? MR. KRAENBRING: Do we have any health or safety issues involved with this work not being completed? MR. LETOURNEAU: I don't believe so. I believe the work is up to standards, so there's -- you know, it's just as good as any other walls in there as far as the fire goes. It's just that he just needs to get his Page 19 January 22, 2009 bathroom in order and get his final C.O. So I don't think it's a safety issue right now. MR. KRAENBRING: I would echo Mr. Kelly's comments that we will not be as lenient next time if there's no health or safety issues. And it seems like he's stuck with a contractor that's not performing. I'll make a motion that we grant the 60 days. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Again, you will have 60 days. And if it is not completed, I doubt very much that this board is going to look favorably upon that. MR. ARCE: All right, thank you. MR. KELLY: May I make a comment in the respondent's behalf? Sir, you can challenge a lien that's filed against your property. And furthermore, you as the owner have the right to cancel that permit. You will have to get a contractor to pull a new one, because it's a commercial property, but I wouldn't just allow a lien to sit against your property. It will hurt your chances to refinance or perhaps do something in the future. Page 20 January 22, 2009 MR. ARCE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next case will be BCC versus Bart and Sandi Chernoff. MS. McALLISTER: Good morning. Colleen McAllister for Bart and Sandi Chernoff. After all this discussion about court dates and leniency, I am back once more. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If I can hold you off for a second. I'd like to have the investigator and the respondent sworn in. I don't know ifhe's going to speak, but -- (All speakers were duly sworn.) MS. McALLISTER: When I was here last time, we had a backup trial date for this matter. We had already told the board that Mr. Chernoff is without the financial resources to complete the required demolition without the court judgment in the case, and that the case was set for backup trial on December 8 and 9. It actually was set for trial on December 7th, and we were good to go. And Mr. Daniels, who's the defendant in this case, obtained counsel on December 2nd, and moved for a continuance so that his counsel could get up to speed. We objected to the continuance, but the judge quite frankly was between a rock and a due process hard spot there and granted the continuance, understanding that we were under the gun with code enforcement. She reset the trial for January 8 and 9, and I was already on a Lee County trial docket during the two-week period that included January 8 and 9. I waited until December 31 st, after my pretrial in Lee County, to see where I was on their two-week trial docket, and by December 31 st, we had determined between the judicial assistant in Lee County and myself that on January the 8th I would need to be two people in two places at the same time. And so I was forced to ask the court for a Page 21 January 22, 2009 continuance, because I was already in trial, which took precedence over the continuation and scheduling of this trial. The court made it clear -- I do have an order here from the court showing the trial date, which is set for February 19th at 9:30 a.m. That is not a backup date, that is a date certain. If we can -- I didn't receive this until after I submitted the packet, so -- or the motion. If you want to see it -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Would you like to enter that as Exhibit A? MS. McALLISTER: Sure. MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion to accept. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. McALLISTER: So we are set for date certain trial, February 19th. With the acquisition of counsel by the defendant we have also truly tried to resolve this and may yet settle before February 19th. The Defendants have indicated a willingness to try and settle. We met informally last week, all parties, and are continuing to try and settle. If not, we will go to trial on February 19th and a judgment will be rendered. It's a one-day trial, nonjury. So pretty much it's going to be done at the end of the day on February 19th, unless the court reserves for a day or two. So I would ask the court (sic) at this point -- given that the order that was rendered by the board was that Mr. Chernoff had to actually Page 22 January 22, 2009 do the demolition by the deadline date -- if we have a February 19th decision and resolution, then hopefully we can get the demo done by March whatever your next -- March 25th or 26th, whatever that next date is and be able to come in and tell you it's been resolved. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions of the board? MR. KELLY: Just refreshing the memory. Is this the pole barn that -- MS. McALLISTER: Yes. MR. KELLY: -- was an encroachment issue, changed into an apartment for your mother and no longer in use. MS. McALLISTER: Right. MR. KELLY: So there's no more safety issues. MR. CHERNOFF: Correct. MS. McALLISTER: No. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Glad you can remember the cases so well. MS. McALLISTER: I've been here a few times. MR. KRAENBRING: We have heard this case a few times. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes, we have. Is there any ob -- MS. McALLISTER: And I do apologize for that. As I say, we were -- this was not Mr. Chernoffs or my doing that we didn't go in December. We were ready. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any objection by the county? MR. MORAD: For the record, Senior Code Enforcement Investigator Ed Morad. Just as a reminder, as the case has been going on for three years, it was a complaint called in from a concerned individual who I still have to stay in contact with after each hearing. And they had some legitimate questions that I couldn't answer that only the respondent could answer, if I'm allowed to ask those questions. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, do they pertain to the Page 23 January 22, 2009 continuance? MR. MORAD: Yes, it does. I believe it does. I mean, one of the concerns is if -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Oh, we haven't -- Jean? MS. RAWSON: Well, this is not an evidentiary hearing. What I would probably suggest, Mr. Morad, is that you talk to Mr. Chernoff and counsel after the board rules on the continuance, and maybe you can get the questions answered and the concerns answered so that you can deal with the neighbors. MR. MORAD: Okay. MS. McALLISTER: I would point out to the board that the concerned neighbor is on the witness list for trial, so I would be reluctant to have a discussion about things that were going back to him with a pending trial before us. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman, if I may. Ms. McAllister, you don't specifically ask for a specific period of time in your application. Is 60 days sufficient for you to wrap up whatever proceedings you may have before Judge Ellis? MS. McALLISTER: I think so. At the time I wrote the motion, I still thought we were on a January -- we were on January trial docket, because I still thought I was going to be in the second week of the Lee County docket. So I left that blank because I still was up in the air. But 60 days, given that we have a February 19th trial date, should be sufficient. MR. LARSEN: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions? MR. KRAENBRING: Just a comment. You know, we've heard this case a number of times, and it really just seems like it's a matter between the previous owner and, you know, the respondent. And it's just wrapped up in the courts. So I really don't think we have much of a choice except to grant the continuance, hope that it works out. I don't think we have any public safety issues here, it's a private Page 24 January 22, 2009 residence, so I would make a motion that we grant the continuance till March 26th. MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion. MR. KELLY: I have a comment before we vote. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. MR. KELLY: If all goes well and they do get the judgment, there's still the matter of actually collecting on the judgment and getting the funds in order to do the demolition work, finding the contractor and so forth, getting permits, having those permits C.O.'d before they do finally come into compliance with the original order. I think that March might not be enough time and we might see them . agaIn. MS. RAWSON: If I might, this is a motion for extension of time, not a motion to continue. So probably just need to give time, 60 days, 90 days, whatever you decide. And it doesn't necessarily have to be back on the docket unless Jennifer puts it back there. So this is a motion for an extension of time to comply with the board's order, rather than a motion to continue. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. KELLY: Just also to add one last thing. They do seem to be working diligently, and they have kept us step by step in the loop as to what was going on. So I don't think, since there's no safety or any safety violation, I don't think there's an issue with the granting -- actually, six months to give them plenty of time to get this taken care of. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I think we have a first and a second for two months, so -- for 60 days. All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. Page 25 January 22, 2009 MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? MR. KELLY: Nay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: One nay. Motion passes. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next motion for extension of time will be BCC versus Ahmet and Melissa Celik. I'm not sure I said that correctly. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you could please state your name for the record. MS. CELIK: I'm Melissa Celik. MR. CELIK: Ahmet Celik. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. And you're looking for an extension of time? MS. CELIK: Yes, we are. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you explain the reasoning? MS. CELIK: My husband's self-employed. I just lost my job and got another job. We have a three-year-old daughter. We're unable to make our mortgage payment. We're doing everything we can just to keep food on the table. We're trying to work with the mortgage company now to hopefully, you know, not become one of the statistics. But not that we don't find this extremely important and we want to be in compliance, but we feel that we have other priorities right now that are limhing us to be able to purchase the trees right now. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And in the letter that you wrote back on January 7th, you're looking for a one-year extension? MS. CELIK: Yes, please. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any comments? MS. O'FARRELL: The county is not opposed to this request. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And I'm not sure if you stated your Page 26 January 22, 2009 name for the record. MS. O'FARRELL: I'm sorry. Susan O'Farrell, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. MR. KRAENBRING: We know who you are. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: There's probably a lot of people out there watching that don't. Any discussion, questions from the board? MR. KRAENBRING: I'll make a motion that we approve the extension of time. MR. LARSEN: I second it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (N 0 response.) MS. CELIK: Thank you very much. MR. CELIK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Just a word of recommendation. I don't know if this area is irrigated or not, but you might want to try to plant it during the wet season or rainy season so they will survive. MS. CELIK: Yeah. MR. CELIK: If something change before that time, I mean, I will like to do that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. I just don't want to see you come back here a year from now and tell us it's the dry season-- Page 27 January 22, 2009 MS. CELIK: Right. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- and the added expense -- MS. CELIK: I understand. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- and then you have a loss of25, 30 percent whatever amount of trees where you're going to have to replant and it's going to be an additional cost, so -- MS. CELIK: Okay. Thank you for that. MR. CELIK: Thanks, gentlemen. MR. KRAENBRING: Good luck. MR. CELIK: Thank you, Ms. O'Farrell. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, we're going to move on to motion to amend the order. And it will be BCC versus Empire Developers Group. Did I skip something? MS. WALDRON: No, I was just going to explain what we're asking for at this point. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. You had that look like I skipped something. MS. WALDRON: We're bringing this order back to you due to the fact that we left out some verbiage stating word for word that 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. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. WALDRON: That's the only change we have that we're requesting to that order. MR. LARSEN: I believe that I remember specifically that was the request at the time, and it was approved. MS. WALDRON : Well, it's not in this particular case. There was another case that was brought forth to you for Empire Developers Group as well. MR. LARSEN: Oh, okay. So this is a second -- MS. WALDRON: So the second order does have it, this order Page 28 January 22, 2009 does not. MR. LARSEN: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Has this been discussed with Mr. Slavic (phonetic) at Empire Developers Group? MS. WALDRON: Yes, I did speak with him on the phone yesterday. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And he -- MS. WALDRON: And I informed him he would get a new copy of the order once it is recorded. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. We do have a Mrs. Ebert, I think it is, in the audience. I'm not sure -- Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Would a change like this-- generally do we allow the public to speak at all or -- MS. RAWSON: The only amendment to the already issued order of this board is that if the respondent doesn't abate, that the Collier County Sheriff and the county can go in and abate. It's something we usually put in a lot of the orders, but wasn't in this one. It doesn't change the facts that you heard, nor the order that you rendered. MR. KRAENBRING: Seems to me like it's actually enforcing the order -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. KRAENBRING: -- more in favor of the complaining neighbors. I make a motion that we, you know, accept the change and the order. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. Page 29 January 22,2009 MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. WALDRON: And Mr. Chairman, we do have an additional stipulation that has come in. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. WALDRON: It will be Item C.5 under hearings, BCC versus Ibran Turcios. Case CESD200800 11952. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Do I hear a motion to amend the agenda? MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion to accept the amended -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KRAENBRING: -- agenda. MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) Page 30 January 22, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Okay, we're going to move on to stipulations. And the first stipulation will be Kenneth 1. Blocker, Sr. and Kenneth J. Blocker, Jr. (Speakers were duly sworn). CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Just give us a minute or two maybe to read the stipulated agreement. Everyone had a chance to read? MR. KRAENBRING: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And if you can state your name for the record, please. MS. GREEN: My name is Gina Green. And I'm representing-- I'm a civil engineering representing the Blockers. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You have authority to represent them? MS. GREEN: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you have the authority to sign on behalf of the Blockers? MS. GREEN: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Jean? MS. RAWSON: That's fine. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. All right, any questions from the board? (No response.) MR. KRAENBRING: No, just I'd like to hear from the county, just from the investigator, ifhe agrees with the stipulation and he's comfortable with it. MR. WALKER: Yes, sir, county is in full agreement with the stipulation that's presented to you today. MR. KRAENBRING: Do we need to read anything into the record for this? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Could you identify yourself for the record? Page 31 January 22, 2009 MR. WALKER: Yes, my name is Weldon Walker, Code Investigator, Collier County. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Jean, do you want him to read into -- MS. RAWSON: Yes, because you need to approve it but it needs to be on the record. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. WALKER: Yes, ma'am. For the record, Case No. CESD20070000587. Respondents are the Blocker, Jr., Blocker, Sr. Stipulation is as follows: Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondents shall pay operational costs in the amount of $86.71; abate all violations by: Obtaining a Collier County building permit with all inspections for the property located at 105 Main Street, Immokalee, Florida, 34142, within 180 days of the date of this hearing or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed; or obtain a Collier County demolition permit with all inspections through final C.O., or the -- for the property located at 105 Main Street, Immokalee, Florida, 34142, within 180 days of the date of this hearing or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed. If the respondents fail to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of a Collier County sheriffs officer to enforce the provision of this order. Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Twenty - four hour notice shall be by phone or fax, and made during the workweek. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday or a Sunday or a legal holiday, then a notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday or Sunday or legal holiday. The respondent -- 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 provision of this Page 32 January 22, 2009 agreement, of which the stipulation is signed and agreed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Typically, number one, when this is operational costs, we ask that the respondent pay it within 30 days. So you might want to add that in there. MR. WALKER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you can add that in there and have the respondent initial that. Do I have any discussion from the board? MR. LARSEN: I have a question of Ms. Green. MS. GREEN: Yes. MR. LARSEN: Evidently this pertains to a new use for a commercial garage? MS. GREEN: Yes. MR. LARSEN: Do you anticipate running into any problems in obtaining the permits? MS. GREEN: Well, where we're at right now on the process, I was actually brought in and had a preap. meeting last August regarding a site improvement plan for this piece of property in order for the church to be able to have the use. And we had the meeting. The problem with the site is, is that there's not enough on-site parking to support the church. I have submitted an administrative parking reduction request from the county in order to use the on-street parking for the use. We're waiting right now, and that will be the determining factor as far as whether we move forward with an SIP for the church if we get the parking reduction. You know, the church would like to stay there. They're a good tenant. You know it is tough these days to get a tenant to rent -- that pays the rent on time. But if for whatever reason I do not get the parking reduction for them, then the next course of action would be that they would either go back to the original use and put the building back to its original Page 33 January 22, 2009 state or spend that six-month time to see if we can do an SIP for a less intensive use that would still work on the space. So really, we're waiting for that administrative parking reduction. That will determine the course that we're going. And if we have to go the SIP route, we should be able to get everything within the six months and obtain the building permits needed to permit; if there's alterations that have to be made, get the necessary permits and bring them into compliance. MR. LARSEN: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions? MR. DEAN: I just had one. What was the commercial garage used for? MS. GREEN: It was an auto repair shop. MR. DEAN: Auto repair shop? Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion that we grant the stipulation. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. MR. LARSEN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) Page 34 January 22, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. WALKER: Thank you very much. MS. GREEN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next one will be Katia Sanchez. (Speakers were duly sworn.) (Interpreter Barbara Miranda was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Just going to take a minute or two to read this. Everyone all set? MR. PONTE: I just have a question. I can't read the days. How many days are involved? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: 180. MR. PONTE: 180? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MR. PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: She agrees to the stipulated agreement, Katia does? THE INTERPRETER: Yes, she does. Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you can read the order in, please -- or the stipulation in. MS. PEREZ: Good morning. For the record, Code Enforcement, Cristina Perez. This case is in reference to Case No. CESD20080007967. It's in reference to a violation of a concrete block addition to the rear of the house with windows, doors and electricity. The respondent and myself met outside and we came into agreement with the stipulation to pay the operational cost in the amount of$87.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Number two: Abate all violations by 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 Page 35 January 22, 2009 inspections and C.O. within 180 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Three: Also that the respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of this violation and request the inspector perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Twenty-four hour notice shall be by phone or fax and made during a workweek. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Sunday -- Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. F our: 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 agreement. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions? MR. PONTE: Yes, I do. What's the reason for giving the respondent over a half a year to correct this? MS. PEREZ: They had been having difficulties with the contractor that had been obtaining the blueprints. I know there was a time frame when I attempted to help Ms. Sanchez locate the gentleman. He just took the money and didn't return any of the blueprints for them. She then had to take it upon herself to go to Miami and get the information required for the material that was purchased for the addition. I know they've also been having financial difficulties obtaining the money required to complete the project. MR. PONTE: So has a new contractor been selected or retained? MS. PEREZ: She's doing it as owner/builder now. Because the gentleman, he did return the blueprints to her, but it was not com -- the information wasn't completed. MR. PONTE: Okay. Now that she's totally in charge, why would it take more than a half a year to make the correction? Page 36 January 22, 2009 MS. PEREZ: From what I -- it's still not completed. There's still work that has to be done -- MR. PONTE: Yeah. MS. PEREZ: -- to the structure. MR. PONTE: I mean, over a half year's time is very generous. How much work has to be done? MS. PEREZ: Well, they still have to submit the blueprints and see if they even approve them, if the county even approves them, and if all their information is correct. So it still has to go through the revision purpose. And it being open space, it's living space, so I know that her financial, she's going to have to probably pay some impact fees, so she's going to have financially a burden to pay on -- to obtain the permit. MR. KRAENBRING: This is not a rental property of any sort? MS. PEREZ: No. MR. KRAENBRING: It is a single-family-- MS. PEREZ: Yes. MR. KRAENBRING: -- residence? Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Kelly? MR. KELLY: Is the addition occupied at all? MS. PEREZ: No. They weren't using it. It only had a couch, a table, just like it's open space, but it's not being used as sleeping quarters. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions? (No response.) MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that we approve the stipulation. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) Page 37 January 22, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? MR. PONTE: Nay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You're all set. You have six months to complete it. MS. PEREZ: Thank you. MR. KRAENBRING: Good luck. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you need a break? THE COURT REPORTER: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Before we jump into the hearings. Okay. MR. KRAENBRING: Do we have another stipulation? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do we have another stip? Oh, yes, we do. Thank you. Ibran -- the next stipulated agreement will be Ibran Turcios. I'm sure you'll correct me. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you just give us a minute to read the stipulated agreement. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is there any way we could focus that a bit more, or is it just me? MR. PONTE: No, it's me, too. MR. KRAENBRING: Yeah, I thought my bifocals were off. MR. KELLY: It's a cell phone. MR. DEAN: It's a wake-up call. MR. KELLY: That's a cell phone too close to the microphone. Page 38 January 22, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: My phone's in my car, so it's not me. MS. WALDRON: Is it any better? MR. L'ESPERANCE: No. MR. KELLY: Can you zoom in a little? MR. KRAENBRING: We'll just have to -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: We'll just have to cope, huh? MR. KRAENBRING: -- muddle through. There you go. MR. L'ESPERANCE: At least it's bigger. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: State your name for the record. MR. TURCIOS: My name is Ibran Turcios. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What is it again? MR. TURCIOS: Ibran Turcios. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. And you agree to the stipulated agreement? MR. TURCIOS: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good. If you can read the stipulated agreement into the record, please. MR. PAUL: For the record, Investigator Renald Paul, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. Mr. Ibran has agreed to the stipulated agreement, stating that he'll pay the operational costs in the amount of $88.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Respondent is required to obtain any and all permits as required by Collier County for any and all additions to the residents, or obtain a demolition permit for removal of all unpermitted additions to this property and obtain all required inspections and certificate of completion within 90 days of this hearing or be fined $100 a day for each day the violation remains unabated. The respondents must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement. And that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Page 39 January 22, 2009 Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement. And the owner has agreed to this. MR. KELLY: Investigator Paul, it states that he simply just needs the certificate of occupancy. But could you tell us if -- because the permits had expired, so they have to reap. for more extension and then get the C.O. Could you tell us if the inspections needed to get the C.O. have been approved? MR. PAUL: Not -- well, he had two inspections when he originally pulled the permit that had actually passed, but he still had five other inspections that needed to be done for the fence. MR. KELLY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Move to accept the stipulation as suggested, provided. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) Page 40 January 22, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Now we're going to move on to hearings. BCC versus James Patrick and Laura Guerrero. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman, I must recuse myself on this matter because of a conflict of interest. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. There is paperwork you'll have to fill out. MR. LARSEN: I already have. I shall hand it over to madam reporter. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If I can have the investigator step forward? Are they working on the stipulated agreement? MR. PONTE: I'm a little lost. Which case is this? MR. KRAENBRING: Guerrero. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Patrick and -- MR. PONTE: Guerrero? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It's kind of in the middle. MR. KRAENBRING: It's our only hearing left. Everything else was stipulated. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is the respondent outside? MS. PEREZ: No, no, this isn't my stipulation. So I got confused. No, the respondent is not present today. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. PEREZ: Good morning. Again for the record, Cristina Perez, Collier County Code Enforcement. MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to Department Case No. CESD20080008804, BCC versus James Patrick and Laura S. Guerrero. 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. KRAENBRING: Make a motion to accept the packet. Page 41 January 22, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MS. WALDRON: Violation of Ordinance 04-41 of the Collier County Land Development Code, Sections 10.02.06 (B)(l)(a), and 10.02.06 (B)(l)( ei). Description of violation: Mobile home/modular home placed at location in question without first obtaining the required building permit. Location/address where violation exists: 1965 Platt Road, Naples, Florida. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: James Patrick and Laura S. Guerrero, 2038 Fairmont Lane, Naples, Florida, 34120. Date violation first observed: July 30th, 2008. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: October 1st, 2008. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: November 1 st, 2008. Date of reinspection: November 24th, 2008. Results of reinspection: Violations remain. No permit has been applied for and obtained. At this time, I would like to present Supervisor Cristina Perez. MS. PEREZ: A complaint was received regarding a house that was built with no permits on this property. Upon a site visit, I found that there was a mobile home. The Page 42 January 22, 2009 respondent addressed this as a modular home. So mobile home/modular home type structure on said property. After research was conducted, I found that the property owner had applied for a building permit and was denied and no further action had been taken. So he put the structure on the property, applied for the permit, but the permit was denied due to verbiage on the blueprints that didn't qualify for the zone that this property is located in. So I made contact with the respondent, James Patrick Guerrero. We set up a meeting to meet at the location where the violation exists. I served him the notice of violation, we reviewed it. I gave him a copy. After several conversations and attempts from the property owner to determine from other departments what his options were to be able to obtain the permit for the structure, the permit was not reissued and the case was prepared for today's hearing. I did have a meeting with Mr. Guerrero at the engineering department in regards to other issues on his property that he wants to do, but I took him over to the permit department and we spoke with someone in structural review to determine what direction he needed to take on this permit, to get the permit approved. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: These meetings, when did they occur? MS. PEREZ: This -- I don't know the exact date of this last meeting that we had with the engineering department, but it was this month of January. MR. KAUFMAN: Is the property occupied? MS. PEREZ: No. It doesn't have electricity, it doesn't have water, it's just a structure placed on the property. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions of the board? (No response.) MR. KRAENBRING: The respondent was notified. He's not here. He's been working with you? Page 43 January 22, 2009 MS. PEREZ: Yeah. His thing was he has a 20-acre parcel on ago property and he had other avenues that he wanted to attempt to use his property for, and that's where this structure came into place. And that's something that's going to take him a very long time to try to achieve. So his direction that we got from structural and permitting, in order for him to be able to keep this structure on the property, he would have to have it permitted as a single-family residential home. MR. KRAENBRING: Without lack of other testimony from the respondent, I would make a motion that a violation does exist. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any discussion? MR. PONTE: Yeah, just a couple of questions. Is the mobile home secure? Is it locked up? Is it -- MS. PEREZ: Yes. And there is also a fence around the property. MR. PONTE: Okay, thank you. MR. KELLY: Do you have any photos? MS. PEREZ: Yes. MR. KELLY: Is it okay if we -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We probably should ask -- those should have been entered previously. MR. KELLY: It helps to get a visual. MS. PEREZ: Yes, sir. MR. KELLY: I know that that will help to go towards a time frame if a violation is found. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Jean, at this point? MS. RAWSON: She can amend it and add additional exhibits, that's not a problem. MS. PEREZ: Okay. So I would like to present into case evidence the following exhibit, which is Exhibit B, pictures, B-1 and B-2. Page 44 January 22, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do we need to take the current motions off the table? MS. RAWSON: No. You don't have a motion -- well, you do. You have a motion for violation. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. MS. RAWSON: Okay. Yes. Ifwe're still going to hear evidence, then why don't you withdraw those motions -- MR. KRAENBRING: I'll withdraw the motion. MR. DEAN: I'll withdraw the second. MR. KELLY: And I'll make a motion to accept Exhibit B. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. And do I hear a second? MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Sorry about that. MR. LARSEN: Two photos total? MS. PEREZ: Yes, sir. MR. KELLY: Investigator Perez, the county said that because this was longer than a certain period of time it could not be considered a construction trailer? MS. PEREZ: His initial intention to submitting it for -- as a construction trailer was -- I believe he wanted to do an excavation project on the property. So this was going to be a construction trailer. When he submitted the permits, the permits does say it's a construction on the top and it has office spaces instead of bedroom space. Page 45 January 22, 2009 We then reviewed the permit again this January with structural and permitting, and after he had his meeting with the engineering department and they eXplained what process he would have to take to be able to do such a project, he's steering away from that for now because it's not something that he could do at this point. So from what we spoke to permitting and structural, he has to revise those plans and make them read that it's a residential mobile home or modular home -- he describes it as a modular home -- that he would have to revise those plans, you know, to show instead of office, bedroom and et cetera. It has the kitchen, it has bathrooms, but -- MR. KELLY: I'll support a motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KELLY: Well, I didn't actually make it. I was just stating that -- MR. KRAENBRING: I'll just reiterate, I'll make a motion that a violation does exist. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And the second? MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. County recommendation, please? Page 46 January 22, 2009 MS. PEREZ: County's recommendation is that the board order the respondent to pay the operational costs in the amount of -- I wrote it down on the other document. I'm sorry -- $86.71 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing and abate all violations by: Applying for and obtaining a Collier County building permit for such improvements or demolition permit, all required inspections and C.O., or remove mobile home/modular home to restore property to its original state within X amount of days of this hearing and a fine amount of X amount per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated. 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. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. MR. KRAENBRING: I have a question. X amount and X days. MR. KELLY: The County started doing that to help give us a guideline. We have to fill in the X. That's our variable. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. MR. PONTE: Ninety and 100. MR. KRAENBRING: I mean, not going out to see this property, not knowing what they're going to be going through to get permits, we used to have some guidelines from the county recommendations. Do we have a sense of that? MS. PEREZ: I do have the guidelines that the county has used in the past, but, you know, I -- MR. KELLY: The County's trying not to be prejudice. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What avenue is he currently taking? And how long would that take? MS. PEREZ: I don't know how long it would take, but I know that the county did give him back the blueprints so that he could take Page 47 January 22, 2009 those blueprints and get them revised, versus having to hire a new engineer to redo the whole blueprints. So he was going to take those back to get them revised and then try to resubmit. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So he's going to try to resubmit it as a single-family residence? MS. PEREZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And how long -- you don't know how long that usually takes? MR. KRAENBRING: And no one's living in this -- MS. PEREZ: No. MR. KRAENBRING: -- property right now -- MS. PEREZ: It's not connected to utilities. MR. KRAENBRING: -- and it's not a health or safety issue? MS. PEREZ: No. MR. KRAENBRING: Half a year? MR. PONTE: I make a motion for 90 days. Half a year? They built the Empire State Building in one year. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: For 90 days. Mr. Kelly? MR. KELLY: Just a quick discussion. Not only does he have to actually get the permit, but then he has to get the C.O. And without there being any plumbing or electric there now, that would all have to be run. I think 90 days might be just a little tight to get done I believe what needs to be done here. That's my only comment, that's all. MR. KRAENBRING: I would agree, I think that, you know, we're looking at half a year, we're looking at six months for this thing to get through the process and get it done. Otherwise we're going to be hearing it again. MR. DEAN: So I just -- one comment is so I bring a trailer on a Page 48 January 22, 2009 property and I get six months or a year to figure out what I want to do. I mean, you give them 90 days, you get something stirring so we know what's going on. And our guidelines for fines is right here. So I still go with the 90 days. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. We have a first and a second. All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) MS. PEREZ: Just for clarification, can you tell me what is the amount per day? MR. KELLY: It was 90 days and $100 per day. Right, George? MR. PONTE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. MS. PEREZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you want to take a few minute break? Let's come back in about 10 minutes. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd like to call the meeting back to order. And we're going to move on to old business. I'm on now. Very good. We're going to move on to old business. Motion for imposition of fines. Juan Hernandez and Adrianna Garcia. Are they present? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Usually we just -- it's on the consent Page 49 January 22, 2009 agenda, right? MR. KELLY: No. MS. WALDRON: No. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Could I have the investigator speak. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to Code Enforcement Case No. 2006081209. F or the record, the respondent is not present. On July 31st, 2008, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order, and that order is attached for your review. The respondent was found in violation, and the respondent has not complied with the board's orders from July 31 st, 2008. At this time, the county is recommending imposing a lien for the fine at a rate of $200 per day for the period between November 29th, 2008 to January 22nd, 2009 for a total of 55 days in the amount of $11,000. Operational costs of 88.43 have not been paid. The total requested lien amount would be $11,000 -- $11,088.43. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right. Has any work been done at all? And when's the last time you were there? MS. SCAVONE: The last time I was there was yesterday. And they did pull a permit for -- it was approved in 2007. However, it was canceled September, 2008. It was never issued because they were not able to pay the operational costs. MS. WALDRON: Can I just clarify, too, on -- the operational costs were 87.44, not 88.43. Which would make the total lien amount 11,087.44. Correction. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: When's the last time you had contact with them? MS. SCAVONE: It was before the CEB hearing. And I have not Page 50 January 22, 2009 had any contact since. And the last time I did speak with him that he stated was losing the house and that's why he couldn't pay for the fee for the permit itself. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Any other questions of the board? MR. KELLY: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MR. KELLY: Just a clarification. The case number on the top of the request for an imposition of fine is actually for the next case on our agenda which has already been heard. This case number is 2006081209. And on that, I'll make a motion that we impose the fines, $11,087.44. MR. KRAENBRING: I'll second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. SCAVONE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're going to move on to the next one, which will be BCC versus Vanderbilt Devco, LLC. MS. WALDRON: And Mr. Chairman, if I can make a request on this one also. I know that the county and the respondent have been talking and they are talking about a continuance, so rather than me go through the whole thing, maybe you want to hear from their testimony Page 51 January 22, 2009 first. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. V ARSAMES: My name is John Varsames. I live in Naples and I represent Vanderbilt Devco. The remediation plan that was stipulated to has been completed. The inspection is scheduled for tomorrow afternoon at 2:00. So we ask for a continuation to determine if it will be any fines whatsoever. MR. KELLY: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. MR. KELLY: May I recommend, rather than filing a continuance if we could simply ask the county to stay this recommendation until next month. And if the inspection goes through and it's passed, we won't need to hear this. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: How much time did -- I'm just trying to -- when were they supposed to come into compliance again? March 30th of last year; is that correct? MS. O'FARRELL: He was supposed to come into compliance -- let me see, I've got it right here -- for the mitigation plan as of 5/28/08. For the record, Susan O'Farrell, Collier County Investigator. He was supposed to come into compliance with the mitigation plan as of 5/28/08, and he was ordered to install the plants -- well, the stipulation where he agreed to install the plants within 120 days, which would have been September 26th of '08. And when I did the inspection, apparently I inspected the wrong part of his property. So that's why I'd like to have a stay to give him 30 days -- well, for us to do the -- another inspection. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. KRAENBRING: Jean, the county needs to withdraw this, is that -- MS. RAWSON: Yes. We don't need to have a continuance, or even a stay. Page 52 January 22, 2009 If you just simply remove it from the docket, Jen, then you can put it back on the agenda for next month and we can see where we are. Or maybe you won't need to. MS. O'FARRELL: Well, ifhe's come into compliance, he'll still need the imposition of -- MS. WALDRON: I believe we'll still need to do the imposition of fines hearing, because he is out of his compliance date. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Correct. MS. WALDRON: But we'd rather have the current information when we come back to you. MS. RAWSON: Correct. And then at that time he has the right for his own motion. MS. O'FARRELL: I've explained to the representative ofDevco -- because I can't pronounce his last name. MR. V ARSAMES: Varsames. MS. O'FARRELL: And I've explained to him the process of the imposition of fines and also the process for the reduction of fines. So I think he's going to be aware of what he needs to do. MR. KRAENBRING: So the county will be -- MS. WALDRON: The county will make a request to withdraw this case and bring it at a further hearing date. MR. KELLY: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to amend the agenda. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 53 January 22, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. Next one will be BCC versus Tereso Bautista and Emiliana Vasquez. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to Code Enforcement Case No. 2006100651. F or the record, the respondent is not present. On April 24th, 2008, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order, and that order is attached for your review. The respondent was found in violation and the respondent has not complied with the board's orders from April 24th, 2008. At this time, the county is recommending imposing a lien for the fine at a rate of $200 per day for the period between June 24th, 2008 to January 22nd, 2009 for a total of212 days in the amount of $42,400. Operational costs in the amount of $88.43 have not been paid. The total requested lien amount is $42,803.77. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What is that amount, once again? How much is the fine amount? MS. WALDRON: $42,400. MR. KELLY: How much is the op. cost? MS. WALDRON: 403.77. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You said it was 88.43 before. MR. DEAN: She said 42,803.77. MR. KELLY: She said the wrong op. cost, but then totaled it correctly. MS. WALDRON: It's 403.77 for op. cost. MR. KELLY: Investigator, when's the last time you checked to see if there was a permit pulled or anything? MR. BALDWIN: For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. Page 54 January 22, 2009 I just checked just this morning. No permit has been pulled. And I was there yesterday, the property is still vacant. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other discussion from the board? MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion that we impose the fine. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Next case will be BCC versus William and Laura Mara. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to Code Enforcement Case No. CESD20080004753. F or the record, the respondent is not present. On August 22nd, 2008, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order, and that order is attached for your review. The respondent was found in violation, and the respondent has not complied with the board's orders from August 22nd, 2008. At this time, the county is recommending imposing a lien for the fine at a rate of $200 per day for the period between November 21 st, 2008, to January 22nd, 2009, for a total of 63 days in the amount of $12,600. Page 55 January 22, 2009 Operational costs of $88.1 0 have not been paid. The total requested lien amount is $12,688.10. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Investigator? What is the -- when was the last time you were there? MR. MARTINDALE: The last time I made a visit was approximately 31 st of December of last year. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. And was any work done on the property to correct the violation? MR. MARTINDALE: The rear lanai was enclosed. I do have a picture, if you'd like to look. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're not here to hear testimony. Was that shown during the case? MR. MARTINDALE: This would be at the updated photos. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The updated photos, okay. , MR. MARTINDALE: Basically it's just a closed lanai and they tore a part of the eight by ten -- or four by eight sheet of plywood off the back. But that's the limit to what's been done. I checked records, and a permit was pulled for the demo and returned about 48 hours ago. THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please? MR. MARTINDALE: I'm sorry, for the record, Ronald Martindale, Code Investigator. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions? MR. KRAENBRING: I just say that we've had these cases before. We will impose the fine. Obviously they pulled the permits, they get the work done and they'll come back for abatement of the fine once the work is done. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Did you make a motion? MR. KRAENBRING: I'll make a motion we impose the fine. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. Page 56 January 22, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Thank you very much. MR. MARTINDALE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next case will be BCC versus J. Peaceful, L.C. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: And there are some updates here to your executive summary on this one as they've come into compliance. This is in reference to Code Enforcement Case No. 2007060387. F or the record, the respondent is present. On March 27th, 2008, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order, and that order is attached for your review. The respondent was found in violation and the respondent has complied with the board's orders from August 22nd, 2008. At this time, the county is recommending imposing a lien for the fine at a rate of$150 per day for the period between May 27th, 2008 to January 16th, 2009 for a total of 235 days in the amount of $35,250. Operational costs of398.70 have not -- have been paid. The total requested lien amount is $35,250. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: When did it come into compliance? MR. SNOW: On January 16th of this year, sir. Page 57 January 22, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is that why the change is from 36,150 to 35, 150? MS. WALDRON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. Any questions? MR. KRAENBRING: Without rehearing the entire case, what was the crux of this? I just can't recall it. MR. SNOW: Sir, it was a sign without a permit. And just let me -- for the board, if I could have a moment of your time. I have been in contact with the respondents from time to time. And this was a case where the business was under extreme financial burden, as we all know the estate of the economy. And during my conversations with them, they would have rather kept employees than get the sign. He understood, his wife understood what the situation was. I did check this morning, and there is tax issues on the property that haven't been made, so it's not that these folks didn't want to come into compliance. It was the fact that they couldn't come into compliance. They did what they -- when they got the receipt that they were going to go to court again, he gave you his word here in the courtroom that it would be done before he came back to you, and he did do that. I just -- the county would recommend obviously follow anything this board would recommend. But there's extreme financial burden on this property. And this is not the only problem they have, but they have tried to comply. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead, ma'am, if you'd like to speak. MS. CHAMI: I'm representing my husband. He went to see his mom, who's sick. And like Mr. Snow said, we are struggling a lot. We're trying to keep the business running and the employee, the salary paid on time. Page 58 January 22, 2009 So we made it. The moment we were able to make it, we made it. So we're asking if we can be -- going without the fee, not paying this. The fine. MR. KRAENBRING: It's a dry cleaning business? MS. CHAMI: We have a dry cleaning business, we have a post office business inside, and a little bit of everything. MR. KRAENBRING: And as I remember, if I may, that they had some issues with getting the sign replaced. Possibly because the company was not in business any longer or-- MS. CHAMI: One company was not -- I cannot answer all your questions, unfortunately. I work at the post office. But I know that there was a problem with the signage. And we -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It was a very detailed sign. I think it was going to be expensive -- MS. CHAMI: It was detailed-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- to replace it exactly as is versus a regular sign. MR. SNOW: That is correct. That is correct, you're right. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I happened to go to there once -- MR. KRAENBRING: So again, they are in compliance? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You'll make a motion? MR. KRAENBRING: I'll make a motion that we abate the fine. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. Page 59 January 22, 2009 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. DEAN: What's the operational costs? MR. KELLY: Already been paid. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Has been paid, 398.70. MR. DEAN: Okay. MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. For the record before we go, I would like to thank Mr. Ponte for his service to this board. I appeared numerous times before this board and he always had a voice of reasoning, and I for one will certainly miss him. MR. PONTE: Thank you very much. MR. SNOW: I wish you very good luck, sir. MS. CHAMI: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The fine has been abated. THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please? MS. CHAMI: Lamia. L-A-M-I-A. Last name Chami. C-H-A-M-I. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And the next one will be a motion for reduction/abatement of fines. BCC versus Jamie Lam and Don Lee. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Explain why you'd like to have -- do you have to -- MS. WALDRON: Just one note, that we never -- we haven't imposed any fines on this property, but fines were accruing, so he's here to ask that we basically not impose the fines at this time. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Has the -- has he come into compliance? MS. WALDRON: He has. MS. O'FARRELL: Yes, the property is in compliance. He and his wife have been in constant contact with me. They had some troubles with standing water, which is why they weren't able to get it Page 60 January 22, 2009 in on time. So I definitely ask that no fines be assessed. For the record, Susan O'Farrell, Collier County Investigator. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's my job, to keep you in check, and I haven't. MR. KELLY: Mr. Chair? I have a question about procedure. If no fines were imposed, do we have anything to do? Or is it just up to county not to ever bring the imposition of fines to us? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's a good question. Jean? MS. RAWSON: I'm looking to see when he was supposed to be in compliance. MS. WALDRON: It's one of those orders that has multiple-- MS. RAWSON: Right. He had to do a mitigation plan within 120 days. MS. WALDRON: And he had a mitigation plan to be submitted by January 29th, 2008, and 120 days from acceptance of mitigation plan to install the plantings. MS. RAWSON: Well, they're not asking that any fines be imposed. That's an interesting theory. Ifhe's in compliance and we haven't yet imposed fines and he met the deadline, you don't need to abate them. MR. KRAENBRING: So this case should be just withdrawn from the agenda? MS. RAWSON: Probably. MS . WALDRON: Yeah, for clarification, the fines have been -- were running on this property, so the county can't just say the fines are gone, you know. MS. RAWSON: The fines are running on the property-- MS. WALDRON: The fines were running until he came into compliance. So he did have fines. We just have not imposed the fines at this time. Page 61 January 22, 2009 MS. RAWSON: Okay. Well, in that case, yes, you need to enter an order. MR. KRAENBRING: So in effect, though, shouldn't this be-- we should have heard that the fines be imposed and then abated? I'm a little lost on the procedure here. MS. RAWSON : Well, what happens is we record these orders right away, and if a deadline is missed, the fines start running. We just don't have an order imposing them. That doesn't mean they're not running on a daily basis. MR. KRAENBRING: So do we need to impose the fine and . then from the county's recommendation remove it? I don't know if it's a legal procedure. MS. RAWSON: I think you can simply abate all the fines. MR. DEAN: Abate. I agree. MR. KELLY: To follow up on that question, procedurally from here on, for all cases, we may as a board not see cases that come into compliance just slightly after deadlines and county takes it upon themselves to just, you know, close out the case. And they never bring any imposition to us. Would that be a similar situation where -- or do you have to -- MS. WALDRON: Any time a fine is assessed on a property, if they're out of their compliance date, we bring it forward to you, because we don't have the authority to change your order. MS. RAWSON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's it, okay. MR. KELLY: That's the question I was looking for. MS. RAWSON: So whether you've actually entered an order imposing fines or not doesn't mean the fines are not running. MR. LARSEN: Right. So I think what we need to do is make a motion to abate the accrual of the fines. MR. DEAN: I agree. MR. KRAENBRING: Let's keep it as simple as possible. Page 62 January 22, 2009 MR. LARSEN: So I make the motion to abate the accrual of the fines. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in -- any discussion, first of all? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. KELLY: Thank you. MS. O'FARRELL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any new business? MS. WALDRON: I don't know where the question about the rules and regulations -- talk about that now? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. MS. WALDRON: I have a request that any of the board members review the current rules and regulations. If you have any suggestions or changes that you would like to be made, if you could bring them back to the next meeting to discuss. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Do you want -- MR. DEAN: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you want to see about setting up a workshop? Do you think that's -- MS. WALDRON: If you guys would like a workshop, we can do that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you want to do a workshop and Page 63 January 22, 2009 mince up the -- MR. DEAN: Workshops are good. I mean, it's very helpful and we have new members, so it's always an excellent idea to do it. MR. KELLY: Two points. One, I would love to see our current rules so we could start looking at them. If you could e-mail them, they would be wonderful. MS. WALDRON: Sure. MR. KELLY: And two, there was still an issue I think that was just kind of looked over until our next review process, which this may be it, Mr. Chairman, about the consent agenda and imposition of fines. Or do we keep that under old business? And so far we've been keeping it under old business, even though I think technically it says somewhere in the rules that they're supposed to be under the consent agenda. So maybe we should clarify that for future. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yeah, I thought that's the way it was supposed to work also. And whoever was here, we would pull them from the consent agenda. I thought that was the discussion we had. MR. KELLY: Well, there was also discussion that there might be situations where respondents were to come to the meeting late, not have an opportunity to have that pulled from the consent and then we'd have to go back to the original, undo the approval of the entire agenda, pull theirs from the agenda and bring it up. So we've been leaving it under old business. Maybe we should talk about that more in detail. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Would anyone-- MS. RAWSON: Also, the March meeting is your business meeting, annual business meeting where you elect your chair and vice-chair. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do we want to set up a meeting between now and -- a workshop? MS. WALDRON: I can -- I'll e-mail everyone and see when is a good time frame for people to get together to maybe -- Page 64 January 22, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Maybe sometime next month before our next meeting. MS. RAWSON: I think last time didn't we do it after the meeting? And I think that worked fine. MR. DEAN : Yeah, I do, too. Because we're here. MS. RAWSON: Because then everybody's got it on your calendar. And we just had it immediately following. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Want to plan for next -- for February, next meeting? MS. WALDRON: Sure. MR. DEAN: February or March, either one. MS. RAWSON: And my guess is that we'll probably have to go back to code enforcement, because I'm sure they don't want us to stay in here all day. MS. WALDRON: We've got the room all day. MS. RAWSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. So ifno one objects to next month, we'll plan on a workshop after and it will probably be at the Horseshoe Drive location. MR. KRAENBRING: But we'll be here for the meeting. MR. L'ESPERANCE: We'll be here. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Oh, we'll be here for the meeting and then go over to Horseshoe? MR. LARSEN: No, no -- MS. WALDRON: No, we just stay here. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. All right. MR. KELLY: I'll waive notice. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I won't. You better notify me. MR. PONTE: I'll be watching it on television. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: George, do you waive notice? MR. PONTE: I'll watch it on television. Page 65 January 22, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, we're going to move on. I guess the consent agenda, we're going to pass over that. Request to forward cases to county attorney's office. MR. KELLY: Already done. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any reports? MS. FLAGG: Let me just offer a couple of things, first. I'd like to -- Diane Flagg, for the record -- thank Mr. Ponte for his service to the Code Enforcement Board. MR. PONTE: Thank you very much. MS. FLAGG: It's been very much appreciated and you will be missed. Secondly, I just wanted to let the board know that the voluntary compliance of our community members has increased as a result of the approach that the investigators are utilizing when they're notifying our community members of a violation. They're approaching them from a meet and greet perspective, letting them knowing what the. concerns are, rather than immediately issuing a notice of violation. And consequently they're finding that when they go back after a week, that compliance has already been achieved. So then it's noted. The second thing is that there will be a report to the BCC, the Board of County Commissioners, next Tuesday. That will be a report on how code enforcement department is handling the lis pendens and foreclosures in Collier County. I will tell you that we've put together a foreclosure team and a process for handling properties where we verify whether the property up front is in a lis pendens or foreclosure status or if it's owner occupied. If it is in lis pendens or foreclosure status, it goes to the foreclosure folks who have established very good relationships with the banks. And right now we have 100 percent compliance by the banks. Not only do we have 100 percent compliance, but the banks are Page 66 January 22, 2009 giving us turnarounds within 48 or 72 hours of notification. And what they're doing, quite a few of them, I think we're working with 33 different banks right now. What the banks are doing is hiring in some cases national servicing companies, and then those servicing companies are hiring our local contractors and subbing out the work. So it's a system that we actually started in November and it's been extremely successful. So we'll be providing more details to the board on Tuesday, but I wanted to let you know about that. MR. DEAN: Very good. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next meeting date will be February 26th, 2009. And do I hear a motion to adjourn? MR. DEAN: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. That's a motion that's never denied. ***** Page 67 January 22, 2009 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :03 a.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD GERALD LEFEBVRE, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on as presented or as corrected Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 68 FORM 88 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER lOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME -DwA,((~ ...J;;v/rI COUNTY o I~ NAME OF BOARD. COUNCIL. COMMISSION. AUTHORITY. OR COMMITTEE CAr ~ ~h:;"~Q"I~" d AIt/') THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION. AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: o CITY ~UNTY NAME OF POLlTICAL.SUBDIVISION: o OTHER LOCAL AGENCY ~ MY POSITION IS: o ELECTIVE .v'APPOI NTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 88 This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or Joss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: . You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) CE FORM 8B - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 1 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) . A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. . The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: . You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. . You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST .-r 1,__EZ)j..;A~-~~~------, hereby disclose that on____.:J."3:.~(/A-~---2-- 2. ______, 20 ~: (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, ______________________; inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, _________________________________________; inuredtothespecialgainorlosso~____________________________________________________________, by whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of ________________________________________________, which is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: ;f AM ~,t/ c,,// ~ (4.., "''7 . ,,#/ ;'1:777 ~7 f If,w. rv"w; ~,-..-I....Y"'" P}j ,.tr1""J~ .:JA-/"r.... /,.,.r~J.. ~ ~~~ t. /ZA'{~ A- C,,.I~/. C.r 'I J""'~+~..J :;;,. ~ /'". ,,-,((";1,..... LA v A It IIJ.,uc..J..< f?A-.A--;' ;';U "" S;;IU.~'t" ~.,.-;-~ .;t ~ ir- 1 ~~~ v'. s. (; 6.J dc'/L,.8AoD J C ~d ;)0. ~~s ~ 1. 00,1 0 cJ 0 f> J" a Y . P)....~, ----------- ----~~------------------------------- Date Filed --~--~~------------- Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES 9112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 8B - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2