Loading...
CEB Minutes 03/26/2009 R March 26, 2009 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida March 26, 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 (Absent) Lionel L'Esperance Robert Kaufman (Alternate) James Lavinski (Alternate) ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for CEB Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director Jen Waldron, Code Enforcement Specialist Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA AGENDA Date: March 26, 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. WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. I. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES- A. February 26, 2009 Hearing B. February 26, 2009 Workshop 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. MOTIONS B. STIPULATIONS C. HEARINGS 1. BCC vs. Milano Recreation, Inc. 2. BCC vs. Theodore & Karen Wasserman 3. BCC VS. Jonathon & Christine Benham 4. BCC vs. Primitivo Lara 5. BCC vs. Linnette Barrett 6. BCC vs. Linnette Barrett CEB NO. CESD20080010230 CEB NO. CESD20080001776 CEB NO. CESD20080003579 CEB NO. CESD20080001742 CEB NO. CELU200800 16064 CEB NO. CEPM200800 15499 7. BCC vs. Legacy Capital Trading Co. Inc. 8. BCC vs. Klemco, LLC. 9. BCC vs. Klemco, LLC CEB NO. CESD200800 15190 CBB NO. CESD20090002071 CEB NO. CESD20090002075 D. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens I. BCC vs. Mary Luedtke 2. BCC vs. Angelo & Diane Campanello 3. BCC vs. Bart & Sandi Chernoff 4. BCC vs. Caribe Investments of Naples, Inc. 5. BCC vs. Grisel Diaz 6. BCC vs. Naples Property Services, LLC. 7. BCC vs. Vanderbilt-Devco, LLC. 8. BCC vs. Angel & Norberto Hernandez 9. BCC vs. Empire Developers Group. LLC. 10. BCC vs James Hargraves CEB NO. 2007110088 CEB NO. 2007080375 CEB NO. 2006030500 CEB NO. 2007030836 CEB NO. 2007040121 CEB NO. 2007050653 CBB NO. 2006070496 CEB NO. 20070 I 0485 CBB NO. CESD20080014496 CEB NO. 2007110616 E. Motion for Reduction/Abatement of Fines/Liens 5. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion to Amend Imposition of Fines Order 1. BCC vs. Empire Developers Group. LLC. CEB NO. CESD20080007919 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of updated Rules & Regulations 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens B. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office 8. REPORTS 9. COMMENTS 10. NEXT MEETING DATE - April 23,2009 1 I. ADJOURN March 26, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board of Collier County, Florida to order, March 26th, 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 an agenda item will receive up to five minutes, unless the time is adjusted by the chairman. All parties participating in a public hearing are asked to observe Robert's 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. Can I please have the roll call. MS. WALDRON: Good morning. Mr. Edward Larsen? MR. LARSEN: Present. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Present. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Kenneth Kelly? MR. KELL Y: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Larry Dean? MR. DEAN: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Present. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Robert Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Here. MS. WALDRON: And Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LA VINSKI: Present. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And do you have any changes -- let's Page 2 March 26, 2009 do changes to the agenda. MS. WALDRON: Yes, we do. We have many changes to the agenda, so I'll go slow. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you go slowly, that way we can get everything organized. MS. WALDRON: Right after roll call, we're going to add the elections. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, it's going to be right after I guess approval of the agenda. MS. WALDRON: Or after approval of the agenda. Under motions, we have a motion for extension of time, BCC versus D.C. Kerckhoff, CEB No. 2007090683. Under motions, we have three motions for continuance: BCC versus Angelo and Diane Campanello, CEB No. 2007080375. This is currently a motion for imposition of fines D.2. Under hearing C.2 will be moved to motion for continuance, BCC versus Theodore and Karen Wasserman, CEB No. CESD2008000 1776. Under hearing C.1 will be moved for motion for continuance, which is BCC versus Milano Recreation, Inc., case CEB, CESD200800 1 0230. Under stipulations, we've got three stipulations: Item C.3 will be moved under stipulations, BCC versus Jonathan and Christine Benham, CEB No. CESD20080003579. And Item C.5 and C.6 under hearings will be moved to stipulations, BCC versus Linnette Barrett, CEB No. CELU20080016064. And BCC versus Linnette Barrett, CEB No. CEPM200800 15499. Under hearings, Item C.7 is being withdrawn by the county. Under motion for imposition of fines/liens, number four, BCC versus Caribe Investments of Naples is being withdrawn by the county. Page 3 March 26, 2009 Number D.9 under motion for imposition of fines, BCC versus Empire Developers Group, LLC is being withdrawn by the county. And under old business, motion to amend imposition of fines, order number one, BCC versus Empire Developers Group, LLC is being withdrawn by the county. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion to approve? MR. DEAN: Motion to approve the agenda. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And I'll just give a couple minutes so you can organize your packages. Just for the record, Mr. Kaufman will be a regular voting member today. And Jim will be a regular voting member today as well. The elections of officers is next. Do I hear a nomination for -- MS. WALDRON: Hold on. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next on the agenda is the election of officers. And let's start with the Chair. Do I hear a nomination? MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to nominate Gerald Lefebvre as chairman. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'd like to second that, please. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any discussion? Page 4 March 26,2009 (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And nominations for vice chair. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to nominate Mr. Kelly. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I second that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Thank you. Okay, we're going to move on for approval of the minutes from February 26th, 2009, the hearing. Any -- do I hear a motion? MR. KELL Y: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. LA VINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. Page 5 March 26, 2009 MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. We also had a workshop on the same date, so I'd like to hear a motion for approval of the minutes for the workshop. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to move. MR. KELL Y: I didn't see them. MS. WALDRON: Can I just make one change to that? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sure. MS. WALDRON: That the chairman be switched from Mr. Ed Larsen to Mr. Gerald Lefebvre. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. MR. LARSEN: I'm not quite sure I understood that. MS. WALDRON: On the written minutes for the workshop it had your name instead ofMr. Lefebvre's. MR. LARSEN: I consent. MS. WALDRON: Congratulations. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Kaufman, do you amend your motion? MR. KAUFMAN: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. LA VINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. Page 6 March 26, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. MR. KELLY: One abstention. I didn't get the chance to review it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And we're going to move on to motions. Extension of time for BCC versus Kerckhoff. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: For the record, Kitchell Snow, Collier County Code Enforcement. K-I-T-C-H-E-L-L, S-N-O-W. I suppose for the board the best thing to do is for Mr. Kerckhoff to propose why he needs more time and then we can address it with the board's approval. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good. Can you please state your name for the record. MR. KERCKHOFF: My name is Daniel Charles Kerckhoff, II. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good. And you're looking for an extension of time? MR. KERCKHOFF: Yes, please. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And if you can explain why. MR. KERCKHOFF: I didn't realize how long it would take to have a site development plan submitted -- or done and submitted and returned approved. So we have submitted it on the 12th, I believe, of February. And I did not realize how long it would be for it to come back to us approved. MR. KELLY: Mr. Kerckhoff, although you may not have been familiar, we've seen many cases like yours where it has taken quite some time to get SDP approvals. You're requesting 30 days in your letter. Do you feel or have you Page 7 March 26, 2009 gotten any guidance on whether or not that's enough time? MR. KERCKHOFF: I believe the letter said 90 days. MR. KELLY: I'm sorry. And you would report back every 30 days with -- MR. KERCKHOFF: If that's what you request, yes. MR. KELL Y: Is 90 days going to be enough? MR. KERCKHOFF: I don't know. 120 would naturally be better. And if you wish, I can report to you every 30 days. MR. KELL Y: Once we -- if we were to pass this, it would be amending the order, and we try not to do that very often. So I was just making sure that we get enough time up front, if that's the case. Mr. Snow, what's your feelings? MR. SNOW: Mr. Kelly, I think in the interest of being fair that it's because of obviously some restraints as far as the county's concerned, personnel, and because the site improvement plan, site development plans take an extended period of time, I think the 120 days. Because he has been diligent. It's just there's so much involved with this. And I think you remember, your concern was when he was initially here that he submit, and then we told him he could come back and ask for more time if he needed it. But whatever the board would like to do, the county's in favor of. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple questions for Supervisor Snow. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sure, go ahead. MR. LARSEN: Supervisor Snow, this order goes back to the 2nd day of October, 2008. Has anything been done since that time, as far as you know? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. They have submitted. And it is in review. And as you probably know, when you submit these site improvement plans, site development plans, it has to go through so many phases in Page 8 March 26, 2009 the county. And they have a specific amount of time when they have to have written submittal back. But all those entities, all those different entities have to review. So they're in the process of trying to correct what exactly it is that they need to do. And remember, this was an undeveloped parcel. So it has a lot that needs to be done on this to be able to be developed. And that's where the crux of this issue is, it just is very, very involved for him to figure out what he wants to do and what the county's going to allow him do with this use. MR. LARSEN: All right. But as far as the county is concerned, there is no health or safety issue in regard to this property? MR. SNOW: That is correct, sir. MR. LARSEN: All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion based on the county's agreeing to 120 days that we grant a 120-day extension. MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. SNOW: We thank the board. Page 9 March 26, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next case will be a continuance. Angelo and Diane Campanello. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: State your name for the record, please. MR. SMITH: Good morning. For the record, Reggie Smith, Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. And state your name. MR. LAWHON: Good morning. May it please the board, my name is Tony Lawhon -- excuse me, I'm getting over a cold. The last name is spelled L-A-W-H-O-N. I'm an attorney here in town. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Great. Thank you very much. Actually, we'll go to you. You're looking for a continuance. MR. LAWHON: I am. I was recently retained pro bono by the Campanellos to assist them with the motion that's pending. I have, due to my caseload, been unable to take the time to look into the underlying allegations. I also have a hearing in about 15 minutes over at court, so I wouldn't be able to sit for a full evidentiary hearing. My understanding, from speaking to Mr. Smith, is that it's a relatively small matter, and my hope is that let's say before the next board meeting or whenever you'd roll it over I'd have enough time to get into the substance of the allegations and see if we can work something out, get it resolved. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Chairman, if! could make a comment on this. I mean, this is a case for imposition of fines for $300. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. MS. WALDRON: They are in compliance, the operational costs have been paid. The county doesn't have any objection to waiving the fines at this point. MR. LARSEN: I make a motion to abate the fine. Page 10 March 26, 2009 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is that what's on the table, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No, actually we're looking for continuance. MS. WALDRON: Right. But what the county is saying is we're not -- we don't feel that we really need to continue this. We can get rid of the fines and be done with this case. MR. KELL Y: We can make you look really good by just simply denying your continuance, holding it over to our regular imposition section, and then abating the fines, if that's the will of the board. MR. LAWHON: And if the record needs to be stated, I'll move to abate the fines and you can rule on that motion, if you can now. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Jean, can we just move it up right now since he's here, and that way he can go to his client and -- MS. RAWSON: Yes. And he can make an ore tenus motion to abate the fines. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, let's do that. Since he's standing here, we can make a decision -- MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- and that way he can go back to his client and notify them. Is that okay with the board? MR. LARSEN: I've already made a motion to abate the fines. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, so -- MR. KELL Y: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: With none -- MR. LARSEN: Congratulations, Counsel. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No, we've got to take a vote first. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. Page 11 March 26, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. LAWHON: Thank you, gentleman, I appreciate the victory. Have a good day. MR. SMITH: Thank you, everyone. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next is continuance for Wasserman. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you please state your name for the record. MS. WASSERMAN: Karen Wasserman. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And yourself, please. MS. SORRELS: Azure Sorrels, Collier County Code Enforcement. A-Z-U-R-E, S-O-R-R-E-L-S. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. And the reason for a continuance? MS. WASSERMAN: The contractor that we've hired was not able to be at this meeting today. He has a Waterways committee meeting on Marco Island on the third Thursday of each month. So hopefully if we give him -- he's in contact with the permitting people up in the state and DEP. And I -- to be honest, I really don't know what he's -- what has transpired between his department and them, except for some correspondence that I do have proof that he is in contact with them -- excuse me, I have a cold -- and that we were waiting to have an actual meeting with the state and DEP. And even when we got note of this hearing I think back on like Page 12 March 26, 2009 around March 16th for today, they still have not telephoned him back to set up this meeting. So we're kind of at the mercy of, you know, having my husband and myself and the state and DEP and the contractor all meet on a specific day. So it's been hard to do. I'm asking for a 60 to 90-day continuance in hope that in the next two months this whole thing will be resolved, we've had our meeting with the state and DEP and can get processed. The preliminary approval that the state and DEP did issue us I think back in December or January, like two things were approved and there was like just one thing that was -- I forget the exact wording, partial approval or something like that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Has she provided documentation that they are working on it, they're working on getting permits and everything? MS. SORRELS: They are working on it. There is a permit that is in the apply status. There has been two rejections. The first rejection they had resubmitted the correct information. However, other information has been rejected. So we're at the second rejection. And I have not heard from the contractor since December when he had come into the office to show me a letter from DEP. And so at this time I do not know what his activities have been since December. But it's still in the reply status with two rejections on it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is there any issue with the county allowing a 60 to 90-day continuance, or do you feel that this case should move forward today? MS. SORRELS: The case has been opened for over a year now. I don't think the county would have a problem with a 60-day extension. However, if you do entertain that and motion it, that we ask to have an order at least given for a -- for her to hire a licensed electrical contractor and at least have the electricity to this boatlift disconnected for safety reasons. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We might have to hear the case Page 13 March 26, 2009 actually to do that, so -- is that correct, Jean? MS. RAWSON: I think so. You only can rule on the motion to continue. MR. LARSEN: Well, Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Absolutely. MR. LARSEN: Is there any power to the boatlift right now? MS. WASSERMAN: Is there any-- MR. LARSEN: Electrical power to the boatlift. MS. WASSERMAN: Yes, there is. Yes, there is. And that was -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, is there anything that prevents us from requesting the respondent to flip the breaker switch and verbally agree to do so in front of this board for safety concerns, if that's one of the concerns that the board has? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Jean? MS. RAWSON: You can request it. I don't think you can order it, because this is a motion to continue or it's a motion for the -- I mean, in other words, it's a hearing. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is there any way also between now and when we hear the case that the respondent -- we can ask her to provide any information that she currently has to show that permits -- that she's working towards all the permits, or again would that have to be an order? MS. RAWSON: No, in order to determine whether or not you're going to grant her a motion to continue, you can request any evidence from her that she has. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you have that documentation in front of you that -- the permits and so forth that you received from two -- you said two different agencies; is that correct? MS. WASSERMAN: I do not have that letter. I would have assumed that Ted from Zap Marine would have brought that to you when he met with you. MS. SORRELS: Are you inquiring about the DEP letter that was Page 14 March 26, 2009 provided? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MS. SORRELS: I looked at it, but he did not provide me with a copy, no. It was given to the building department to be added to the permit. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So you've seen it, you know that in fact they are moving along? MS. SORRELS: Yes, absolutely. MS . WASSERMAN: We can provide it. I don't have a problem providing a formal copy of that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead, Mr. Kaufman. MS. WASSERMAN: And I have e-mailed documentation I can leave with you today from Ted from Zap Marine, indicating that he has been waiting -- you know, he's e-mailing Mr. Schwan (phonetic) from the DEP and state that he was unable to attend this meeting today because of the conflict -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. MS. WASSERMAN: -- in schedule. MR. KAUFMAN: Is there any problem with your contractor contacting the county? If you haven't heard from them in three months. That's probably one of the problems that exists -- MS. WASSERMAN: Yeah. MR. KAUFMAN: -- the communication or the lack thereof. MS. WASSERMAN: I will have him do so. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I -- any other questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion to accept the continuance? MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that we accept the continuance of 60 days. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Do I hear a second?u Page 15 March 26, 2009 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those -- any discussion? MR. DEAN: What about the safety issue? MR. LARSEN: Yeah, my concern is that basically the violation was first observed on February 11th, 2008. We're in excess ofa year. There's still power to the boatlift. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Kaufman, would you entertain an amendment to your motion to request the respondent to turn off the power to the boatlift at the breaker box? MR. KAUFMAN: I would. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I have an amended seconded then? MS. WASSERMAN: Am I allowed to comment? The breaker box actually feeds other things on that one breaker switch. But what I don't mind doing for you is having Conde Electric, who normally does my electric and they're licensed, to come out there and to see what they can do to temporarily disconnect that particular boatlift. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. WASSERMAN: And I think -- now that I think of it, I think there is like a little switch where I can actually put it in the off position on -- it's like a toggle, a flip switch. I don't have any problem doing that. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Kaufman, that's agreeable to you? MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I would second his amended motion then. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? MR. KELLY: I take the respondent's word that it will be done. I don't think we need to go to an order. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I agree. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion -- do I hear a vote? MR. LARSEN: All in favor? Page 16 March 26, 2009 MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. WASSERMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You have 60 days. MS. SORRELS: Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next case will be BCC versus Milano Recreation, Inc. MR. WRIGHT: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, board members. I'm Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney. MR. ADAMCZYK: Good morning, gentlemen, Mr. Chairman. Mark Adamczyk, Attorney for the Milano Recreation Association. This case is continued from January 22nd because there was in the upcoming month of February a trial scheduled in the lawsuit, private lawsuit between our client and the complainant, Imperial Golf Estates, regarding the access road they sought to Livingston Road. Since the last time we were here in January, the parties, meaning my client and Imperial, have privately settled the issue of access, which underlies this code action. Mr. Wright is aware of the settlement, and we have stipulated Mr. Wright and I to a continuance, which has been filed with Ms. Waldron, to allow the parties to privately continue to carry out the terms of their settlement. Since we're technically still on the calendar for today, we're here. Witnesses have been excused from subpoena because Mr. Page 17 March 26, 2009 Wright and I agree there was no need to conduct a hearing. And Milano is willing to work with the county attorneys on a prompt resolution to this case in light of the settlement that involves the same Issue. So we would request a 60-day continuance just because we don't want to come back in 30 days and report the same thing, and it's not likely we'll need to appear again. MR. WRIGHT: Obviously it's a stipulated motion, so I agree with everything Mark just said. And I just want to add to that. Mark and the attorney for Imperial, Will Dempsey, they've been working really hard at hammering this out. It's been a real complicated issue with two subdivisions involved. And they literally have recorded an easement in the public record that addresses pretty much our whole code case. But until their court case is completely settled, we want to just be cautious and make sure that happens before we formally dismiss this action, which I expect we'll be doing next time we come before you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Jennifer is getting tired of carrying these packages out of here. MR. ADAMCZYK: We're getting tired of making copies. MR. DEAN: Just a few. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions? MR. LARSEN: I also understand that there's a second part to your application, that it be deemed refiled without a new submission; is that correct? MR. ADAMCZYK: Oh -- Mr. Larsen, is it? I simply did not want to go through the administrative burden of making 15 extra copies of the same motion that I had filed in January. That was a motion to dismiss, which I'm again withdrawing today because of the stipulation. MR. LARSEN: All right. MR. KELLY: Make a motion we accept the continuance. Page 18 March 26, 2009 MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) MR. LARSEN: The second part, I also make a motion that it be deemed -- THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Larsen, could you move that microphone closer to you? MR. LARSEN: That I deem -- make a motion that it be deemed refiled without a new submission by the respondent. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Discussion? MR. KELL Y: What did you just say? MR. LARSEN: They don't want to make new copies. They want it deemed refiled without making a new submission. So to save I guess their efforts -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: A hundred trees. MR. LARSEN: -- on money and trees. So that basically this way they don't have to give us 15 new packages. MR. KELLY: All right, fair enough. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I think that's what we've been doing right along -- Page 19 March 26, 2009 MR. LARSEN: Right. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- without a motion or anything. But since you made a motion, we have a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. ADAMCZYK: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You're welcome. Next case will be BCC versus Primitivo Lara. MS. WALDRON: Hold on, we have stipulations. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Sorry. First stipulation will be Jonathan and Christine Benham. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I see the respondent's not here. MR. BALDWIN: No. The Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, verse Jonathan W. and Christine K. Benham. We've entered into a stipulation agreement. One, the violations noted in the referenced notice of violation are accurate and I stipulate to their existence. 04-41, the Collier County Land Development Code, as amended, Sections 10.02.06 (B)(l)(a), and 10.02.06 (B)(1)(e). Page 20 March 26, 2009 Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $87 that incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Two, abate all violations by: Obtain Collier County building permits for the newly constructed room in the garage within 60 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 a day will be assessed until the violation has been abated. Upon receipt of the permits, request inspections and obtain a certificate of completion within 60 days of the permit -- within 60 days of the day the permit was issued or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed until the violation is abated. B, obtain a Collier County demolition permit within 60 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 a day will be assessed until the permit is obtained. C, obtain a certificate of completion for the demolition permit and remove all debris within 60 days of obtaining the demolition permit, or a fine of $200 a day will be assessed until the violation is abated. D, respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. And E, 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 agreement. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Jean, I have a question. MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Are these provisions and terms mutually exclusive? MR. KELLY: Yes. MS. RAWSON: In other words, can you fine each one if they don't do it? Are they mutually exclusive in that if they don't do one, Page 21 March 26, 2009 they do the other? In other words, should B be in the alternative? MR. L'ESPERANCE: That's my question. MS. RAWSON: I think we need to probably ask the investigator that. But I hope it's in the alternative. MR. BALDWIN: It would be in the alternative, yes. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I don't think it's clear by the way it's written. MR. KELLY: It's not. It means they'd have to perform both A and B if this was agreed to. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Exactly. MR. BALDWIN: There should be an "or" in there, right? MR. KELLY: Correct. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Exactly. Small thing. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Just a little word of advice is -- and a lot of times, this is why we want the respondents here, not to leave after they come up with a stipulated agreement, because it's not agreed upon until we decide on it. So it's best to advise them to stay until they hear our case. And this would be one example, that this is going to have to be modified. MR. BALDWIN: The respondent was going out of town, he couldn't attend the meeting today. He had to work. So he's well aware of exactly what he needs to do. And he has applied for a permit already. It's in the applied status. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: He might be aware, but ifthere's changes, that could be an issue. All right? MR. KELL Y: Mr. Chairman, given the fact that I think this is in the respondent's best interest, could we accept the stipulated agreement with that one change noted? And I'll just make a motion to do so. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sure. MR. KELL Y: I make a motion to accept the stipulated agreement with the word "or" added at letter B, before the word Page 22 March 26, 2009 obtain. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Jean, does the respondent, would he have to initial it, or how -- MS. RAWSON: I think he would not. Because of the way the motion was made, I think you can make that one correction by order of the board. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, just wondering what -- you know, what point do we need to have the respondent-- MS. RAWSON: I think he's not going to disagree with this. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: He isn't. But I just want to make sure that the order -- MS. RAWSON: I think the order's going to be fine, because I'll write it in such a way that we accepted his stipulation, but the board ordered that that one word be included. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. MR. LARSEN: I believe that that was their understanding. MR. L'ESPERANCE: That was the intent. MR. LARSEN: Yeah. This is just their -- you know, a Page 23 March 26, 2009 clarification as exactly what, you know, we understand it to mean. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. I just don't want to have a problem. Okay, very good. Thank you very much. MR. BALDWIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next two cases will be BCC versus Linnette Barrett. (Speakers were duly sworn. Interpreter Susana Rodriguez was duly sworn.) MR. PAUL: For the record, Renald Paul, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. Case No. CELU20080016064. A single-family home was converted to multi-family unit in a single-family zoned area. This is violations of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 2.02.03. The owner, Linnette Barrett, has stipulated, come to a stipulated agreement. Owner has agreed to pay the operational costs in the amount of$86.71 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate all violations by: Remove any use and/or multi-family improvements from improved single-family property by obtaining a demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion, and return the property to original permitted single-family use within 60 days of this hearing or pay a fine of $200 a day until abated. 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 use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Does Mrs. Barrett agree to this stipulation? THE INTERPRETER: Yes, she does. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions? MR. LARSEN: I have a question, Mr. Chairman. Page 24 March 26, 2009 Does she read and understand English? THE INTERPRETER: No. But I made the translation for her and read it for her and made the translation. MR. LARSEN: So you read it directly to her and she understands what is contained in this stipulation? THE INTERPRETER: Yes, I did. MR. LARSEN: And she knows that if she fails to abide by the stipulation, there is a fine of $200 a day? THE INTERPRETER: Yes. MR. LARSEN: Okay. And she believes she will be able to comply with the stipulation within that period of time? THE INTERPRETER: Yes. MR. LARSEN: Within 60 days? THE INTERPRETER: Uh-huh. MR. LARSEN: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You're welcome. Any other questions of the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. KELL Y: Motion to accept the stipulated agreement. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. LA VINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. Page 25 March 26, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. PAUL: We have a second one. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Oh, yes. MR. DEAN: One more. (Speakers and Interpreter were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is this very similar to the other one? MR. PAUL: Yes. This is a property maintenance type of case. It's broken windows and damaged fascia to the same property. This is a violation of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, article four, Property Maintenance Code, Sections 22-231(12)(c), and Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, article four, Property Maintenance Code, Section 22-231(12)(i). This is violations of broken window and damaged fascia. The owner, Linnette Barrett, has agreed to pay operational costs in the amount of $89, abate all violations by: Owner must repair all broken windows and damaged fascia so that they are weather-tight and weatherproof within seven days of this order, or pay a fine of $250 a day until abated. Respondents must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement. And if respondents fail 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: I have a couple questions. MR. KELLY: I do, too. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Has she retained a licensed professional to do this work yet? Has she hired a licensed -- THE INTERPRETER: No, she's trying to look for the person to do it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Because right now it says that she Page 26 March 26, 2009 has seven days and -- from the date ofthis order, which would be today. And with that being said, if she hasn't hired somebody, that's a very short time frame to hire someone and to get this work completed. And $250 a day, she'll start having to pay that, once the -- on the eighth day. So that's a very short amount of time. THE INTERPRETER: Okay, she say that-- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Would you speak into the microphone a little closer, please. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Just bring the microphone down to you. THE INTERPRETER: Yes, she said that in order, you know, to the problem that they had, they just put in some cardboards on the windows so they don't -- you know, because the windows are breaking. But she's working and trying to find somebody to fix the problem. And she said that she's going to try to make it in the next seven days. If not, she's probably going to need a few more days to try to fix it. But she's working -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: A few more days is going to cost her $250 a day. THE INTERPRETER: She knows that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I have a couple of questions for the investigator. The work that has to be done, does it require any permits, and does it require a licensed professional to do the work? MR. PAUL: To do the windows it would. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Would require a permit? MR. PAUL: Yes, it would. I don't have a problem giving her a longer extension of time, due to the fact that they already have the windows boarded up that were broken. So the whole house is boarded up at this time. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But nowhere here does it -- I'm Page 27 March 26, 2009 looking at the order -- does it say anything about getting permits. I do not see that. MR. PAUL: Right. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So should it be in there? MR. PAUL: Yes, it should. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, another question. Why would replacing or fixing broken windows require a contractor or a permit? Is there something more involved with this than we're aware of? MR. LARSEN: That's the same question I have. Why would we pay for repair of an existing condition that required a permit? MR. KELL Y: I can answer that. MR. PAUL: I stand to be corrected. Due to the fact that it's just a glass, it wouldn't require a contractor. It's not the entire window, it's just the glass that's broken out. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Kelly? MR. KELL Y: Investigator Paul just addressed it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further questions from the board? MR. LARSEN: I have a question. Why seven days? MR. PAUL: That's just what's required for any property maintenance issues. By our guidelines it says seven days at $250 a day. MR. LARSEN: How many windows are we speaking of? MR. PAUL: I believe we're talking about four windows. MR. LARSEN: Do you believe it's a health or safety violation? MR. PAUL: Not at this time, due to the fact that the home is boarded up. MR. LARSEN: Thank you. MR. PAUL: And I'd like to just clarify that it's $250 a day. I don't have that on the stipulations. It says $250. Just to clarify that. Page 28 March 26, 2009 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, did you want to amend the seven days or suggest an extension of the seven-day time? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I don't know, can I make -- I don't think I can make a motion, correct, Jean? MS. RAWSON: If they want to amend the stipulation, probably the best thing for them to do is to go out and amend it, get her to initial it and bring it back. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, definitely going to have to amend the $250 to make it -- MS. RAWSON: Per day. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- $250 per day. So that would be something that they would have to sign off on. MR. LARSEN: Additionally, Mr. Chairman, I believe for discussion purposes that seven days is not sufficient. I would think more in the line of 30 days would probably be more appropriate under these circumstances. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Plus it's boarded up, as the Investigator stated, so I think -- MR. LARSEN: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you want it -- so we're going to have to send them back out to make the changes, or could we just go ahead and make the changes and then they'll sign off on it? MS. RAWSON: Well, why don't we make the changes, ask her if she agrees, and then they can go out and bring me back a revised one. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Right now what we're discussing is changing where it says -- I don't know if you can look up there. But on A, where it says you will have seven days or pay a fine of $250 until abated will be $250 a day. And we're also looking at, instead of seven days, you will have 30 days. So on the 31st day, the fine will start. That should give you sufficient time to hire someone and then go Page 29 March 26, 2009 out and do the work. And make sure that if you're getting close to that time frame that you call that investigator back out to inspect the work, okay? So what we're going to do now is we're going to take a vote and then you're going to go back out and sign it and then come back here, correct? MS. RAWSON: Well, they can -- you're going to take a vote. They can just bring us back the stipulated agreement. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. RAWSON: I was just looking at the other stipulation. It does say a day. So the other one's okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. So we're going to take a vote and then you're going to go out, make the changes, agree to them, sign them, and then we'll bring it back, correct? MS. RAWSON: You don't even have to bring it back if she -- MR. DEAN: Just let us know it's done. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman, I assume she's going to have to somehow manifest her agreement to the changes on the record here. Does she agree to those changes? THE INTERPRETER: Yes. MR. LARSEN: Okay. So she understands that basically she'll have 30 days and that it will be $250 per day for every day after 30 days that she does not have it abated, problem taken care of, correct? MR. KELL Y: I think she already agreed. THE INTERPRETER: Yes, she understands. MR. LARSEN: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion that we modify the stipulation as discussed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you just mention what the changes were, please. Page 30 March 26, 2009 MR. KAUFMAN: $250 a day and 30-day extension. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: 30 days instead of -- MR. KAUFMAN: Instead of the seven. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. THE INTERPRETER: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Make sure you get with the investigator before you leave. I think we're moving on to hearings, if I'm not mistaken. BCC versus Primitivo Lara. Yes, I butchered that one. Did you make sure they didn't leave? MR. PAUL: Yes. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do we want to skip this so he can take care of them and then bring this case back? MR. PAUL: That would be better. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Because I don't know how long this case is going to take. Jean? Page 31 March 26, 2009 MS. RAWSON: That's probably a good idea. You just need to change the -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Agenda? MS. RAWSON: Right. The respondent's not here? MR. PAUL: Correct. MS. RAWSON: Okay. So that's no problem. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. I'd like to make a change. Is that -- MR. KELL Y: Yeah, I'll make a motion that we change. We go ahead put this particular case, which is C.4, back on the agenda until after -- MR. DEAN: C.9? MR. KELL Y: Which one? MR. DEAN: C.9 -- or 10, I mean. MR. KELLY: Sorry, C.10. MR. LARSEN: Move it to C.10. 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. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Page 32 March 26, 2009 Next case will be BCC versus Klemco, LLC. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Chairman, I think it's probably best to take these two cases together -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. MS. WALDRON: -- eight and nine. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is the respondent present? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Before we start, do we have any speakers? I see that there's a member of the audience. MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Go ahead. MS. WALDRON: You want me to read the details? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes, that would be nice. MS. WALDRON: Okay. I'm just going to go through -- I'm going to read the pertinent information for both cases together. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to Case CESD20090002071, and CESD20090002075. Violation of Ordinance 2004-41, the Collier County Land Development Code, Sections 10.0 1.02(B)(2), and 10.0 1.02(B)(2)(J). Description of violation: Property was semi-developed during SDP application under early work authorization and then subsequently abandoned. Location/address where violation exists: Olde Cypress Subdivision, Folio No. 00185880006, and Folio No. 00186000005. Name and address of person in charge of violation location: Kenneth D. Goodman, 6622 New Haven Circle, Naples, Florida, 34109. Date violation first observed: February 26th, 2009. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: February 27th, 2009. Page 33 March 26, 2009 Date onlby which violation to be corrected: March 12th, 2009. Date of reinspect ion: March 13th, 2009. The violation remains. I would like to now present Supervisor Letourneau. MR. LETOURNEAU: Good morning. For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement Supervisor. Before I get going, I would like to submit one packet for each case of pictures. I'll call it Exhibit B-1. They're numbered 1 through 11. I'll be going through these during the case. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. KELL Y: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. LA VINSKI: Second. (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. LETOURNEAU: On June 29th, 2005, the original owners of this property, Empire Builders, submitted a plan for a site development plan number PPL-2002-AR-7924. I'd like to put on the screen a view of the property right now. Actually, it's both folio numbers. Page 34 March 26, 2009 Okay, as you can see, both properties are pretty developed. On June 6th, 2007, an early work authorization was issued for grading of the property and digging of the ponds. I'm going to pull out the ordinance they were issued under now. As you can see, this is the first ordinance I cited, if you can read Section B there. It says, the county may issue an early work authorization subject to the various stipulations underneath. So I cited that particular ordinance. And I also cited J, which authorizes the early work progress that they did. It gave them -- I believe it says original 60 days, and then two 30-day extensions. So this was issued on June 6th, 2007. So at the point of October 6th, 2007, that was the 60 days plus the two 30 days, total of 120 days. And they hadn't completed the project. Since then, since that time there really hasn't been any change in this property at all. It's sitting out there semi-developed. Kind of like a lunar landscape. It's got a couple of ponds dug and it's just totally cleared of vegetation and no grass or weeds and dust blowing everywhere. I just want to submit a few pictures now just to get you an idea of what the property looks like. As you can see, that's pretty much -- that's pretty much the 40 acres is just nothing but cleared property right there. There's just a slight bit of debris left. That's about the only part of the manmade debris. There's also some vegetation. Once again, you can see there was some semi-grading. What they did, I think they dug out some of the ponds and built up future house pads with the dirt and the rocks and everything. There's one of the ponds right there. Basically on the -- I believe -- let me see here. The north side, I believe, there's a huge string of mulch, which was going to be -- I don't know what they were going to use it for. Page 35 March 26, 2009 What I'd like to do is, you know, if we can get this thing graded is add all that stuff into the soil. So if we get granted this case, we can use that to help the hydro-seeding. There's another picture of the mulch. It stretches like almost around the whole 40 acres. I guess you guys got the gist of what the property looks like. Everything else is about the same thing, just showing the dirt and the mulch. MR. L'ESPERANCE: What is the composition of the soil? Is it -- I see rocks or is that just sand? MR. LETOURNEAU: It's a combination of both. They really kind of -- here, I'll show you. They kind of separated the smaller rocks into one area and the sand into the other area. It's a combination of both. Here, I'll show you. There's a pile of rocks. I don't know if they dug those out of the ponds or if those were brought in off-site -- from off-site. I'm not really sure about that. It's definitely a combination, though. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Roughly what percentage of the property is strictly sand and not anchored with any type of rock? MR. LETOURNEAU: Off the top of my head I would say probably 75 percent is sand. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay, I was given orders to go and try to get this case going on. So on February 27th, 2009, I went to the above property and took these pictures. Actually, these are on 3/2. I first went on the property on 2/27 and observed the violation. On that day I came back and I did NOV's and served them at the property owner's business, giving them two weeks to grade the property and hydro-seed. Since then I've had no contact from the property owners. The 12th came up, nothing had been done on the property. Page 36 March 26, 2009 Went out again, and on the 13th I prepped this case -- both cases for the Code Enforcement Board. I want to point out that you guys are probably aware that this property has been brought to the Code Enforcement Board before on different violations. And there is a new owner, but I'd like to point out that I have the deeds from all the way from Empire, from the original owners when it happened all the way till now when Klemco has it, and it shows that Mr. Goodman was involved the whole time with the ownership of the property, from Empire all the way up to Klemco. So he was well aware. You know, he's not like a new owner that bought this property, he's well aware of the violation and he's well aware of the issue that's going on. And that's about it. You want a recommendation now or -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No, no. MR. LETOURNEAU: -- do you want questions? Okay, okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No. I guess the question I have is if they were in front of us, I know last year and I know by the end of the year on a previous case they were supposed to be hydro-seeded. Why are we back here again? MR. LETOURNEAU: I'm back here again not to level any fines or anything like that, I'm back here just to ask the board's authorization for the county to go out and abate this violation. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I thought we already came up with that back in the last case. MR. LETOURNEAU: I believe on one of the cases it did say the county may abate it. The reason -- another reason we came back is just the question of the new ownership, and we wanted to make sure. If we go back on one case, I believe one of the orders says that it does not give the county authorization to abate it. So we just kind of came up here and wanted to do a clean thing with two new ordinances that really pertain to this issue. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I just don't understand that. Any Page 37 March 26, 2009 orders we have run with the property, not with the owners. And I would think that the previous cases that we had should still be in effect. And we should be taking those cases and moving forward with them, either hydro-seeding or fining them, doing what we have to do to get this property back into the shape that it should be. Either develop it or restore it back to its original state. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Chairman, the reason that these cases are being brought forward to you as new cases is that it is being cited for something completely different, a different section of the code. MR. LETOURNEAU: Also, if you go back to CESD20080007919, I'm looking at the order right now, there wasn't any authorization for the county to go in there. So on that one case of the 20080014496, there was authorization. But not on the other case. So we're just trying to bring the new ordinances in, and we want the county to go in there and be able to abate these. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Go ahead. MR. KELLY: And Supervisor Letourneau, are you familiar with the new state law that states that any projects that can demonstrate for a financial hardship due to the current economic situation are given a two-year pass on any local ordinances as far as beautification, site development or so forth, and gives them the ability to sit as-is until further financing and economic situations improve? MR. LETOURNEAU: No, sir, I'm not aware of that. MR. KELLY: I can't give you the direct statute, I apologize, I don't have it, but I believe there is such a thing. We've run into it on the affordable housing front with projects that had been given grants and of course had to sit still now because they couldn't secure additional financing. And it's given them time. I don't know how that conflicts with our ordinances. I'm just completely unfamiliar. I just know that there's something out there like that. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Kelly, you mentioned beautification. Page 38 March 26, 2009 I don't think that's part of the element of this particular case, though, is it? MR. KELLY: No, but what the new law basically stated was for those projects that were started and left in a partial status were given two years in order to secure further financing for the economic situation to improve before they can continue developing it. MR. L'ESPERANCE: What of this situation? This property has an impact upon surrounding properties. MR. KELL Y: It's mutually exclusive. It doesn't matter. That's the whole idea. The idea was to stop further financial hardship for developers who held these properties. MR. L'ESPERANCE: How about the financial hardship of the surrounding adjacent properties? MR. KELLY: I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the law, I'm just stating that I know there's something out there now. MR. LETOURNEAU: And I would like to point out that being as dry as it is right now, the dust blowing off this thing is, you know blowing all over the subdivision. MR. KELL Y: We don't have any ordinances saying otherwise, so we have to vote on what we're -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Attorney Wright? MR. WRIGHT: Yes, Mr. Chairman, again, Jeff Wright for the record. I just wanted to point out, I don't have the statute right in front of me, and I'm not sure that it's an appropriate subject of discussion for this board, but I do think it's appropriate maybe as a remedy for this property owner, so I'm not discounting it. But I do think that as Jen pointed out, it's a new owner, a new case with new elements, and as long as what we're looking for is a violation and an order that allows us to go in and do the abating ourselves. MR. KELLY: I agree. Thank you, Jeff. I'm just stating that we Page 39 March 26, 2009 need to decide on what we need to hear. I was just throwing it out there. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions of -- MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MR. LARSEN: I have some questions for Supervisor Letourneau. Supervisor Letourneau, you referenced before the early work authorization; is that correct. MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. MR. LARSEN: Do you know when approximately that was issued? MR. LETOURNEAU: That was issued on June 6th, 2007. MR. LARSEN: And do you know who was the owner of the property in title at that time? MR. LETOURNEAU: I believe Empire Builders. MR. LARSEN: Now, in this new violation you reference that you first observed it on February 26th, 2009; is that correct? MR. LETOURNEAU: I believe February 27th, 2009. MR. LARSEN: All right. Well, you know, the-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: 26th it says. MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. MR. LARSEN: Yeah, the statement of violation I have is 26th. But that -- and that you gave the notice of violation on the 27th. Now, it appears that you cited to the Land Development Code Section 10.0 1.02(B)(2), correct? MR. LETOURNEAU: That is --let me see. That is correct, yes, sir. And also the subsection J behind it. MR. LARSEN: Right, I'll get to that. And that's where the county may issue an early work authorization for the allowed activities, subject to demonstrated compliance with the following criteria, correct? Page 40 March 26, 2009 MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. MR. LARSEN: And then sub J on that says, this approval is good for 60 days with the possibility of two each 30-day extensions, dependent on the reason for the inability to gain proper approvals. After that time, cleared areas must be graded off or hydro-seeded. Is that your complaint on behalf of the code enforcement -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes, sir. MR. LARSEN: -- that that work has not been done? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes, sir. MR. LARSEN: All right. Now, you referenced a deed, which is quitclaim deed, and that's the 10th day of January, 2009 that you're speaking of? MR. LETOURNEAU: That's the new ownership with the Klemco -- MR. LARSEN: Between Lonnie Goodman as trustee-- MR. LETOURNEAU: That's correct. MR. LARSEN: -- of Goodman Investment Trust. And Klemco. MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes, sir. MR. LARSEN: Okay. And it's your belief that Mr. Goodman was not only involved with Empire but also with Klemco? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes, sir. MR. LARSEN: Okay. Did you have any communications with Mr. Goodman during this period of time, since June of 20077 MR. LETOURNEAU: I have not. I believe another investigator did, though, on the previous cases. MR. LARSEN: Okay. Now, since you've been here before in regard to Empire, has any work been done since you've been here before on this property? MR. LETOURNEAU: Not that I know of. I believe they did like a test hydro-seeding at one point and, you know, just a small area, but nothing over the whole thing. MR. LARSEN: All right. But is it your position that that early Page 41 March 26, 2009 work authorization was the only early work authorization given for this parcel? MR. LETOURNEAU: I can't answer that. I believe it was, but I can't answer that. MR. LARSEN: All right. Was there any other authorization permits or approvals to do any of the work on this parcel that you're aware of? MR. LETOURNEAU: There was a vegetation removal permit. MR. LARSEN: Okay. And basically were there other terms and conditions of those approvals which were not complied with? MR. LETOURNEAU: I believe that they removed the vegetation as they were allowed to under that permit, and everything was complied with on that permit. MR. LARSEN: Okay. And what is the issue with the hydro-seeding now? It seems that the cleared area must be graded off and hydro-seeded. That's the basis of your complaint, right? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes, sir. MR. LARSEN: All right. Is it your contention that they must be graded off and hydro-seeded under this earlier early work authorization? MR. LETOURNEAU: It does say that at this time cleared areas must be graded off and hydro-seeded, that's my contention. MR. LARSEN: And that has not been done? MR. LETOURNEAU: No, sir. MR. LARSEN: Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions of the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We do have two people that would like to speak, if I'm not mistaken. One -- and the agenda item title is BCC versus Empire Developers, and it's Gene Mayberry. Is this the case that you want to speak on? MR. MAYBERRY: Yes. Page 42 March 26, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Also, Diane Ebert, who has been here several times in front of us. MR. MAYBERRY: Good morning, gentlemen. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. MAYBERRY: Good morning, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you please state your name for the record. MR. MAYBERRY: My name is Gene Mayberry. I'm a resident ofOlde Cypress. Our homes abut this project. This is the second time we've been before you on this particular case. As the gentleman pointed out, there was an early work authorization granted in July of 2007. That effort was to be completed, as he pointed out, in October of 2007. The community has repeatedly been to the county to discuss the code violations, as have been pointed out in the pictures. We have mounds of blowing dirt. Our homes are contaminated with dirt, our lanais are contaminated, our furniture has been destroyed, and we're bearing the cost of cleaning our properties. We also are incurring a loss of value to our homes, because anyone that wants to sell a home -- and there are homes for sale abutting this property -- is decreasing the value of that property because it's literally a junk pile of dirt. I think you're right, sir, that you gentlemen did point out in the January time period that the code should be enforced. Personally I don't understand why we're back here, why we're back into double jeopardy, but we would kindly ask that you take immediate action to remedy this site. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. Mrs. Ebert? MS. EBERT: Good morning. For the record, Diane Ebert. Gentlemen, you're right, we have been in front of this board. Page 43 March 26, 2009 This code violation has gone on since last May. And you have had promises from the owner. And both people always have been involved. This is just a little name change that they're trying to do. The property is now in foreclosure. As it turns out, we really need this done this time. We have been very patient. How do you tell 426 residents, well, they're going to give another 60 days, they're going to give another 60 days. And if this new thing that did come in that Ken was talking about, this was done back in 2007, so this is really a very old piece. They -- ongoing according to the Land Development Code. And the Land Development Code gave them 60 days with two 30-day extensions. They never followed through. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions of the board? (No response.) MR. DEAN: Can I ask one question? Is it my understanding that this property is like this because maybe the top soil was taken off and sold off? Did they do that here? MR. LETOURNEAU: I don't believe so. I believe that they dug the ponds out and used that to raise the pads up. If anything, they brought soil in. I don't think they sold any soil off this property. MR. DEAN: Okay. Is that against Florida law is you can't take topsoil off the land? MR. LETOURNEAU: I think you can get the excavation permit and do something like that, but that wasn't the case on this property right here. MR. DEAN: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions? Go ahead, Mr. Kaufman. MR. KAUFMAN: I have one question. Should the board decide that this should be done immediately, how quickly is immediately? MR. LETOURNEAU: To be honest with you -- Page 44 March 26, 2009 MR. KAUFMAN: Ifit is the recommendation of the board, how long will it take, in your estimation? MR. LETOURNEAU: I would say we're pretty much ready to go at any time. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions of the board? (No response.) MR. LARSEN: I have a motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Make a motion. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that Code Enforcement Board, Department Case No. CESD2009000207l, in the matter of Board of County Commissioners, Petitioner, versus Klemco, LLC, registered agent, Goodman, Breen and Gibbs, registered agent, Kenneth D. Goodman, respondent. I'd like to make a motion that a violation of Ordinance 2004-41 of the Collier County Land Development Code, Sections 1O.01.02(B)(2), and 1O.01.02(B)(2)(j) exists as of the date the violation was first observed, which was February 26th, 2009. MR. KELL Y: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Now, do you have a recommendation? Page 45 March 26, 2009 MR. LETOURNEAU: My recommendation for both pieces of property would be the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $87.29 for both pieces incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Allowing the county to immediately abate the violation due to the health issues involved and the longevity of the violation, using the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provision of this order. All costs of abatement to be assessed to the property owners. MR. KELLY: Jean, I have a question. MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. KELL Y: Is there a risk by not giving the respondent any time that they can come back and say that this order was unable to comply with and they were not given a fair opportunity and hold this up in litigation for a while? MS. RAWSON: Well, they were notified to come today and they are not here. And you can enter an order today. They always have the right to come back and say help me, you know. But they're not here. Today's their day. MR. KELLY: Okay. I just wanted to protect the homeowners so they don't have to keep going through this. MS. RAWSON: Well, hopefully this is going to be abated immediately. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman, in follow up to Mr. Kelly's question to our counsel, it appears to me that the last clause in the recommendation, all costs of abatement to be assessed to the property owners would give the property owners some opportunity to come before us and say that the cost should not be assessed against them because of a lack of timely notice to them to be able to comply with what they should have done all along. So they do have some remedy before this board, should they want to object the assessment of the cost of abatement. Thank you. Page 46 March 26, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: How about amending -- so I think what you're trying to say is give them a little bit of time, maybe seven days from this hearing? MR. KELLY: I don't know what the answer is. I'm just thinking just something so that they can't wiggle out of it later. Too bad we couldn't use the old order, that would have just solved all of these issues. But here we are now. So, you know, maybe just something. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any way that -- MR. LARSEN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask Ms. Rawson a question in regard to -- under Florida law, what is the rule pertaining to counting weekends and holidays? Is it seven days and under you count weekends and holidays and anything over -- MS. RAWSON: Seven days is seven days. So immediately, I don't know what immediately means, but the investigator said he thought they were ready to go. If you want to give them seven days, that isn't really going to be seven days by the time they get the order. But it's up to you. MR. LARSEN: So if we went over seven days, then you'd have to count the weekends, and it's really -- you know, if we give them 10 days, it turns into 13 days. MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. LARSEN: All right. Thank you very much, Ms. Rawson. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, one other question. Do we need to specify what the county's going to do, or is abate the violation sufficient? MS. RAWSON: I think abate the violation is sufficient. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you very much. MR. KELLY: And just to further comment, it would probably take seven days for the county to line up their contractor anyway. So if you start your preparation immediately, you know, we're going to be at seven days anyways. I'd just hate to see them come back and try to stick it into a legal battle because of due process. Page 47 March 26, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: To answer your question, I think abate the fines is to follow the LDC and what was originally stated to be done. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Just trying to -- I'm just trying to tie this up as best as possible so we're not coming back again. I really want to see this corrected for these homeowners. I just can't imagine what they've been going through. So I want to make this the last time that they have to sit here in front of us. So I guess looking for a motion for seven days I guess is what -- MR. LARSEN: Well, it's a little bit more complicated than that. What this recommendation says is it allows the county to immediately abate. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. LARSEN: You'd have to -- if you were going to give them time, you'd have to say that the respondents have seven days -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Seven days, right. MR. LARSEN: -- and should they fail to abate the conditions, then the county may immediately go in and abate the conditions without further delay. And with the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is that a motion? MR. KELLY: It sounds like one. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I just roped you into a motion. MR. LARSEN: Okay, then I move that we accept the recommendation, with the proviso that it be amended to allow the respondent seven days to abate the violation. Should the respondent not abate the violation within seven days, then the county is permitted to immediately abate the violation due to the health issues involved and the longevity of the violation, using the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order. And should the county be required to abate Page 48 March 26, 2009 the violation, then all costs of abatement be assessed to the property owners. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We also -- do we want to include there that if it is abated within seven days, the -- that your office gets a call to go out and inspect? MR. LETOURNEAU: That would be a good one, yeah. MR. KELLY: And should a fine be associated with it? MR. LETOURNEAU: Notify the code enforcement investigator that the violation has been abated. MR. LARSEN: Right, and should -- Mr. Kelly, go ahead. MR. KELLY: My only thought was what if they started actually working on this and it went over the seven days? I mean, ultimately that's the idea. The idea is abatement, whoever does it. But it takes them longer. Should there be a fine to -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes, absolutely. MR. LARSEN: Well, then I think you're watering down the remedy. Because you put in a fine, it assumes that they'll be able to continue their abatement and just pay the fine. What I was trying to accomplish with my motion is they must abate within seven days. Should they fail to abate, then the county abates, whether they have partial abatement or complete abatement. If it's not done completely, then the county gets to go in with the assistance of the sheriff and completely abate the violation. MR. DEAN: I agree. MR. LA VINSKI: Yeah, sounds right. MR. DEAN: I agree. MR. KELLY: I understand that completely. I'm just saying, if they stick a bulldozer out there and start working on it and they can say that they are trying to comply, and the next thing you know county comes in with their people and they're working on top of each other, it could be a mess. Page 49 March 26, 2009 MR. LETOURNEAU: Can I bring up one thing? MR. DEAN: As our attorney said, they had their day here today and they're not here. So I don't really have any sympathy for them. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. LETOURNEAU: I don't really want to throw anything into this, but we've already contracted bidders and we've already got the bidder to go out there right now. So when I said immediately, we're ready to go. My thing to say right now is, though, we're going to grade it immediately. But because it's so dry out there right now, we're not going to be required to hydro-seed right now. We're going to probably have to wait till June before the rainy season comes up on the hydro-seeding. I mean, there's just no way. If we're going to put it out there now, it's probably going to die, due to the fact that there's absolutely no water out there. That's something I've got to throw in there. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. KELLY: I'll vote on your motion positively. I'm not saying you have to throw it in, it was just an idea. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Are you -- is that a motion and a second then? MR. DEAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. Page 50 March 26, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. LARSEN: Then we have a second case. MR. KELLY: Same one. MS. RAWSON: I'm not sure I know what the motion was. Is that for them to abate within seven days? MR. LARSEN: Respondent to abate within seven days. Should then the respondent not abate within seven days, then the county has the authority to enter onto the property and to commence abatement immediately. MS. RAWSON: No fine other than the fact that they've got to pay the county's bill? MR. LARSEN: Correct. MS. RAWSON: Okay, thank you. MR. LARSEN: Now, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a second motion in regard to Board of County Commissioners versus Klemco, LLC, Respondent, Goodman, Breen and Gibbs, registered agent, Kenneth D. Goodman, registered agent, for Department No. CESD20090002075, if I may. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You certainly can. MR. LARSEN: I move that we find the respondents in violation of Ordinance 2004-41, the Collier County Land Development Code, Sections 1O.01.02(B)(2), and 1O.01.02(B)(2)(J), and that the violation existed upon the date of first observation, which was February 26th, 2009 by Code Enforcement Supervisor Letourneau. That's the motion to find that a violation did exist. MR. KELLY: Second the violation (sic). CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. Page 51 March 26, 2009 MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Do you have a recommendation? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is it the same thing? MR. LETOURNEAU: Same recommendation, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. If you could just put it on the screen. Mr. Larsen, would you like to go ahead? MR. LARSEN: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to move that the Code Enforcement Board accept the recommendation with the following amendment: That the respondents be given seven days to abate the violation that currently exists on the property . Should they not abate within seven days, then the county is authorized to immediately abate the violation due to the health issues involved and the longevity of the violation, using the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce provisions of the order, and that all costs of abatement are to be assessed -- all costs incurred by the county for abatement are to be assessed against the property owners. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) Page 52 March 26, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Would you like to take a break? MR. DEAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. We'll take a break until 10:35. It is now 10:23. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd like to call Code Enforcement Board back to order. BCC -- and a third time's a charm, hopefully -- versus Primitivo Lara. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 1 0.02.06(B)(1)( a). Description of violation: Addition of pole barn and sheds without permits. Location/address where violation exists: 4914 17th Place Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116. Folio 36128920007. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Primitiva Lara, 5020 27th Place Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116. Date violation first observed: February 6th, 2008. Page 53 March 26, 2009 Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: April 3rd, 2008. Date on which violation to be corrected: April 25th, 2008. Date of reinspection: December 12th, 2008. The violation remains. At this time, I would like to present Investigator Renald Paul. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Good morning. MR. PAUL: For the record, Renald Paul, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. At this time I'd like to give some exhibits for this property. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And let's make a note that the respondent is not present; is that correct? MR. PAUL: That's correct. MR. KELL Y: I make a motion we accept the packet. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. PAUL: As you'll see, this is Exhibit B-1 through 3. The first picture will show a far view of -- as you can see in the rear yard, of the shed and partial part of the pole barn. And the second photograph will show a much better picture. It's Page 54 March 26, 2009 a much closer picture. As you can see, the pole barn's right next to the shed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right to the left of it. MR. PAUL: Correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: With the type of metal type awning MR. PAUL: Right. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- covering, roof? MR. PAUL: That's correct. MR. KAUFMAN: Pictures were taken when? MR. PAUL: They've got the dates on them. 2/5 of '08. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. L'ESPERANCE: The construction ofthe shed, is that when it was moved in or constructed on-site? MR. PAUL: Yes. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Which one? MR. PAUL: I believe it was constructed on-site. It may have been; I don't know. MR. L'ESPERANCE: It's not like one of those premanufactured sheds? MR. PAUL: I don't believe so. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. MR. PAUL: But I can't be exact, though. I've never met with the owner on the site and seen it close up. On 2/6 of '08 I was on-site, I observed a pole barn and a shed in the rear ofthe property. After checking the records, I was unable to find permits for either one of these structures. On 2/8 I was on-site. I knocked on the door. I was making an attempt to serve a notice of violation, but found that no one was home. The notice of violation was sent certified mail to the owner, which was not claimed and returned back to the sender. On 4/3 of'08, I went to the courthouse and the property, posted Page 55 March 26, 2009 the notice of violation, completed affidavit of posting and mailing. On 4/25 of '08, Mr. Primitivo, the owner, came in the office and said that he needed an extension for the two additions of the pole barn and the shed, and he said that he has to find out what it will cost him to keep both of these and that he would be meeting up with an architect. He requested a three-week extension. At that time I told him I'd give him the three-week extension so that he could take care of these things. On 5/20 of '08 I spoke with Mr. Primitivo on the phone again. He explained that he talked to an architect and he had an appointment that following Thursday to see the architect. On 5/30 of '08, after research, found that the owner had obtained a permit for the pole barn. He was -- he had obtained a demolition permit to have the structure knocked down. On 7/11, after research, found that the violation remained, and at that time the owner had applied for a permit for the shed. He applied to relocate the shed. On 8/12, found that the violation remained. On 10/9, called owner on the phone, spoke to Mr. Primitivo, who said that he was going on Monday to get the permit for the shed, because he had only applied for it, he hadn't had the permit at that time, and that he was working on removing the pole barn and getting a CO. On 11/20, after research, found that the violation remained and owner only had six days left on the pole barn permit before it expired. On 12/12, after research, found that the permit for the pole barn had expired and the other permit for the shed was still in apply status. Owner had not obtained the permit for it yet. On 3/11, I posted the notice of hearing at the residence and the courthouse and completed all affidavits, and we're here today. MR. KELL Y: So the permit for the shed was never picked up. MR. PAUL: No, he never paid for it, he never picked it up. Page 56 March 26, 2009 MR. KELL Y: And the other one's already expired. MR. PAUL: Correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions of the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that we find this in violation. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. PAUL: Would you like me to read the recommendation? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. And also if you could put it up on the prompter. MR. PAUL: The county asks that the owner pay the operational costs in the amount of$87.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Respondents required to obtain any and all permits as required by Collier County for any and all additions and alterations to the residence, or obtain a demolition permit for removal of all unpermitted additions to this property and obtain all required inspections and Page 57 March 26, 2009 certificate of completion within "X" amount of days of this hearing or be fined "X" amount of dollars for each day the violation remains unabated. Respondents must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement. And if respondents fail 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. MR. L'ESPERANCE: It's a little bit different than what we see on the screen, but I think the flavor's about the same. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The thing that I have a problem with is the certificates of completion for all non-permitted additions on the property. So that can include -- I mean, if, let's say, a garage is converted. I think maybe it should be limited to what we have in front of us, what they've been cited for, a shed and pole barn, and not just everything. MR. PAUL: I'm sorry, when you say everything? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, exactly what you're saying is for all non-permitted additions on this property. MR. PAUL: Right. This is just strictly for the pole barn and the shed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It should be spelled out. MR. PAUL: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And we have to discuss in what time frame and what the dollar amounts of the fine would be. MR. KELL Y: How does 30 days and 200 bucks sound? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Discussion of the board? MR. LARSEN: Thirty days -- well, all right, so it would be obtaining Collier County building or demolition permits, all required inspections and certificates of completion for the pole barn and the shed on this property within 30 days. MR. KELLY: Correct. And he already had one permit, he just needs to do a re-app. on that one and then pick up the one that he Page 58 March 26, 2009 never picked up. MR. LARSEN: Okay, so that can be done in 30 days? MR. KELLY: Sixty then? MR. DEAN: I don't know, what's wrong with 30? The person's not here, he's not responded to the code enforcement officer. I mean, why are we giving him additional days? If he does, he has to come in and ask for it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yeah, I think 30 days would be fine. $200 might be a little bit much. MR. LARSEN: See, I think 30 days, considering that he has to obtain the building and/or demolition permit and all required inspections, as well as the certificate of completion. Now, if you want to break it down and say he's got to obtain his permits within 30 days, you know, and the, you know, inspections and certificates of completion within 60 days, that might work a little better. MR. KELL Y: If that's the case, I'm just in favor oflumping it all under one lump sum of time. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. LARSEN: As for the 200, I think 200 is an appropriate number. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Kelly, would you like to make a recommendation? MR. KELLY: I was just throwing it out there, I mean, to the will of whatever you guys want to do. But -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It sounds like we have a -- MR. KELLY: Sixty is good? All right, I'll make a motion that we accept the county's recommendation, wherein the time frame would be 60 days from the date of this hearing and the fine would be $200 per day until paid. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Could we also change from non-permitted additions to the shed and pole barn, be specific on that? Page 59 March 26, 2009 MR. KELLY: Will also change instead of just all non-permitted additions to specifically stating the pole barn and shed. MR. LARSEN: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor, say aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. And Jennifer, if I'm not mistaken, we're moving on to motion for imposition of fines. BCC versus Mary Luedtke. And we do have a person that would like to speak also. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to CEB Case No. 2007110088, Board of County Commissioners versus Mary Luedtke. Violation of Collier County Ordinance 04-41, the Land Development Code, as amended, Section 6.05.02(B). And Collier County Ordinance 85-2, an ordinance relating to the construction, repair, alteration and prolongation of seawalls and revetments in the unincorporated areas of Collier County, Sections 2.5.A and 5.C. Violation location: 2854 Becca Avenue, Naples, Florida. Folio 29830200006, with a violation of a failed seawall. On May 22nd, 2008, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct Page 60 March 26, 2009 the violation. See the attached order of the board OR4365, Page 1420 for more information. The respondent has complied with the CEB orders as of November 21st, 2008. The county's recommendation is to issue an order imposing lien in the amount of $600 as follows: Fines at a rate of $200 per day for the period between November 19th, 2008 to November 21st, 2008, three days, for the total of $600. Operational costs of 291.14 have been paid. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: State your name for the record, please. MR. LUEDTKE: My name's Randy Luedtke. I'm here on behalf of my wife, Mary, to respectfully ask the board if they would consider waiving the -- abating the $600 fine. We had the final called on 11/08. On 11/7 the first one was. And I was unaware that it didn't pass because of no address numbers on there. And I thought the contractor was taking care of it. And so my neighbor, Kenny Thompson, said that I had to put address numbers on, so I bought them and we called for the inspection. And it was at 11/19 I believe is when they got out there. I think we called on 11/18, the day that (sic) the compliance, but they didn't get there till 11/19. And I paid the $75 on 11/21. MR. KEEGAN: The county has no objection to waiving. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Before we make a decision, Mr. Thompson, would you like to come up and speak? MR. THOMPSON: You know, my name is Ken Thompson. I live at 2831 Becca, just across the street. And Mr. Luedtke, he's new here, he just bought that place. He didn't know nothing about this house. You work here? Your clothes and all that. So I just happened to catch it. And I told him we need to come up here. We went here to the Board of County Commissioners and I Page 61 March 26, 2009 thought they had it all taken care of. And we end up here, see. And I didn't know that they went and ever did it. It's not his fault. Because he did come here and got it taken care of. And we thought they had got it passed. That is the truth. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. Thank you very much for your time. MR. KELLY: I'd like to make a motion that given the fact that the respondent stated that the final inspection was passed within the time frame and it was just a couple extra days for the county to clear the record and to grant the certificate of completion, that we abate the fines of $600. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, before we continue with that motion, I have a question. Maybe the county could help us with explaining why the operational costs are 29l.14? MS. WALDRON: Just this is an older case, and it was before we changed our standards for operational costs. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We have a motion and we have a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Page 62 March 26, 2009 MR. KEEGAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The fine has been abated. MR. LUEDTKE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next case will be BCC versus Bart and Sandi Chernoff. MS. MacALISTER: Good morning, gentlemen. Colleen MacAlister for Mr. Chernoff. Mr. Chernoff is also here. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Could we have the parties sworn in, please. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. MacALISTER: I really thought last time we were here it might perhaps be my last appearance before the board on this matter. I'm happy to report we have settled this case. And the problem we have with this case of course is there's two parts to it. Not only the part that appears before you, but the reconstruction part was also a part of the lawsuit. I was kind of surprised when I got the notice of hearing, because I was somehow under the impression that we would have gotten that notice next month, not this month. Anyway, we do have a demo permit. I would have filed something to come in here and address the issue of the fines and address the issue of continuance, but the other side had assured me that they thought we could get the demo done by today, not realizing that the contractor was focusing on the building permit as opposed to the demo permit, which is going back and forth with engineering. Because of course it's a pole barn and so there's lots of engineering concerns about construction. So the building permit is in the engineering department. Mr. Morad can confirm that the permit for the demolition has been issued. The demolition is scheduled to be done. The permit will be posted today. Once the permit is posted -- if you'll recall, this involves a pole barn, a shed and a structure that Mr. Chernoff actually built under the Page 63 March 26, 2009 pole barn. Mr. Chernoff is going to do some of the demolition on his pole barn. He's going to remove things that he feels he can salvage for possible reuse later, now that there's a permit. He couldn't do that until the permit was issued. We have spoken to Mr. Morad about the shed. We're going to try and save the shed and reconstruct a foundation for the shed. The rest of it is all scheduled to be demoed and removed and a new pole barn is scheduled to be built within setbacks and properly permitted on the property . So I suppose at this point in time I would ask that the court abate imposition of the fines for -- I don't think it's going to take longer than two weeks, but I would ask that we be allowed to get the fines abated for at least 15 days to get the demo done. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The fines are currently running, right? MS. MacALISTER: No. MR. CHERNOFF: No. MS. WALDRON: Yes, they are. They had until March 23rd for the last extension you gave them to come into compliance. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Kelly first. MR. KELLY: Typically we don't abate fines until the property's come into compliance. There are two solutions: One, we can go ahead and charge the fines, they will continue to accrue, and you can come back afterwards when it is in compliance and ask for a reduction or an abatement. That's a little bit more risky. The other idea is to ask if county's willing to pull this from today's session and put it on perhaps next month or the month after, giving you the time that you need so we don't have to go through that. MS. WALDRON: I think -- I know what we've done in the past is the board has granted a continuance for the motion for extension for Page 64 March 26, 2009 imposition of fines, which I would rather do that than the county pulling it so we have an order on the record. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Larsen? MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman. Ms. MacAlister, before the board today, we have the -- an application for the imposition of fine. And the packet indicates that fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period between March 24th, 2009 and March 26th, 2009, three days, for a total of $600 is what the county is seeking to impose today. And that fines continue to accrue. And is it your application that the imposition of fines be stayed for a period of time to allow you to complete whatever necessary work needs to be done? MS. MacALISTER: Yeah. As I say, when I first got the notice-- first of all, I must explain that I had originally told the contractor I had -- in the law normally actions occur from the date of the order. So I'm looking at the date of orders on all of the continuances. And I kept telling everyone we had until the 31 st of March for imposition of fines, because I count from the date of the order. And usually the order specifies a different date if it's not from the date that the order is actually signed. So I have been operating all along on apparently a wrong calendar. And I just heard today where your date of order is the date of the actual order by the board. So that was partially my mistake, or I would have early on filed for another continuance or an abatement of the fines. According to the county, they'd prefer if! ask you. I can make an ore tenus motion to just continue this matter to the next county calendar for resolution, if that's what you'd prefer. We've tried as best we could. There are three lawyers, a contractor, a homeowner and a former homeowner involved. And like the case earlier, it's been a monumental effort to try and satisfy everything. Page 65 March 26, 2009 Although Mr. Morad can testify that we actually came to agreement about six weeks ago, because that's when we called him and asked for clarification on the pad and whether the pad had to be removed, and also on the shed and whether we could take it off the foundation and then rebuild the foundation and put it back on, and whether that would satisfy code enforcement in terms of fines. So for six weeks we've been trying to pull this together and get the permits, the proper permits issued so we could go forward. The problem here is of course with all litigation, it's a whole package deal. And you can't -- as soon as the contractor walks on the property, he obtains lien rights to the property. So unless all the pieces of the puzzle were in place at one time, we really couldn't allow him to start because we might have lien rights on the property without an appropriate settlement. We do have all of the money in escrow, so it's only a question of finishing paperwork. So I'll defer to the board's judgment on how they can handle it. I think, you know, we have always tried to respond to the board timely, and this time it's probably my mistake in misreading deadlines. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion that we continue this to next hearing? MR. LARSEN: Is that a motion with the continuance, the fines continuing to accrue? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. Mr. Kelly? MR. KELLY: I was just thinking, if we were going to grant a continuance, we've already granted two of them, why couldn't we just do another continuance on the original case? Then you wouldn't have any fines, because they would technically still have a time to go. MR. LARSEN: See, I kind of agree with that. I mean, first I think there's two issues: Ms. MacAlister's ore tenus motion to abate the $600, and the question of what we're going to do in regard to going Page 66 March 26, 2009 forward. I'm not clear on exactly how much time you're asking for, Ms. MacAlister. MS. MacALISTER: I think if the court grants another 30-day continuance on the original matter, we can come in here and tell you we've met with Mr. Morad and we've satisfied all the conditions of the county's order. MR. KELL Y: Understand that that would also be the construction itself. MS. MacALISTER: Well, the construction is -- MR. KELLY: Am I wrong? MS. MacALISTER: No, the construction is not before the board. The only thing that's before the board is the demolition and the fact that all of the illegal structures have been removed. MR. KELLY: I'm sorry, yes, that's exactly what I meant, the construction work to remove those structures. MS. MacALISTER: Yes, exactly. MR. KELL Y: And you feel confident you'd be able to do that in 30 days? MS. MacALISTER: Uh-huh. MR. KELLY: And furthermore, I'm sympathetic to county's position where they do want an order. However, I don't want to see the contractor run into any problems, ifhe already has some kind oflien on the property and he's trying to pull NOC's and so forth. MS. WALDRON: Well, I think what you guys -- what you're referring to is you wanted to give them another extension of time -- MR. KELL Y: Correct. MS. WALDRON: -- not a continuance. Continuance would allow the fines to keep running. Extension of time would not. MR. KELL Y: Extension of time, correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Ifwe give them an extension of time, it would be 30 days from today, which would be past our next Page 67 March 26, 2009 meeting. MS. WALDRON: Correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So in reality, if the work was not completed, you would not come in front of us on the 21 st, which is our next meeting. Right, is it the 21 st? 23rd. MS. WALDRON: The 23rd of April. MS. RAWSON: 23rd. MR. LARSEN: And then the following meeting is when, Ms. Waldron? MS. WALDRON: Is May 28th. MR. LARSEN: May 28th. So if we gave them a 60-day extension of time, it would be right before the May meeting. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I think 60 might be too long. I guess MS. MacALISTER: Can we do the -- can you do the extension of time up to the date of the next board meeting? Do you have to specify a number of days? MR. KELLY: Usually we specify a number of days. And I'm in favor of more time rather than less. You've been more than diligent in trying to take care of this. And I am very sympathetic to all of the litigation and hard work of getting the old owner to come to the table on this. And congratulations, we don't see very many people actually get positive settlements. So, I mean, if you want a classic case of where people have tried to work diligently to abate these violations, this is one of them. MR. LARSEN: Right, I'm more inclined to give 60 days and to extend the time so their fines do not accrue. And in regard to the $600, which has already accrued, I also note that they've paid the operational cost of 463.99, that the ore tenus motion for the abatement of that $600 is well founded. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is that in a motion? Page 68 March 26, 2009 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is that in the form of a motion? MR. LARSEN: I would make a motion if -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: I would second that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. LARSEN: Okay. So you do understand, Ms. MacAlister, exactly what happened? MS. MacALISTER: You've abated the $600 and you've extended -- and you've -- MR. KELLY: You're technically not in violation anymore, because we've extended the time ofthe original order, so there is no 600. MS. MacALISTER: Okay. So we're extended to May 24th, right? MR. CHERNOFF: To the next meeting or May 24th? MS. MacALISTER: To May -- 60 days, correct? MR. LARSEN: Sixty days from today. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And our meeting in May is when? MR. KAUFMAN: 28th. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: 28th. MS. MacALISTER: But I'll come back next month and tell you Page 69 March 26, 2009 that everything -- do I need to come -- would the board like me to come before -- MR. KELLY: No. MS. MacALISTER: No. Well, then as long as I'm confident that we will be done, I want to thank you all for your patience with us. It's been enjoyable. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Worst case scenario, you'll be back in May. MS. MacALISTER: Boy. Shoot me if! am. Thank you, gentlemen. MR. CHERNOFF: Gentlemen, I want to thank you for your patience in helping me out with this. I really appreciate it. MR. KELLY: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Have a great day. Next case will be BCC versus Grisel Diaz. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to CEB Case No. 2007040121, violation of Collier County Ordinance 04-41, the Land Development Code, as amended, Sections 1O.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06(B)(1)(e), and 1O.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i), and Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article 2, Section 104.1.3.5. Location of violation: 1119 Madison Avenue, Immokalee, Florida. Folio 63051760002. Description of violation: Addition improvements constructed to the existing structure without first obtaining a Collier County building permit and related inspection. Addition is of an open lanai type structure. On October 31st, 2008, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board OR 4407, Page 1783 for more information. Page 70 March 26, 2009 The respondent has not complied with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of March 26th, 2009. The county's recommendation is to issue an order imposing a lien for fines at the rate of $1 00 per day for the period between December 1st, 2008 to March 26th, 2009, 116 days, for the total of $11,600. Fines continue to accrue. Operational costs of $88.14 have not been paid. The total recommended lien amount is $11,688.14. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Investigator, can you state your name. MS. PEREZ: For the record, Christina Perez, Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. Has there been any follow-up or anything? Have you discussed MS. PEREZ: The property is vacant. There is no one living in the home. The violation still remains. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion to impose fines? MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that the fines be imposed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. LA VINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. Page 71 March 26, 2009 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. PEREZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next one will be BCC versus Naples Property Services, LLC. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to CEB Case No. 2007050653. Violation of Collier County Ordinance 04-41, the Land Development Code, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and 1 0.02.06(B)(1)( c). Location of violation: 865 95th Avenue North, Naples, Florida. Folio 62769000004. Description of violation: Existing structure with interior and exterior alterations and improvements without prior Collier County zoning and development review approval. Also existence of an accessory structure without Collier County permits. On January 24th, 2008, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See attached order of the board OR 4385, Page 0698 for more information. The respondent has not complied with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of March 26th, 2009. The county's recommendation is to issue an order imposing lien for fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period between August 21st, 2008 to March 26th, 2009, 218 days, for the total of $43,600. Page 72 March 26, 2009 Fines continue to accrue. Operational costs of 357.86 have been paid. The total recommended lien amount is $43,600. MR. KELLY: Investigator, I notice that the affidavit of noncompliance was filed after your reinspection performed May 23rd, 2008. That was like 10 months ago. Do you have any updates on the property? MR. MARTINDALE: For the record, Ronald Martindale, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. Yes, sir, I have had no communication with the owner or the agent in several months. I've made multiple checks of the property, and they did pull a permit middle of last year. It was never picked up. It since has expired. The property is still vacant and unchanged from the last two years, as of yesterday at 2:00 p.m. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any fur -- MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MR. LARSEN: Investigator, is the place vacant? MR. MARTINDALE: Yes, sir. MR. LARSEN: Is it on the market? Is there any indication that it's for sale? MR. MARTINDALE: I've had several attempts, people contacting, wanting to know what to do to resolve the code situation, and they've just been referred to the Clerk of Courts to see what the board's order has been. It was a health -- a child care facility, and because of the problems here, nobody's -- nobody can buy the place because of all of the additional structures and the modifications made to the main primary structure without any permits. So as far as I know it's still vacant and on the -- I'm assuming the owner's trying to sell it, but it still shows, as per the Clerk of Courts, that he is still the owner of record. MR. LARSEN: Thank you very much. Page 73 March 26, 2009 MR. KELL Y: Mr. Chairman -- hang on, I've got to interrupt you, I'm sorry. I just realized what property this was, and I need to recuse myself. I have personal knowledge about the litigation that's ongoing between the tenants and the owner, and I don't think I should participate in the case. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Make a note on the record Mr. Kelly excused himself. MR. KAUFMAN: Question. Do you know whether a lis pendens is out on this or not? MR. MARTINDALE: On my last check, which was approximately 10: 00 a.m. yesterday, there was no indication of lis pendens or any type of foreclosure action. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further questions of the board? MR. LARSEN: Just one further question. Is the place secure? It's not an attractive nuisance or anything like that, is it? MR. MARTINDALE: Other than a slight weight (sic) accumulation, the property appears to be secure. No signs of any entry during the past year, year and a half that I've been making checks on it. MR. LARSEN: Thank you very much. MR. MARTINDALE: I might add that it is fenced front, rear and side, and that will keep some of the people out. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a mo -- MR. LARSEN: No further que -- well, it appears that we have another situation where the respondent, Naples Property Services, LLC, is really not interested in complying with this board's prior orders. And, you know, it's unfortunate that the fines continue to accrue at $200 a day from August 21 st, 2008 to March 26th, 2009 for a total of 218 days, but I don't think the board has much alternative but to impose the fine for $43,600. I understand operational costs were paid, Page 74 March 26, 2009 but the fines continue to accrue. And if the property owners are not interested in bringing it up to code in complying with the order, I guess we have to impose the fine. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor, say aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. MARTINDALE: Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next case will be BCC versus Vanderbilt Devco, LLC. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. V ARSAMES: My name is John Varsames. V-A-R-S-A-M-E-S. May I distribute this to you? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Before I go forward, I know you have a DVD that you want to present to us. Is this in lieu of the DVD? MR. V ARSAMES: No, it's the same. I just didn't know whether they could run it. MS. WALDRON: I think we're all set up. MR. V ARSAMES: Okay, we're ready to go. Okay. MS. WALDRON: If we can't get it to work, we'll -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Before we see the DVD, is it in Page 75 March 26, 2009 direct relation to your imposition of fines, reducing your fines? I do not want to hear the case again. MR. V ARSAMES: Okay. We never heard the case. We entered into a stipulation agreement under the premise that we were desiring to clean up a creative nuisance that was created by the former owner. And we simply agreed the stipulation agreement to go forward. Thereinafter we completed the work as per the stipulation agreement, I think as the county is prepared to testify. The issue comes into focus as to whether or not we were ever notified that our mitigation plan was accepted, and we take the position it was not. Some of the photographs that we're going to show you on the DVD represent a historical perspective, but it does show what we've done to clean it up. I would respectfully submit that that entire presentation would take less than three minutes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It's not the time frame, it's what's the content of the DVD. MR. V ARSAMES: The content basically moves our hardship position to request that there be no fines waived -- imposed, because all of the work that was asked for has been delivered. And it's a que -- it then really falls to an issue of timing. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Jean, couple of questions. First of all, we have to make a motion, I would assume, to see the DVD; is that correct? MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And again, I don't want to hear the case. I mean, I just want to hear what's relevant to why they want a reduction. So would the DVD -- MS. RAWSON: Since I haven't seen it, I'm not sure. I think he -- I think he just said that it is relative to why he thinks the fines should be abated. Page 76 March 26, 2009 MR. KAUFMAN: Should be abated. MS. RAWSON: Should be abated, yes, and not imposed. MR. LARSEN: I make a motion that basically we permit the respondent to play his DVD. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Okay. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman, is there additional materials that the respondent wanted to submit to the board for review? MR. V ARSAMES: I simply have the same materials on the DVD, under the chance that if you couldn't view it I could give it to you in print. MR. LARSEN: Thank you. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Chair, would you like me to go through the imposition details first? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Please. Sorry about that. MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to CEB Case No. 2006070496. Violation of Collier County Ordinance 04-41, the Land Development Code, as amended, Section 3.05.01(B). Violation location: 7071 Hunters Road, Naples, Florida, Folio Page 77 March 26, 2009 283680001. Description of violation: Vegetation removed on undeveloped property without obtaining the proper required Collier County permits. On February 28th, 2008, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances in order to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board OR 4336, Page 2752, for more information. The respondent has complied with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of January 23rd, 2009. The county's recommendation is to issue an order imposing lien for fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period between March 31st, 2008 to May 14th, 2008, 45 days, for the total of $9,000. Also, fines at a rate of $200 per day for the period between September 27th, 2008 to January 23rd, 2009, 119 days, for the total of $23,800. Operational costs of 468.31 have not been paid. The total recommended lien amount is $33,268.31. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, do you want to go ahead and MR. V ARSAMES: Yeah, I believe, just to record, the operational costs were paid, so I think the -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MR. LARSEN: No, it says they have not been paid on my form. MR. V ARSAMES: We show them as being paid. MS. WALDRON: We'll double check that, but we're -- MR. V ARSAMES: Yeah, I think they're paid. The property in question is identified as 7071 Hunter Road. The property fronts on old Livingston Road and Hunter. This photograph shows the property when we bought it. And what you're looking at is an organized creative nuisance created by the previous owner, which was a motorbike, dirt track, jumps and pits. Page 78 March 26, 2009 Next slide, please. The property in question was used illegally as an organized motorbike and four-wheeler track. There was illegal dumping going on, on the property when we purchased it. Our next door neighbor used it to dump landscape waste, concrete debris and conduit and construction waste. Next slide, please. So basically this enlarged slide shows the condition of the property when we took it over and our own attempts to clean it up and mitigate. Next slide, please. So the V.F.W. was originally issued a permit on this land to change the zoning from agricultural to multi-family and to put it forth as an old soldier's home. There was clearing done on the property prior to us buying it. There was gravel fill done in the southeast corner on about 25 percent of the property. And two structures were built on the property of cement block well structures, one that still exists. That permit was subsequently expired and sold to us. Next slide, please. There is a picture of the well house structures that are there. Next slide, please. This is typical of what we find on the property after fencing. The area where you're looking at the beer cans are areas that we mitigated prior to any discussion with the county. Next slide, please. This is representative of the dumping and trespassing that was there. Keep going. This is -- we took out five dumpster loads of debris like this. Next slide, please. Next slide, please. So we went in and we were asked to produce a remediation plan, which we did with Jeremy Sterk at Davidson Engineering. This is a picture that depicts the work in progress. Next slide, please. Next slide, please. This is examples of where we had mitigated prior to any mitigation plan. Next slide, please. Page 79 March 26, 2009 These are the areas that were planted and re -- are prepared and replanted. Next slide. These -- you can just thumb through these. These are just self-explanatory, showing compliance with the mitigation plan and the things that the county had recommended. Next slide. We've now posted the property and secured the gates. Next slide, please. Next slide. So here's our position. The property was purchased and we secured a full legal permit from Collier County for the installation of a precast concrete fence. At that particular time there was no vegetation removal permit requested or required. We were issued a legal fence removal permit. The fencing was precast concrete, as outlined in the permit. We were fencing the property to lessen our liability, keep the motor bikers and the dumping off of the property. No clearing permit was asked for by the county, nor was it required at that particular time. We had our first encounter with Collier County Code officials who had said that there was a violation on the property for vegetation clearing. The gentleman representing your agency -- or the agency of code enforcement came out, he walked the site with me. All the staff knows who he is. He left the site saying, you've done a fine job, we appreciate the cleanup, there is no code violation. Those were his exact words. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: When was this? MR. V ARSAMES: This was seven or eight months prior to the initial violation issued by Jen. Next slide. So Collier County's issued us this permit. We had no -- no clearing was mandated or requested. We had this code official walk it and he saw what we were doing. Page 80 March 26, 2009 And we had filed several complaints with the Sheriffs Ofice and other people about the dumping on the property and what was going on, and we never got any proactive involvement on the part of the county to help us abate the dumping. Next slide, please. So we agreed to the stipulation agreement because we wanted to clean it up and we thought it was the lesser of two evils. And we made a mistake. We should not have -- not appeared before this board and showed you this beforehand. It was presented to us in such a manner and we agreed that we wanted to go in and clean it up, and this would be the most logical way. Now comes the breakdown in communication. Jen appropriately led me down to the environmental department at the county and told me the -- and handed me the forms for filling out and told me the amount of the check. And I did exactly what she said and handed the clerk the check. The clerk at that time reviewed the permit and told me that the Collier County Code people didn't know what they were talking about, that this was their department and this check that I had given them was -- or offered was for too much money and to leave the permit, which we did, and they reviewed it. About six weeks later we get a letter from them stating that your permit is declined, your check is incorrect. Well, at this point it was my assumption that the stipulation agreement stated, and it does state, that we were to go get this vegetation clearing permit. Therefore, we didn't move forward with the mitigation plan until we actually had the permit or permit in progress. We had hired the consultant, but we were waiting for the permit. The permit was subsequently issued. Jen was in fact correct. The check was revised, and we had to go back and forth three times just to deliver checks and correspondence to agree with what Jen had originally told us. So we hired this consultant. It was expensive. We did the plan. Page 81 March 26, 2009 And we have until today never received anything from this county in writing that said Mr. Varsames or Mr. Hodgson, your plan was in fact accepted. What we got was later on a copy of an e-mail that Jen had sent to Jeremy Sterk saying that she had reviewed the plan and in her opinion it was okay and they were awaiting the environmental people to get back with them. So when Susan O'Farrell called us and said, hey, guys, you're in violation of this thing; you know, you agreed to a stipulation agreement and you submitted your mitigation plan and it's accepted, now you have to go do the work. So at that point I told her that we had progressed on that front. She came out to inspect the work. And if we went back to the first slide, she went to the address on the slide, which is 7071 Hunter Road. The mitigation plan, however, calls for all the mitigation to take place on the interior of the property, and that's where the mitigation was done. She came back and found that I was -- she thought I was in error, that there was no in fact work done. But when she went to the site, she was actually at the wrong place. So we did meet, she did see the work, and she verified that the work had been in place. So respectfully submitted, we would have no motivation whatsoever not to have done this in 100 percent compliance with all the steps, but for the lack of positive communication between the owners. And the example of this is even today the notification for this hearing went to our registered agent, who is the attorney, in a plastic zip lock bag that was taped to the fence at 7071 Hunter Road that blew away that I happened to find when I was going out there. So we're really much in favor of having cleaned this up. We've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on the fence, the improvement Page 82 March 26, 2009 and the taxes just to clean it up. We haven't built anything on it. And in this economy and situation we won't be applying for it. But this fine represents in my view a hardship. Weare 100 percent compliance, and we always were intending to comply, but I think it's a very poor communication trail. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Would you like to speak? MS. O'FARRELL: For the record, Susan O'Farrell, Collier County Code Enforcement, Environmental Investigator. I believe we should start with the stipulation that Mr. -- MR. V ARSAMES: Varsames. MS. O'FARRELL: -- Varsames signed, and that none of the agreements were met. I also feel that this case is being reheard. He has a stipulation. He did not follow through with it on time. The fence permit that he was applying for was not ever C.O.'d, so it's in issued status. The permit was for the vegetation removal permit in order to put the fence. Let me look for my notes. He was ordered to submit the mitigation plan by March 30th of 2008. He submitted it on May 4th of 2008 and was approved in an e-mail to Jeremy Sterk, who was his consultant, from Davidson Engineering on 5/29/08. May 29th, '08. Jen sent an e-mail to Jeremy Sterk, advising the mitigation was approved. I received an e-mail from Jeremy Sterk on October 17th of 2008, saying that he was certain they had not completed, as he had not heard from them about approved mitigation plan. He would have been getting calls for the clarification of the plans or the bids, and he has not heard anything from them. Any other questions? MR. LARSEN: It appears that the stipulation agreement you just referred to, Investigator O'Farrell, was dated 2/26/08, correct? MS. O'FARRELL: That would have been the date of their Page 83 March 26, 2009 hearing, so yes. MR. LARSEN: And then basically we have a findings of fact, conclusions oflaw and order of the board for -- dated February 28th, 2008? MS. O'FARRELL: The hearing was held -- the stipulation was dated on the 25th of February, and the orders -- MR. LARSEN: Well, the order on the first line says February 28th, but I see that it's signed by the Chair on the 4th day of March, 2008. MS. WALDRON: If I could make a statement to that, since I was the investigator on the case at that time. They were not able to show up for the hearing, so they entered in a stipulation before the hearing date. MR. V ARSAMES: I had military service at that time. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Hold on a second. I'm not sure if she's talking regarding the case, so -- MR. V ARSAMES: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- Jennifer would have to be sworn m. (Ms. Waldron was duly sworn.) MR. LARSEN: All right, so -- MS. WALDRON: That's why the dates are showing that that way. MR. LARSEN: So the violation, or the fines result from the order itself from the board, correct? MS. WALDRON: Correct. MR. LARSEN: And the first one is order item number two where it imposes an obligation on the respondent to prepare a mitigation plan, which meets the criteria within 30 dates, March 30th, 2008, correct, Ms. O'Farrell? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. MR. LARSEN: And then the fine starts to run from March 31 st, Page 84 March 26, 2009 2008 through May 14th, 2008, correct, Ms. O'Farrell? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. MR. LARSEN: Why is it stopped at May 14th, 2008? MS. O'FARRELL: They were to submit a mitigation on 5/14/08, which was due on 3/30/2008. The mitigation plan was received on May 14th, 2008. So we have March, April and May. That would have been where their fines would have started accruing. MR. LARSEN: Right. So, sir, you agree that the mitigation plan wasn't submitted until May 14th, 2008? MR. V ARSAMES: Correct. I also agree that the reason why it couldn't be is we had no vegetation clearing permit during that period of time. MR. LARSEN: Okay. MR. V ARSAMES: So the same day we went and met with Jen and signed the stipulation agreement was the same day that we applied for the vegetation clearing permit. The trail of informal e-mails that went back and forth between Jen and the consultant, in one of them it said, I looked the plan over, it looks okay to me and I'm awaiting to hear from wetlands and vegetation on the issuance of that permit. MR. LARSEN: I understand, sir. And then Ms. O'Farrell, paragraph five of the order states that should there be noncompliance, then the fines would run at $200 per day for the noncomplying period, correct? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. MR. LARSEN: And that's how you arrived at the sum of $9,000 for a period of 45 days? MS. O'FARRELL: That would be the CEB coordinator, Jennifer Waldron. MS. WALDRON: That's how we arrived at that, yes. MR. LARSEN: Okay. Now, the second part, you're looking for Page 85 March 26, 2009 an imposition of fines of $23,800 for a violation of order item number three, which is all plants material must be installed in accordance with the mitigation plan within 120 days of acceptance of mitigation plan. So when was the mitigation plan accepted? MS. O'FARRELL: This is why I feel that this case is being reheard. MR. LARSEN: No, this is in regard to the fine. MS. O'FARRELL: It was approved on 5 -- May 29th of '08. MR. LARSEN: All right. And I guess Ms. Waldron, basically the 120 days lapsed on September 27th, 2008? MS. WALDRON: Correct. MR. LARSEN: And that was for a total of 119 days at $200, pursuant to paragraph six of the order? MS. WALDRON: Correct. MR. LARSEN: Do you agree with the time frame? MR. V ARSAMES: I agree with the time frame, but I must reiterate that including today, we have never been notified by this county that that mitigation plan was accepted. MR. LARSEN: So you're not arguing that the county's calculation of the dates for noncompliance or the imposition of the $200 was incorrectly calculated. MR. V ARSAMES: I suppose I was -- yes, I would agree with you. What I'm saying to you is I would think that it's incumbent upon the code enforcement to -- after a respondent goes ahead and submits a mitigation plan, that they should be able to produce for this board and for me a letter or a piece of correspondence to me and/or Mr. Hodgson which states that this plan was accepted and you may go ahead and execute that plan. In a casual e-mail to a consultant, we never got a forward on that e-mail from him, except for when we called and Susan O'Farrell told Page 86 March 26, 2009 us we were in violation. MR. LARSEN: And just to follow up, sir, it appears that those provisions, which were contained in paragraphs two, three, five and six of the board's order, which was signed on the 4th day of March, 2008, actually were incorporated or referenced in the stipulation of agreement in paragraph three; is that correct, sir? MR. V ARSAMES: That is correct, sir. I would also ask that the county retestify that this thing is completed and accepted. MS. WALDRON: We have an affidavit of compliance saying that they are in compliance. MR. LARSEN: Right, I do have that. I did see that affidavit of compliance by Ms. O'Farrell. And I notice that the affidavit is dated the 2nd day of March. But the date of compliance was what, Ms. O'Farrell? MS. O'FARRELL: The date of compliance was the date after the CEB hearing. We heard it on the 26th, so it would have been the 27th. Because at that CEB hearing, he was given 30 days -- it's not in the order for some reason, but you asked me to go out within 30 days. MR. LARSEN: Your affidavit of compliance. MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. MR. LARSEN: When do you deem him to be in compliance? When do you deem the respondent to be in compliance? MS. O'FARRELL: The 23rd. MR. LARSEN: OfJanuary? MS. O'FARRELL: Was it January? MS. WALDRON: Yes. MR. LARSEN: 2009? MS. O'FARRELL: Yeah. MR. V ARSAMES: I have to disagree with that. MS. O'FARRELL: Yeah, because I -- the reinspection was performed on January 23rd. Mr. Varsames met me on-site. Page 87 March 26, 2009 MR. LARSEN: And why do you disagree with that, sir? MR. V ARSAMES: Because she had no knowledge of when it was completed, nor could she ever testify that she knew when it was completed. It could have been completed 60 days before that, and she would have had no way of knowing, because she never inspected the proper place where the work was conducted. By her own admission she went to the wrong place. So we are -- this is really the point of dispute. It's not the actual dates. You cannot tell me, one, if you accepted the plan; two, when you accepted it; three, produce any evidence of acceptance; and four, when this mitigation plan was actually finished. MR. LARSEN: All right, sir, so what date do you believe that you were in compliance? MR. V ARSAMES: I don't know. I'll go back and look. I mean, we tried to dig it up, but we'll go back and look at vendor references. But it was at least a couple of months before -- or a month before at least we had sat and met with her after she had gone to the wrong site. MR. LARSEN: Right, so -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Let me interject just for a second. If you're asking for a reduction in the fines, you obviously have to come in here. You came in here with a presentation and everything. You should also come in with when you feel that the actual date and time is. MR. V ARSAMES: We feel there is no date and time because we still as of today -- I am asking you, show me a document that says that this document plan is approved and you may go ahead and do it, and you cannot produce that. MS. WALDRON: Can I speak to that? We do have those documents. I personally have e-mails to the consultant. I can't access them from here because I can't get on to the vault. MR. V ARSAMES: An e-mail to the consultant doesn't satisfy Page 88 March 26, 2009 your legal obligation to notify -- MS. WALDRON: Our standard procedure is they hire the consultant. We deal with the consultant. The consultant should get back to them whether this plan has been approved or not. We have a copy of the plan that is signed, dated by myself saying approved as well. MS. O'FARRELL: I also might add that at the last CEB hearing, he did testify that the plantings had not been done, which is why the 30 days was given. And I was there on the 30th day. The plantings had been recently done. So I can testify they were done 30 days -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Larsen? MR. LARSEN: Well, I believe that, sir, there is some kind of obligation on the part of respondent to notify the code enforcement official that the violation has abated. Was that done? MR. V ARSAMES: No, sir. MR. LARSEN: Okay. So the respondent did not notify-- MR. V ARSAMES: Is that a statutory requirement? MR. LARSEN: It's actually in the order. MS. O'FARRELL: It's also in the stipulation that he signed. MR. LARSEN: The stipulation. Paragraph seven of the board's order dated March 4th, 2008 says that the respondent is to notify code enforcement officials that the violation has been abated and request the investigator to come out and perform the site inspection in regard to the stipulation dated 2/26/08, which is -- should be paragraph four under the therefore clause, but it's misidentified as the second paragraph three. It says respondent must notify code enforcement that the violation has been abated and request the investigator to come out and perform a site inspection. So I understand your position. Ms. O'Farrell, as far as the records of the code enforcement agency indicate, was the code enforcement investigator, whether yourself or perhaps another, notified that the violation has been Page 89 March 26, 2009 abated? And if so, when? MS. O'FARRELL: I was not informed that it was abated. Jen will have to answer to whether she was informed. MR. LARSEN: Well, how long have you been on the case, Ms. O'Farrell? MS. O'FARRELL: I started the case, let me see, on 10/28. MR. LARSEN: Of what year? MS. O'FARRELL: October of '08. MR. LARSEN: October of'08. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No further questions. MR. V ARSAMES: Mr. Larsen, may I clarify one thing? Regarding the notification, we've had nothing but a pleasant discourse of conversations back and forth with the code enforcement people. And when Susan called me and said she had been to the site to verify to you that it was done or not done and it wasn't done, I respectfully suggested that she meet me out there. When she did, she saw that it was in fact done. So we had had conversation about it being done, and it did predate the date of that time by a few days. But I will stipulate and admit that we did not proactively contact them in some formal format and say okay, the work is done. MR. LARSEN: I appreciate your candor, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What was the time frame between the first time it is alleged that the investigator went out and went to the wrong site to the second time that you actually met her on-site? MR. V ARSAMES: Just a few days. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Just a few days, okay. Mr. Kelly, go ahead. MR. KELLY: I'd like to look at it in the simplest possible form. The idea of the Code Enforcement Board is to help respondents come into compliance using time frames and fines to help with the enforcement end of it.e Page 90 March 26, 2009 Sir, I believe you have done what we had asked you. Whether it was in the right time frame or not, you are in compliance. MR. V ARSAMES: Correct. MR. KELLY: I'm in favor of abating the fines. However, there is the one issue where we have here that says that the operational costs have not been paid, and that's something we cannot abate. MS. WALDRON: Just to clarify, they have been paid. MR. KELL Y: They have been paid. I'm in favor of abating the fines. I think the idea of this board is to work with the respondents, like code enforcement does now. And when you look at the original stipulated agreement, you'll see that we don't necessarily follow that format anymore. We don't set up one time frame to secure a mitigation plan and yet another one to get it done. We usually try to lump it all under one date. And we've learned from cases such as these not to do that, because the simple time frames with going back and forth between staff, consultants and yourself. MR. V ARSAMES: I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So is that a motion? MR. KELLY: I'll make a motion that we abate the fines. MR. KAUFMAN: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? MR. LARSEN: Nay. Page 91 March 26, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. V ARSAMES: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Next case will be BCC versus James Hargraves. MS. WALDRON: Actually, Angel and Norberto Hernandez. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm sorry. I knew I was going to miss that one. I crossed that one out. I apologize. You're going to be up next. I'm sorry about that. MS. O'FARRELL: Let me go get the file, please. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to CEB Case No. 2007010485, violation of Collier County Ordinance 04-41, the Land Development Code, as amended, Section 3.05.01(B). Violation location: 3355 Holly Avenue, Naples, Florida. Folio 00420720009. Description of violation: Vegetation removed on an undeveloped property without obtaining the proper required Collier County permits. On May 22nd, 2008 the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board OR 4365, Page 1434, for more information. The respondent has not complied with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of March 26th, 2009. The county's recommendation is to issue an order imposing a lien for fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period between June 22nd, 2008 to August 8th, 2008, 47 days, for the total of $9,400, and fines at a rate of $200 per day for the period between October 9th, 2008 to March 26th, 2009, 166 days, for the total of $33,200. Fines continue to accrue. Operational costs of $404.08 have been paid. The total recommended lien amount is $42,600. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Are you going to be translating? Page 92 March 26, 2009 MR. NORBERTO HERNANDEZ: Actually, it's both of us property. He's my dad. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Can you state your names for the record, please? MR. NORBERTO HERNANDEZ: Norberto Hernandez. MR. ANGEL HERNANDEZ: Angel Hernandez. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. And you have not complied with your stipulated agreement; is that correct? MR. NORBERTO HERNANDEZ: That's not correct, according to me. We had an agreement on planting the -- you know, all the trees that were removed and the vegetation we privately removed. And the trees, you know, they had died. But we planted the trees on the dry season, there's no water. But we did comply. We put up the trees. And I thought that the penalties were going to stop at the time that we installed all the trees. It took us a long time to hire consultants, because it's a vacant lot. Nobody wanted to come out and do that kind of job, which it was expensive, okay. So we bought all the trees, so we installed in there, which are there. Part of them died. It was a dry time. It's a vacant lot, there's no water. But we did comply. We paid the county fee. And then all the expenses that we had, you know, the consultant, the mitigated plan that we showed to the county. It was late, but we did that. Because nobody showed up. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What percentage of the trees did not survive? MR. NORBERTO HERNANDEZ: I would say probably like 75 died, 75 percent. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: 75 percent died? MR. NORBERTO HERNANDEZ: Yeah. Page 93 March 26, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Right here in the stipulated agreement it states that for a period of two years replacement required to maintain the 80 percent minimum annually. So 80 percent of the trees have to survive. So that didn't occur, number one. When did you actually get everything completed? MR. NORBERTO HERNANDEZ: The trees were installed like -- it hasn't been two years since they were installed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I know, but when were they installed? The stipulated agreement was May 22nd of last year, correct? MR. NORBERTO HERNANDEZ: Yeah. I think it-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And let me see, what was your time frame to get this complete? How many days did they have to complete it? MS. O'FARRELL: Jen? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sixty days. All right. When did you actually install? MR. NORBERTO HERNANDEZ: They were all installed in August. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: In August? MR. NORBERTO HERNANDEZ: I think. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Did you -- Investigator, did you go out at all to make sure that the trees were planted, or -- MS. O'FARRELL: I went out to the site and they were not planted. I did visit -- I worked very closely with them. I know that they've tried -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: When did you go out there? MS. O'FARRELL: I'm looking for the actual-- I'm having a hard time with these cases, because they weren't mine to begin with. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. I understand. MS. O'FARRELL: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you remember when she was out Page 94 March 26, 2009 there? Were you there with her? MR. NORBERTO HERNANDEZ: She's been there several times. MS. O'FARRELL: It was after the -- MR. NORBERTO HERNANDEZ: We've been there together. I mean, it's something we have -- trying to do together, because it started real simple and it's been very complicated, the way it is right now. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sure. MR. NORBERTO HERNANDEZ: I didn't think I would be here agam. And I know the trees, they're like 75 percent they're dead. But I thought they were given a year to plant them. In fact, we've got more trees to put in. But there's no way we're going to put them in right now because they're all going to die again. We have spent already close to $4,000 in trying to do this. We have to work again. She help us every time. She's been there -- you know, we've been to the office, she's been to the site, and it's still a problem, I know that. That's why we're here again, to try to take care of it. I didn't know we owed that much money -- MS. O'FARRELL: I think every time -- if! may interrupt, every time I've been out there, Angel has come out there. There was one visit before the deadline where they hadn't been done yet where I implored him, please plant these trees. And he did plant them, he and his father. We went out to do a final inspection. I think Norberto was as surprised as I was to find the trees kind of leaning over and knocked over with bobcat marks. And I know that he was about to cry when he saw that. So obviously they weren't in compliance at that time. Then I went back in November and they were all dead. That's why we're having this problem. I have tried to help them, and I would recommend that they be Page 95 March 26, 2009 given some time to, I don't know, replant these in the -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The only way you can help them is to ask for a rain dance. MS. O'FARRELL: Yeah, I would say the way we can help them is to let them replant the trees in June or July. They've also upgraded the trees they intended to plant from sable palms to royal palms. So I think my recommendation is that they have tried very hard to come into compliance, and due to inclement weather, bad weather or dry weather, they just haven't been able to keep them alive. MR. L'ESPERANCE: May I inquire if it would be financially feasible to have a well installed? MS. O'FARRELL: Not for Mr. Hernandez, no. He's just recently had a house burn down. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Okay, thank you. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask Ms. O'Farrell, if the trees did not die, would they have been in compliance? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. MR. LARSEN: So it's just because 75 percent of their new -- THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Larsen, could I get you on the microphone, please? MR. LARSEN: Because 75 percent of their new plantings died that they're out of compliance. MS.'O'FARRELL: Yes. MR. LARSEN: Okay, thank you. MS. O'FARRELL: There's three trees remaining out of the full order. They did submit a mitigation plan, which showed them where to plant, and -- but unfortunately all but three of the trees, the palms, are dead. MR. KAUFMAN: Did you say that you planted these originally in August, around August? MR. NORBERTO HERNANDEZ: Yeah, around that time. A Page 96 March 26, 2009 little bit after the time that they were given us to plant them. But we did, we did install them. We tried to water them the best we could, but it was no rain at all. She check in a couple times and she knew about it. I also knew about it, but they were dying again. MR. KAUFMAN: So the rainy season ended early last year? MS. O'FARRELL: Yeah, I would say so. It's been pretty dry. You're asking me for dates, I don't know. MR. NORBERTO HERNANDEZ: It was really, really dry last year. I was watching the property. MS. O'FARRELL: I know we had the drought last year. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Kelly? MR. KELLY: If it pleases the board, I have a recommendation. Perhaps we should extend the time of the original order 455 days. That would give them to the end of this rainy season to try to revive any of the plants that were planted originally and to plant whatever's necessary in the middle of the rainy season where they'll have a better chance of survivability. MR. LARSEN: I've got a question for our attorney. Ms. Rawson? MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. LARSEN: Can't we make that extension of time retroactive to the date of the order so that basically the fines would then be a nullity? MR. KELL Y: That was my intention. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. MS. RAWSON: Yes, I think you can. I mean, we're here today to impose the fines which haven't yet been imposed. So if you give them an extension of time, it would go back to the date on the order. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Just like we did with Chernoff -- MS. RAWSON: Right. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- basically. MR. LARSEN: If that's a motion, Mr. Kelly, then I'm going to Page 97 March 26, 2009 second your motion. MR. DEAN: Just for clarification, what would that bring it to? Like end of July or August somewhere? MR. KELLY: I believe it's September 21st or thereabout. MR. DEAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So we have a motion, we have a second. Any further discussion or anyone else need clarification? MR. DEAN: No, I'm fine. MS. O'FARRELL: I just have one question. Have you closed the floor? Because I need to know when exactly you're starting this compliance date from. MR. KELLY : Yeah, I -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: From the original. MS. O'FARRELL: The original order date? MR. KELLY: There's two of them on there. MS. O'FARRELL: So instead of giving them 120 days, or whatever it is, we're going to give them 450 days? Is that what you mean? MR. KELLY: Well, only because these original orders were back in 2008. So if you took both number one and number two and just extended them 455 days, it would be the entire year plus a couple extra months to get through rainy season. MS. O'FARRELL: Okay. If you're going to ask me dates, I want to make sure I have them right. MR. LARSEN: Well, does that work for the county? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. MR. LARSEN: I mean, does that give them enough time to plant trees and have a better chance of survivability of those trees? MS. O'FARRELL: I believe he's ready to plant trees in June or July, long before the -- MR. NORBERTO HERNANDEZ: We have no problem trying Page 98 March 26, 2009 to take care of the matter. We're just ready and -- MS. O'FARRELL: They're just waiting for the rain. MR. NORBERTO HERNANDEZ: -- looking for rain to take care of it and finally we don't have to be here again. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The question, since we're still on discussion, is now by changing this, is that going to change the two-year period that they must maintain the percentage? MS. O'FARRELL: No, that will not -- from the date that it's in compliance, that's when the two years will start. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But you understand that then? MR. NORBERTO HERNANDEZ: Right. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: From when you come in -- so they were never in compliance, is that what we're -- MS. O'FARRELL: Well, I suppose they were in compliance, but everything died, so that was what put them out with the two-year -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So my question would be is if they were in compliance, the two years survivability would be from the previous time they're in compliance or from this time that they're in compliance? MS. O'FARRELL: I would say from this time. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: They would have to agree to that, correct? MR. NORBERTO HERNANDEZ: Yeah, I agree. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. So from two years from this time that you plant and you come into compliance, you need to maintain the trees -- MR. NORBERTO HERNANDEZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- 80 percent. Okay? MS. O'FARRELL: Do you understand the 80 percent, Norberto? MR. NORBERTO HERNANDEZ: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I need to amend that? Do we need to amend the motion, Jean? Page 99 March 26, 2009 MR. KELLY: No, I think it follows the original. MS. RAWSON: I think the 455 days covers it all. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Also the intent of the original order, I believe. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. MS. WALDRON: Just for clarification as well, too, that the order item number one and number three were also out of compliance, so there are fines for that. So this will be coming back to you at some point if you're not imposing fines today. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We are not, as far as 1-- MR. KELL Y: My motion was -- MS. WALDRON: For the mitigation plan aspect of it. MR. KELL Y: Right. My motion was to extend the time frames on all of them. Each one of them an additional 455 days. MS. WALDRON: For the mitigation plan as well? MR. KELLY: Including -- MS. WALDRON: Because they've already done that. MR. KELL Y: Right. So it doesn't really matter. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, it does matter, because they're not -- MS. WALDRON: It does matter, because you need to clarify that in your -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: They did not submit a mitigation plan -- MS. WALDRON: On time. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- on time. MR. KELLY: But if I extend all of the points on this order 455 days, they would now be in compliance. MS. WALDRON: That's why I'm saying you have to clarify that on the record for each one. MR. KELLY: Okay, I'm sorry, I amend the motion then to Page 100 March 26, 2009 include all ofthe points on the original order for 455 days. MR. LARSEN: Right. And it's not -- it's an amendment of the order to specify that they have 455 days to complete what has been previously specified in regard to the mitigation plan and the specifications. MR. KELL Y: Correct. Any second? MR. LARSEN: I second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. NORBERTO HERNANDEZ: Thank you guys for working through this again to try to take care of this. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You've been doing a good job communicating, but make sure that once you get them planted that you have Susan come out, look at them and make sure you're in compliance. MR. NORBERTO HERNANDEZ: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you, have a good day. MS. O'FARRELL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Lavinski, do you need to leave or -- we only have I think a few more minutes. Are you okay? Page 101 March 26, 2009 MR. LA VINSKI: Yeah, I've got about 15 minutes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, I think we might be able to wrap it up, hopefully. BCC versus James Hargraves. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: And there are some changes to the executive summary on this one, so I will read this off. This is in reference to CEB Case No. 2007110616, violation of Collier County Ordinance 04-41, the Land Development Code, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(I)(A), and 10.02.06(B)(1)(ei), the Code of Laws and Ordinances, Section 22, Article 2,104.1.3.5, and the Florida Building Code, 2004 addition, Section 105.1, and 111.1. Violation location: 728 100th Avenue, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 62780320006. Description of violation: Structures attached to existing dwelling without obtaining required surveys, building permits, inspections or certificate of completion. On October 31 st, 2008 the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board OR 4415, Page 0362 for more information. The respondent has complied with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of March 11 th, 2009. The county's recommendation is to find an order imposing lien for fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period between March 1 st, 2009 to March 11 th, 2009, II days, for the total of $2,200. Operational costs of 86.45 have been paid. The total recommended lien amount is $2,200. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good. You're all set? You're in front of us. We're here to impose fines. Page 102 March 26, 2009 MR. HARGRAVES: Yes, sir. James Hargraves. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. Are you looking for reduction, what -- MR. HARGRAVES: To get them dropped -- Ron is -- it's a long story. We kept talking to everybody and finally, which Chuck's better at telling you, I sent him for permits. Well, of course we found out he couldn't pick them up for us. So by the time we got the permits and talked to Carol and Wanda -- MR. JOBES: Carol Stachura and Wanda. MR. HARGRAVES: -- for permits, destruction and everything. She said, you know, we can't really give you a permit because it wasn't permitted. This all happened like 20 years ago. And so she said, get a contractor. So we -- then she didn't give us the permit. We went, checked with the contractor, found that it was going to be thousands of dollars to save, which they were saying -- you know, we wasn't sure whether it meant take off the whole room to start with or back to a certain point. Well, I guess we could have taken it back to a certain point, but to do that we had to have a building permit -- the architects and all that when we talked to a guy, it was going to be a, for a little room, astronomical prices. I guess the new codes, we couldn't put a structure on the existing. So Ron -- we ended up, in other words, taking everything off. And it's all down. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So the delay was due to the fact that you were trying to save what you had there -- MR. HARGRAVES: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- and you realized that it was cost prohibitive, so you decided to demo. MR. HARGRAVES: Right. Complete demo. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And they pulled the demo permit Page 103 March 26, 2009 and everything. THE COURT REPORTER: Yes? MR. HARGRAVES: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yeah, the microphone doesn't pick up a shaking -- a nodding of the head. All right, any other questions of the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And so you're looking for reduction or abatement of the fines; is that correct? MR. HARGRAVES: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion from the board to reduce or abate the fines? MR. KELL Y: I have a question about the fines. If they came into compliance on March 11 th, would March 11 th be counted as a day for a fine? MS. WALDRON: Standard procedure, we have always included that day in the fines. MR. KELLY: Well, I make a motion we abate the fines. MR. LARSEN: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Page 104 March 26, 2009 MR. HARGRAVES: Thank you. MR. JOBES: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You're welcome. We have no old business. Under new business, we have the approval and update of rules and regulations. MS. WALDRON: I have provided a copy of -- a strike-through copy of the rules with the changes for your review, and then I just need to get a copy of -- a new copy with all your signatures approving the new rules and regulations. MR. KELL Y: I like them. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion to approve the new rules? MR. DEAN: I guess they're all there what I changed, so-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yeah, we made changes last month. MR. DEAN: Well, I know, but we just got it today. MS. WALDRON: There were very few changes. MR. DEAN: I know, I read it. They're fine. MR. KAUFMAN: Jen, you have to change it from-- MR. LARSEN: Is that a motion? MR. DEAN: I'll make a motion to accept. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. LA VINSKI: Second. MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 105 March 26, 2009 MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. KELLY: So do we sign our own? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No, I got it right here. I'll start off to the left and then move it down to the right. Do we have any -- oh, we forward the cases, okay. Any reports? MS. FLAGG: Yes, excuse me. During the -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you have a cold, too? MS. FLAGG: I do. Diane Flagg, for the record. As a result of the workshop that we had last month, you all asked me to just provide some information in regard to the Blight Prevention Program. Those specifically are the five-committee task force teams that are operating throughout the county in the five different areas of the county. The fact that our community members can report code violations by logging on to the colliergov.net website under code enforcement department, and they can also call the main code enforcement number at 252-2440. That code enforcement continues to work with the banks to abate the properties that have code violations, even when they're in lis pendens, as long as the properties are vacant. And right now we're working with the banks with over 300 properties that have code violations. The banks have already abated over 100 of those properties. There's also been a second foreclosure team identified of two code enforcement investigators: Investigator John Santafemia and Page 106 March 26, 2009 Investigator Tony Asaro have joined Investigator Mario Bono and Investigator Michaelle Crowley in working with the banks. We have also met with NABOR, Naples Area Board of Realtors, to address our initiative, what we call stop the bleed, meaning properties that are being sold with code violations to new buyers who are unaware that there are code violations. And they will be working with their board to develop some recommendation on how to address that. And the revised weed and litter ordinance to assist with the fire hazards in the Estates zoned area. As you know, the Estates zoned areas were exempt from any height of weeds, whereas the rest of the areas have an 18 inches or less. The ordinance was revised and is now in effect that 30 feet from the residential structure folks have to bring the weeds down to 18 inches or less, which will help the fire situation out in the Golden Gate Estates area and will also allow us to work with the banks to get those foreclosed -- or homes that are in foreclosure, to get those weeds away from the house. And finally, we have placed -- there have been through the community task force teams a report of break-ins due to people just looking for food. So the code enforcement department developed a link on the website that provides a list of all the food banks for community members. It's under community resources. If they go to the code enforcement website, they can click on that link. It lists all the food banks in our community which provides free food. It also lists a share food program Florida; it's called, I believe, SHARE Florida, where you can buy food at a reduced cost. There's no income requirements for that one. There are some income requirements for the food banks. And also on that link are resources, transportation resources, shelter resources, financial assistance resources. So that is now all on the code enforcement website also. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Are you all set? All right. Page 107 ,._--,..,-~-~_.~-,---_.~-----~._"~---""- March 26, 2009 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Good job, thank you. MS. FLAGG: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next meeting is April 23rd, 2009. But before we leave, today will be our attorney's last day -- or last meeting, I should say. I don't remember how long she-- MS. RAWSON: I hope it's not my last day. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Last day here, at least. Unless we see you in front of us on the other end. But I've been here for just about seven years, and I think you were here before me. MS. RAWSON: 1998. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: 1998. So quite a time before me. And then you also served as a member, ifI'm not.mistaken. MS. RAWSON: With Lionel. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And were you also the chair at one point? MS. RAWSON: Yes, I was. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. She's -- MR. DEAN: You've been everything. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- been around the circle, around the block a few times. But I'd just like to thank her for her time. MS. RAWSON: Thank you very much. (Applause.) MS. RAWSON: Thank you. It's been a pleasure to work with you. You guys are great, terrific board. I love working with the code enforcement officials. I think Ms. Flagg and Ms. Waldron have done a fantastic job since they came aboard. I love all the inspectors. This is the best court reporter in all of Collier County. And I'm not leaving. I'm not going anywhere. I'm going to practice law on Fifth Avenue the rest of my life, according to my staff. So I just didn't want to not be here every single meeting. And I'm going to try to take some time off maybe every three weeks this Page 108 March 26, 2009 summer, so I didn't want to leave you in the lurch, if you will. But I'll be around, if you need me. And Jennifer knows that. And if you are lucky enough to get Heidi Ashton to help you, I'll help her. MS. FLAGG: Ms. Rawson, can you join us right here in the center for a minute? MS. RAWSON: Oh, my. MR. DEAN: So we can stop in at your office for coffee at any time, right? MS. RAWSON: Yes. Actually, we don't make coffee, because they don't drink it. So they have to bring me Starbucks. MS. FLAGG: We'd like to present you with this plaque for your service, and we really appreciate what you've done. MS. RAWSON: Oh thanks. MR. DEAN: Very nice. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you, Jen. MS. FLAGG: And board members, if! may introduce Heidi Ashton. Heidi will be sitting in that seat over there and will be the counsel for the Code Enforcement Board commencing next month. Heidi, did you want to say anything? MS. ASHTON: Good afternoon, board members. Since it's lunchtime, I guess I can say afternoon. I've worked for the county for a long time, but the Code Enforcement Board is one of the boards I have not worked with yet, so I look forward to working with you next month. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. MR. KAUFMAN: Thank you. MR. DEAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And I think that is about the -- MR. DEAN: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I need to say -- do I hear a second? MR. KELLY: Second. Page 109 March 26, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No discussion, I'm sure. MR. DEAN: No, there's no discussion allowed on a motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order ofthe Chair at 12:17 p.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD GERALD LEFEBVRE, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on presented or as corrected as Page 11 0 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD,COUNCIL,COMMISSION,AUTHORITY,OR COMMITTEE MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD,COUNCIL,COMMISSION,AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: CITY COUNTY ❑CITY ❑COUNTY ❑OTHER LOCAL AGENCY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION IS ❑ ELECTIVE ❑ APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B 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 loss. 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. I CLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I t'l,f\- _,hereby disclose that on ,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, _ __ __ __, inured to the special gain or loss of _,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: 1 - 4/4" A-Pefteja? Date Filed Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, 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