Loading...
CEB Minutes 04/23/2009 R April 23, 2009 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida April 23, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Gerald Lefebvre Larry Dean Kenneth Kelly Edward Larsen Richard Kraenbring (Absent) Lionel L'Esperance Robert Kaufman (Alternate) James Lavinski (Alternate) ALSO PRESENT: Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director J en Waldron, Code Enforcement Specialist. Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA Date: April 23, 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 PRESENT A TION 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 P ARTICIP A TING 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 VERBA TIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - A. March 26, 2009 Hearing 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. MOTIONS Motion for Extension of Time 1. BCC vs. Raymonde & Bo\omin Charles CEB NO. 2007\10\24 B. STIPULA TIONS C. HEARINGS 1. BCC vs. James Bachmann 2. BCC vs. Rey & Edith Martinez 3. BCC vs. Jose Rodriguez 4. BCC vs. Ivan & Marjorie Bloom & Charles T. Kennedy 5. BCC vs. Capri International, Inc. 6. BCC vs. Robert K. Toski 7. BCC vs. Kenneth C. Hill & Elizabeth J. Lefebvre-Hill 8. BCC vs. Allen W. Fuller & Barbara A. Davis 9. BCC vs. Allen W. Fuller & Barbara A. Davis CEB NO. CETU20080003953 CEB NO. 2007080603 CEB NO. CESD20080003864 CEB NO. CESD200800 11995 CEB NO. CELU20080005078 CEB NO. CEPM200800l4037 CEB NO. 2007100809 CEB NO. CESD20080010447 CEB NO. CESD20080010474 5. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. BCC vs. Brien S. Spina 2. BCC vs. Florida Metal Masters, Inc. 3. BCC vs. Washington Mutual Bank 4. BCC vs. Frank Paz 5. BCC vs. Melkys Borrego 6. BCC vs. Baby Boy Gallegos 7. BCC vs. Horse Creek Partners LTD CEB NO. 2007050845 CEB NO. 2007090640 CEB NO. 2007050259 CEB NO. 2006081159 CEB NO. 2007080008 CEB NO. CEPM20080016779 CEB NO. 2005090022 B. Motion for Reduction of Fines/Liens 6. NEW BUSINESS 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens B. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office I. BCC vs. Ricardo Jr. & Magda L. Munoz 2. BCC vs. 6240 Collier Group, Inc. 3. BCC vs. Emma Houston CEB NO. 2007100608 CEB NO. 2007080153 CEB NO. 2007070595 8. REPORTS A. Rules and Regulation Discussion 9. COMMENTS 10. NEXT MEETING DATE - May 28, 2009 11. ADJOURN April 23, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board meeting to order. Notice: The respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation, unless additional time is granted by the board. Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes, unless the time is adjusted by the chairman. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Roberts Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceeding 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. Roll call, please. MS. WALDRON: Good morning. Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Kenneth Kelly? MR. KELLY: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Ed Larsen? MR. LARSEN: Present. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Larry Dean? MR. DEAN: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Robert Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Here. MS. WALDRON: And Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LA VINSKI: Here. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Just for the record, all members Page 2 April 23, 2009 currently here will be voting members. And changes to the agenda? MS. WALDRON: Under motions, we do have two additions. We have two motions to dismiss. And the cases will both be BCC versus Alfredo Martinez, Case No. 2007-47 and 2007-48. Under stipulations, we have three stipulations. Under hearings, Item C.I, BCC versus James Bachmann, CEB No. CUTU20080003953. Under hearings number five, BCC versus Capri International, Inc., CEB Case No. CELU20080005078. And number six under hearings, BCC versus Robert K. Toski, CEB Case No. CEPM200800I4037. Under old business, motion for imposition of fines/liens, item number one should state BCC versus John Cowden. And old business, motion for imposition of fines/liens, number five, BCC versus Melkys Borrego, should be -- is being withdrawn by the county. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Are those all the changes? MS. WALDRON: Yes. MR. KELLY: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any discussion? MR. LARSEN: I just want a clarification. Under 5 old business, A.I, BCC versus Spina, that's going to be changed to John Cowden? MS. WALDRON: Yes, sir. The notices were sent correctly, it was just noted wrong on the agenda. MR. LARSEN: How do you spell Cowden? MS. WALDRON: C-O-W-D-E-N. MR. LARSEN: All right, I got it. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, any further discussion? (No response.) Page 3 April 23, 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. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Approval of last month's meeting minutes. Do I hear a motion? MR. KELLY: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KAUFMAN: 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: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. And we're going to start off with public hearings. Motion to dismiss. And the first motion will be Alfredo Martinez. MS. WALDRON: This is the county's motion to request that these orders be dismissed for Case 2007-47 and 2007-48. Page 4 April 23, 2009 The county would like to dismiss these orders, as new cases have been opened on both of these issues. There was a mixup in the process, and these orders are no longer being used, and we're going to start the cases over. MR. KELLY: Question. MR. LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. MR. KELLY: So in other words, since these will be completely dismissed, there will be no reoccurring fines or fees -- MS. WALDRON: Correct. MR. KELLY: -- it will be starting from scratch? MS. WALDRON: Correct. MR. KELLY: I'll make a motion to dismiss. Do we have to do them one at a time? MS. WALDRON: I would probably do them one at a time. MR. KELLY: In Department Case 2007-47, I make a motion to dismiss the case. MR. DEAN: I'll 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. MR. KELLY: And in 2007-48, I make a motion to dismiss the case. Page 5 April 23, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No discussion. Do I hear a vote? All 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. MS. WALDRON: Just for clarification on those cases as well, what had happened was these properties had been foreclosed on during the enforcement process, and it wasn't caught at that point. So we didn't notice the right people, and now the bank owns it. The bank wants to take care of it, so -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next one will be a motion for extension of time, BCC versus Raymonde and Bolomin Charles. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. WALKER: For the record, Weldon Walker, Collier County Code Enforcement. MR. CHARLES: My name is Bolomin Charles. THE COURT REPORTER: And could you spell Bolomin. MR. CHARLES: B-O-L-O-M-I-N. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sir, you're looking for extension of time? MR. CHARLES: Yes, please. Page 6 April 23, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you explain the reason why you're looking for extension of time. MR. CHARLES: The reason why, because, you know, I was looking for the engineer, you know, I said -- got a friend. But just now you called me right here, he says he's (inaudible). THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, I'm not understanding what you're saying. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I can't understand what you're -- MR. CHARLES: Okay, the reason why I'm asked for the request, I can't find the engineer, you know, to help me to get the affidavit filled out by him so that I can go get the permit. MR. LARSEN: All right, Mr. Charles, you submitted a letter to the board dated April 6th, 2009; is that correct? MR. CHARLES: Yes, sir. MR. LARSEN: And that explains why you want an extension of time? MR. CHARLES: Yes, sir. MR. LARSEN: And it's because you weren't able to get an engineer to view the property before April 12th; is -- MR. CHARLES: Yes, sir. MR. LARSEN: -- that correct? And you want 45 days additional time? MR. CHARLES: Yes, sir. MR. LARSEN: And you think you'll be able to take care of that Issue -- MR. CHARLES: Yes. MR. LARSEN: -- within that 45-day period of time? MR. CHARLES: Yes, sir, yeah. MR. LARSEN: All right. Does county have any position on this? MR. WALKER: Not at all, sir. MR. LARSEN: Okay. And has Mr. Charles been cooperative? Page 7 April 23, 2009 MR. WALKER: Extremely cooperative, sir. MR. LARSEN: All right. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further questions from the board? MR. KELLY: Ifwe were to grant the extension of time, would that then extend all of the points in the original order? I want to make sure that he doesn't get into further problems complying with the rest of the order and then have to come back or face additional fines. MR. LARSEN : Well, we appear to have an order dated 3rd of March, 2009 and then a prior stipulation dated 2-26-09. MS. WALDRON: The hearing date was on the 26th. MR. KELLY: Right. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Since the county seems to have no objection to the request for an extension of time, I move that we grant his request. MR. LARSEN: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? MR. KELLY: Point of discussion. The 45 days we originally gave him was to not only get the required inspections and completion, but there was an alternative for a demolition and so forth. I'm worried that if he doesn't even have the engineering approval at this point, it might be longer than 45 days. I'm just concerned that a gentleman who's been so cooperative, just having a hard time getting the paperwork that he needs, will run into future problems and then have to come back in front of us. I'm thinking that maybe we should extend it a little further than 45 days. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Kelly, do you have a suggested number of days? MR. KELLY: 90 days. MR. LARSEN: I'm fine with 90 days, Mr. -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: That would be acceptable with my original motion. Page 8 April 23, 2009 MR. LARSEN: All right, I would second the amended motion then for 90 days. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All 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. You have 90 days. MR. CHARLES: All right, thank you very much. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're going to move on to stipulated agreements. First one will be BCC versus James Bachmann, CEB No. CETU20080003953. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. SCAVONE: Good morning. For the record, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Michelle Scavone. This case is in reference to Case No. CETU20080003953, dealing with a violation of an expired temporary use permit for a mobile home on agriculturally zoned property located at 1180 Dove Tree Street, Naples, Florida, 34117. I had a pre-hearing conference with the respondent today, April 23rd, 2009 . We reviewed and discussed the stipulation agreement. The respondent agreed that the violation was accurate and stipulated to the existence and signed the documentation. The Page 9 April 23, 2009 respondent agreed to pay the operational costs of $86.71. All -- to abate all violations by: Applying for and obtaining a Collier County temporary use permit for the mobile home and keeping permit up to date by renewing permit when required. Or applying for and obtaining a demo permit to remove the mobile home and all related debris, as well as obtaining any and all inspections and certificate of completion with a demo permit within 60 days, or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed for each day any violation remains. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator to perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. 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, with all costs assessed to the property owner. And it was signed by Mr. Bachmann. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you state your name for the record, please. MR. BACHMANN: James Bachmann. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you agree to all the terms here? MR. BACHMANN: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. Any other questions from the board? MR. LARSEN: Mr. Bachmann, it's just an issue that you didn't renew the permit; is that the -- MR. BACHMANN: Yes, sir. And I'm currently going through a divorce and having a hard time gaining access to the documents that I need to renew the permit. MR. LARSEN: All right. But you think that the time frame is something that you can work with? MR. BACHMANN: I think it is sufficient. I've got about 13 of the 15 items. I need to go out there and take some pictures and some Page 10 April 23, 2009 other documents, which my attorney's in the process of allowing me to do that. MR. LARSEN: All right. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions of the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion we accept the stipulation. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a 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. LARSEN: Have a nice day, Mr. Bachmann. MS. SCAVONE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next one will be BCC versus Capri International, Inc., CEB No. CELU20080005078. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. MAST: For the record, my name is Christopher Mast; I'm the attorney for Capris International. THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Mast, would you spell your last name. MR. MAST: M-A-S-T. Page 11 April 23, 2009 THE COURT REPORTER: And your name, please? MS. HASSAM: Jenna Hassam. H-A-S-S-A-M. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Maria Rodriguez. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Jen, is that focused as best as we can focus it? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I was wondering the same thing. MR. L'ESPERANCE: It even helps by doing that, too. MS. WALDRON: Is that good? MS. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Investigator Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CELU20080005078, dealing with violation, a storage container, aluminum pipes and a large amount of metal beams on a vacant lot located at 711 Broward Street, Immokalee, Florida, 34142, folio number 63863762001. We have agreed to a stipulation. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $86.14 incurred in the prosecution of the case within 30 days of the hearing; abate all violation (sic) by removing the container and any construction material on unimproved lot within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $100 a day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Property must only be utilized in compliance with the accordance (sic) to the Land Development Code and Codes of the Laws and Ordinances of unincorporated Collier County. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of this violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. 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 provision of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed by the property owner. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I have a concern about the Page 12 April 23, 2009 $100 per day fine. I don't see the per day in this particular rendition of the agreement. You read it per day, but it doesn't say per day in the stipulation. MS. RODRIGUEZ: No, it says amount of fines will be imposed -- yeah, it doesn't say per day. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Just make sure you add in there per day. Have them initial it, please. MS. WALDRON: Also, can I make a recommendation that on the first paragraph it says dated the 24th day of April. It should be 2008, not 2009. MR. LARSEN: So I understand that basically we're talking about some construction related equipment and a trailer on the property? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. MR. LARSEN: And Mr. Mast, you're pretty sure your client is going to be able to get that stuff removed and be in compliance within 120 days? MR. MAST: They have a store at IIIth Fifth Street North which burned down about two years ago. The material would have been removed already, but the former president of Capri International was murdered, so unfortunately that caused a little bit of a delay. We have architects sched -- we have retained architects, we're ready to start going. As soon as construction starts, all the material will be moved immediately. And I anticipate that will be done before 120 days. And if we can't do it, then we'll figure out something within 120 days. It's not scrap metal, it's steel girders is what's stored there. MR. LARSEN: Oh, we just want to make sure that basically it was a sufficient amount of time for you to take care of the problem. MR. MAST: It should be. It should be. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you also agreed to $100 a day versus what -- Page 13 April 23, 2009 MR. MAST: After the 120 days, yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. And the other minor change, the 23rd of April, is that correct, 2009? Is that what you -- MS. WALDRON: Yeah, it should state 2008. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: 2008, okay. I think that's it. All right, do I hear -- go ahead -- any other questions? MR. KELLY: I make a motion -- MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question. Is there any safety problem with the stuff that's stored out on the lot? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Not at all. It's fenced in and it's chained up. They can't open up the gates. So I don't see anybody going in there. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. KELLY: Make a 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. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. MAST: Thank you. Page 14 April 23, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. The next case will be BCC versus Robert K. Toski. CEB No. CEPM200800I4037. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. BALDWIN: For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This is a violation of Ordinance Physical Safety Pools, Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Building and Building Regulations, Article 2 of the Florida Building Code, Sections 22 through 26, 103.11.2, Article 6, Property Maintenance Code, Section 22 through 23II2N. The description of the violation: The protective barrier surrounding the swimming pool is not in good repair and sound structural condition. Location of the violation: Is 3465 Antoine Court, Naples, Florida, 34109. Folio No. 69143800001. Therefore, it is agreed that the parties -- between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of 87.57 that occurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of the hearing. Two: Abate all violations by submitting a complete and sufficient application for all Collier County building permits for the protective barrier surrounding the swimming pool. Request inspections and obtain a certificate of completion within 30 days of this hearing or pay a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Three: Respondent must notify the code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Twenty - four hour notice shall be by phone or fax and made during the workweek. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not Saturday, Sunday or that legal holiday. Page 15 April 23, 2009 F our: The respondent -- that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the Collier County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement. And I would like to add -- it's not on the bottom of number four, but I would like to add with the cost being assessed to the property owner, with your approval. MR. LARSEN: Is the respondent here? MR. BALDWIN: No. He had to work. He just started a new job. MR. LARSEN: It's kind of tough to amend a stipulation after he's left. MR. BALDWIN: I can call him after this. He's compliant. He also has submitted an application for a permit. And there is no health and safety right now because the protective barrier has been put up. MR. KELLY: So basically he's already abated the violation? MR. BALDWIN: No. He's applied for the permit and it hasn't been C.O.'d yet. But he did put it up because of the health and safety issue of the violation. MR. LARSEN: What kind of barrier is it? MR. BALDWIN: Screen enclosure. MR. KELLY: I have a technical question. You're citing the 200 I building code for a building that was built long before 200 I. At the time the building was built, what did the code say then? Did it require a protective barrier? MR. BALDWIN: Yes. MR. KELLY: I thought that was added in 1994 in the '94 edition. And this home was built in the late Eighties. I'm just throwing something out there. MR. BALDWIN: It was a screen enclosure that went down during Wilma, and-- MR. KELLY: So it had to have been brought up to code. Page 16 April 23, 2009 MR. BALDWIN: Yes. MR. KELLY: Very good, thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further questions from the board? MR. LARSEN: Well, we haven't addressed the amendment that's been requested by the county. What specifically do you want to amend in the stipulation? MR. BALDWIN: I would just like to add a number four, with the cost of the abatement to be assessed to the property owner. The property owner is aware that the cost -- he would be getting the cost. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But that wouldn't be relevant in this case ifhe's already fixed the screen. He's just waiting to get at C.O., correct? MR. BALDWIN: Correct. Ifhe doesn't get the C.O., then it's still his responsibility to get the C.O. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right, but you're not going to have to go on to abate the violation if the violation has been abated, technically. MR. BALDWIN: Right. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All you'll need is to have someone go on with you to make sure it's inspected. MR. KELLY: If I may, I don't see that it's really a conflict, since the order is against the property owner, was signed by the property owner, therefore, it's going to be assessed to the property owner anyways. So adding the language I don't think is a conflict. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. L'ESPERANCE: At the same time, can we amend the stipulation without the property owner being present? MR. LARSEN: Well, let's ask our counsel. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think you can add a further condition to your order without him being present. He knows the hearing is scheduled today and he has the opportunity to be present. Page 1 7 April 23, 2009 Plus Mr. Kelly indicated that operationally, you know, it would apply against the property owner, so I don't see a problem with that. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Ifhe shows any resistance to the amended stipulation and doesn't choose to initial or sign the amended stipulation, I guess he has the option to come back next month? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes, he could request a rehearing. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Which I doubt would happen, but -- MR. KELLY: If it makes the board feel better, the language really isn't necessary, since it's going to go against the property owner anyways. MR. LARSEN: That's the way I feel about it. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I feel about it the same way. MR. LARSEN: I'd prefer not to be tinkering with a stipulation previously signed by a respondent who's no longer in attendance. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I agree. MR. KELLY: Is there -- unless there's another reason why you wanted that in there. You feel as though he's going to be selling immediately or anything like that? MR. BALDWIN: No, he's been pretty cooperative since January of this year. MR. LARSEN: And additionally, if they're in compliance, there's still a penalty per day. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Good point. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right, do I hear a motion? MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion we accept the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. Page 18 April 23, 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. MR. BALDWIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, I think we're done with stipulated agreements. We're going to move on to hearings. Next hearing -- or the first hearing will be BCC versus Rey and Edith Martinez, CEB No. 2007080603. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is the interpreter outside in the hallway? (Speakers were duly sworn. Interpreter Lupita Locano was duly sworn as interpreter.) MS. WALDRON: This is violation of Ordinance 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06 (B)(l)(e), and 10.02.06(B)(ei). Description of violation: Multiple additions built onto structure without first obtaining proper Collier County permits. Location/address where violation exists: 1410 Apple Street, Immokalee, Florida. Folio No. 30680880005. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Rey and Edith Martinez, 602 New Market Road West, Immokalee, Florida, 34142. Date violation first observed: August 16th, 2007. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: August 28th, 2008. Date onlby which violation to be corrected: September 22nd, 2008. Page 19 April 23, 2009 Date of reinspection: February 20th, 2009. Results of reinspection are that the violation remains. I would like to now present Investigator John Musse. MR. MUSSE: Good morning. For the record, Jonathan Musse, M - U -S-S- E, Collier County Code Enforcement. On August 16th, 2007, observed a mobile home with multiple unpermitted additions on to the home and also observed the structure in the rear of the property that appears to be a shed at one point that was converted into a dwelling unit. I do have pictures that I would like to submit into evidence. They have seen the pictures, correct? INTERPRETER LOCANO: Yes. MR. KELLY: I make a motion to accept the exhibit. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All 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. MUSSE: I'll go on while you guys are looking at the pictures. Called the property owner, Rey Martinez, and advised him of the violation. He stated that he purchased the property in that condition Page 20 April 23, 2009 and wasn't aware of the unpermitted additions. I then informed him that I would have to conduct some search on the property and find out what was permitted and what was not. Pulled the property card and found no permits for the additions. Checked CD Plus, no permits were issued as well. September 14th, 2007, on-site. Spoke to the property owners, explained the violation and referred him to the building and permitting department to ask them exactly what he needed to do to apply for these building permits. Notice of violation was served and signed by the property owner, Mr. Martinez. October 15th, 2007, checked CD Plus, no permits have been issued. Called property owner and spoke with Edith Martinez and asked what was the status. She stated that she has done nothing at this time, but will go to the permit department and obtain the permit in one week. On October 16th, 2007, Rey Martinez came into the Immokalee office and stated that he will go to the permit department and arrange a meeting with the permitting staff. He informed me that he did remove the people that were living in the rear of the property. October 23rd, 2007, spoke with Maria Rodriguez of permitting. She stated that Ms. Martinez came into the Immokalee permitting department last week and attempted to schedule a meeting about their property. She stated that property owner will have to wait until Carol Stachura returns from vacation next week. A meeting was never held. Continued to conducted numerous rechecks. Violation remains. June 30, 2008, prepared case to appear before the Code Enforcement Board. On August 22nd, 2008, after reviewing the case, a second notice of violation was issued for a more appropriate ordinance and wasr Page 21 April 23, 2009 given an additional 30 days to abate the violation. September 23rd, 2008, conducted a site inspection. Violation remains. Resubmitted the case to appear before the Code Enforcement Board. April 8th, 2009, posted notice of hearing on property and in courthouse. And as of today violation still remains. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: When was the last time you were out there? MR. MUSSE: The 17th of April. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So as of the 17th -- MR. MUSSE: Those photos are from April 17th. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: As of the 17th the violation remains? MR. MUSSE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Go ahead. INTERPRETER LOCANO: I get that property. I never had nothing. The only bad what I do, I buy it. And this person, they sell that house like the same the way it look. I want to ask you to please, you can help me, because I pay a lot of money for that place. And my family is big. I put my house in the bank so I borrow money so I can buy that place. I lost the house. I lost my house, my property, both houses. I promise, I never did nothing. The only one, you can help me. I have to pay money. Whatever you say, I'm available to do it. I never work to do something bad, only I work in the fields. I come from Mexico working in the tomato, and I work clean. That way I don't damage nobody in the loss. So you think I'm bad, please tell me what to do. And see I have to pay something, just give me a chance to pay. The economy is really bad. Page 22 April 23, 2009 So you think I can do it, just give me three or four months so I can fix this. Inspectors have been going and check. And is no way they can say this is bad or this is not. Everything is right. And that's something that's not good. The only -- I start doing this business and progressed to buying properties. And this person is sell the house very expensive. I think I pay $1,000 a month for the house. And for me right now my family is big. We're six in the family. And it's going to be hard for me. And it's going to be hard to pay. And I ask you, please take compassion for me. And see I can pay it, I do it. Everything depends on you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions of the board? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Investigator, I have one question. When did the respondent purchase the property? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: 2006. MR. LARSEN: July 31st, 2006. MR. L'ESPERANCE: July 31 st? Thank you. MR. KELLY: Ma'am, if you could ask him, does he know when the additions were put on the original trailer? I know that he only bought it in 2006, but I'm curious to know how long before he bought it were the additions made. INTERPRETER LOCANO: About 13 or 14 years. He have a survey. They show that -- he never know when. He talk to the person when he bought the house. And he don't know English, so he have to put somebody to help him to interpret for him. One day he meet this Jonathan and he ask him is it legal, and he say yes. I see him and I talk to him, see if we can fix something. He want to get a lawyer so he can fight the house, because they talking about 7,000 that he owes on the house. Page 23 April 23, 2009 MR. KELLY: Sorry, you want to go ahead and catch up? INTERPRETER LOCANO: He talk to the person when he bought the house, and he ask him why he lie to him. And I ask, you see that everything was legal, and he say yes. Because the way till right now, I'm working with the right law, and I'm paying permitting for the taxes, and check the house, I see the persons, they live right. I pay my tax to the government. I've been living 14 years here and I feel bad because I don't speak English. And all my life I been working, and my family's poor. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further questions? MR. LARSEN: I have a question of the officer. The structures on the property present a health and safety issue? MR. MUSSE: I have not inspected the inside, but judging by the outside I would say yeah. MR. LARSEN: And what would that be? MR. MUSSE: I would just say it doesn't look stable. I mean, mostly made of plywood. And the rear structure, which he claims there was no one living in there, there's no ventilation, just the front door. MR. LARSEN: But nobody's living there anymore? MR. MUSSE: I went there and it doesn't appear vacant, but I mean, I knocked on the door, they never answered the door. MR. LARSEN: Ma'am, could you ask him whether or not anybody's living in that rear structure? INTERPRETER LOCANO: Yeah, somebody live there. MR. MUSSE: I think he's getting confused with the question. In the back, in the rear. INTERPRETER LOCANO: Yes, somebody living there. One person. He's not going to lie to you, yes. Just a couple. And they have a little girl. But sometimes I have five in all the place. Sometimes five, sometimes seven. And the people, they don't have money to pay thet Page 24 April 23, 2009 rent. MR. LARSEN: Sometimes five, sometimes seven what? INTERPRETER LOCANO: People. MR. LARSEN: In that building? INTERPRETER LOCANO: No, in the other one. In all the property . MR. LARSEN: Total. INTERPRETER LOCANO: Yeah, in the little, right now it's a couple in the other -- I guess it's another-- MR. LARSEN: There's three people living-- INTERPRETER LOCANO: Right now is the couple and the baby. MR. KELLY: I'm just going to make a motion that a violation does exist. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? MR. LARSEN: Let's just take a look at the statement of the violation. Says multiple additions built on to structure without first obtaining proper Collier County permits. Now, you're talking about the main structure? MR. MUSSE: Yeah, main structure. MR. LARSEN: All right, not this one here. MR. MUSSE: No. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is that potentially a separate case in the future? MR. MUSSE: Oh, yeah. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: How come it wasn't brought? MR. MUSSE: New to the area, 2007. Fairly new. And I just thought it would be all added to the same area. Now I'm figuring out that it's not. But the case would definitely be opened. Page 25 April 23, 2009 INTERPRETER LOCANO: The couple, they live in that place, the small one they're talking about, they've been living there about a month right now. MR. LARSEN: Mr. and Mrs. Martinez, you understand that basically what the county says is that that main structure, which is the house you're living in, not this structure, doesn't comply with the codes of Collier County. And even though you bought it after the structure was changed to add on those additional living areas, that you as the property owner are responsible. And you understand that -- basically we understand that it's not fair to you having bought this property from somebody that told you that it was legal. But what the county is saying is that basically there's a code that they have to follow. You understand? INTERPRETER LOCANO: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So motion and second. We're in discussion right now. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor a violation -- say aye. 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. You want to just explain what we just did? We just made a motion that a violation does exist. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question for the officer. Page 26 April 23, 2009 Have you tried to see if you could reach some common ground as to either what needs to be done, timing, et cetera? MR. MUSSE: Well, as I said in the presentation, I spoke to them on-site while I was serving the notice of violation and urged them -- at that point the permitting staff was in Immokalee, so they could have easily went to Immokalee. And he actually did go to Immokalee. And he came to the office. And I again informed him where to go. He said he was going to do a meeting. He never attended the meeting. As per the conversation that we just had outside, he said that there was some sort of meeting. I wasn't invited to the meeting, I was not aware of this meeting, but there was some kind of permitting meeting that he had apparently. But again, as the conversation -- it seems like he understands what he needs to do right now, so we'll be more than happy to help him. He just needs time. MR. LARSEN: Well, do you have a recommendation? MR. MUSSE: Yes. Respondent is to pay operational costs in the amount of $87 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing and abate all violations by obtaining a Collier County building permit for all unpermitted additions to the structure with all the inspections, certificate of completions within "X" amount of days of this hearing or a fine of "X" amount of dollars will be imposed until violation is abated. Or obtain a Collier County demolition permit certificate, inspection, certificate of completion within "X" amount of days of this hearing, or a fine of "X" amount of dollars per day will be imposed until violation's abated. If owner fails to abate the violation, the Code Enforcement Board may authorize code enforcement to abate the violations at the owner's expense. The respondent must notify code enforcement investigator Page 27 April 23, 2009 within 24 hours of abatement in order to conduct the final inspection to confirm abatement. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you know what has been an addition? I mean, is that easily identifiable at this point, or no? MR. MUSSE: Yeah, you can iden -- because you can see the existing mobile home and you can see all the plywood additions that are added. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question. In your discussion with the permitting people, I guess that you weren't at, did they give you an idea of what needs to be done? INTERPRETER LOCANO: I understand the law. He went and talked to Carol. And he told me to send me a person (phonetic) from '85. He leave papers for her, copies from the trailer. I'm going to help you and I'm going to call you back. She never call. At that time I have an accident in the family. My brother pass away. And he absent for -- my brother die in the fields. And I have to leave because my mom, she was real sick. And I thought my mom, she was going to die. So after that when they come back and I ask and see somebody call or something, and they told me no. And that's when I get the paper from John. But I never forget that case and I was waiting and fix it. I've been living here for 27 years -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right. INTERPRETER LOCANO: -- and I never have a problem. The Carol call him and tell him the computer show that he have to do something. But the lady, she don't know about what, that she was going to try to find out. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Martinez, earlier you asked for a period of time of three to four months in order to -- do you think you'll be able to have this issue resolved with the county within that 90 to 120-day Page 28 April 23, 2009 period? INTERPRETER LOCANO: 190? MR. LARSEN: No, from 90 to 120. INTERPRETER LOCANO: Yes, I'm going to do everything I -- I do everything I can. So you tell me do this and this, he's going to do it. MR. LARSEN: And you do know that there's going to be a financial penalty, a monetary penalty for every day after that period of time? INTERPRETER LOCANO: He knows -- I know. MR. LARSEN: You do know that this officer over here has personally represented that they will help you, the county will help you in any way they can. So if you stay in contact with them and tell them if you're having any problems, they may be able to help you. INTERPRETER LOCANO: I promise, I do it. MR. LARSEN: Is that correct, Officer? MR. MUSSE: That's correct. MR. LARSEN: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Let's work on the agreement. Any comments? MR. DEAN: I have one. What about the safety issue, renting out a building with no windows? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But that's not part of the case. That secondary building it is not part of the case at this point. MR. DEAN: He showed me a picture of it, we accepted the photos. There's a problem here. The man admitted under oath that he rents it out, there's no windows, there's a little girl living there. What do we have here? This is not right. I don't know where to go with that. But certainly the code enforcement officer should be checking. What do you suggest? Page 29 April 23, 2009 MR. MUSSE: It would be addressed immediately. That was my error. I thought it was all lumped together. MR. DEAN: Maybe we can address it now. When you walk out that door today you can address it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. But here as a board, we cannot address it. MR. DEAN: Okay, that's just my point I want to get across, that when you walk out of this room today, that's my main concern-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Will be addressed. MR. DEAN: -- there's a safety thing there. MR. LARSEN: Just for the record, I believe that we lack jurisdiction over that issue in the secondary structure; is that right, Counsel? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes, I don't believe he's received proper notification of the second violation and opportunity to cure. MR. LARSEN: So the board is not charged with the responsibility of dealing with that issue today? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No. And I believe Ms. Flagg's department will look into that. I mean, there is an opportunity for the county in emergency situations to take down buildings under our current ordinances, and I think that that will be evaluated. MR. LARSEN: Supervisor Snow, I think -- you want to comment on that? (Supervisor Kitchell Snow was duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: For the record, Kitchell Snow, Collier County Code Enforcement. Let me assure the board that this is the district that I work in up in Immokalee, and we will be on that property today. And we will work very, very diligently to make sure that this health and safety issue is addressed. And let me also mention that we have worked very hard. We have permitting in Immokalee now, two days out of the month, the Page 30 April 23, 2009 second and fourth Friday, and I want the respondent to know that they can go to Immokalee to get permits, they don't have to come to Naples anymore. So we can work on doing that and expedite this matter to try to get it resolved. But we will be on that property today looking at -- Mr. Dean, we will take care of that, sir. MR. DEAN: I appreciate that. Thank you. MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Let's get back to the recommendation. Anyone like to take a stab at it? MR. KELLY: I'll take a stab. It might not be popular. But operational costs of $87 in line one. 365 days and $200 per day. The same with the demolition, 365 days, with $200 per day. The original NOV was in 2007. It's already almost been two years. MR. LARSEN: Is that the form of a motion, Mr. Kelly? MR. KELLY: I'll make it a motion. MR. LARSEN: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Could I trouble you to repeat the time periods? I was trying to get that down. Sorry, I'm not that fast. MR. KELLY: No problem. Basically what we're doing is accepting the recommendations from the county. The operational costs for $87. The first line would be 365 days. The second line two be $200 per day. Third line would be again 365 days for a demo permit, and then $200 per day. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Thank you. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a comment on that. Is there any way that we can -- I have no problem with extending it 365 days, as long as Page 31 April 23, 2009 there is some cooperation with the officer and we know that some progress is being made, not to wait one year and be back here again in the same situation that we are today. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Well, would you like to incorporate the request for periodic progress reports? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I mean, the other way of doing it is breaking it down. Must have permits by a certain period, or must apply for permits, must receive permits. I mean, that's the only other way we can do it where we know that there's strict time frames. MR. KELLY: That's the way we used to do it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I think 365 days is very lenient. But, I mean, that's the only other way we can do it is we break it down that they must apply for permits within a certain period, and then when they receive permits they have a certain period to complete the work. So that's one way of -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Investigator, in your opinion is this a demolition permit request? MR. MUSSE: Yeah. MR. KELLY: I'll withdraw my motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We had a second on that, so we need the second to be withdrawn also. Correct? MR. LARSEN: Why do you feel it's a demolition? MR. MUSSE: On one side of the -- it's encroaching on the property line. And it just -- to me, I'm not a building inspector, and I haven't been inside the structure, but it just looks unstable. I wouldn't let my family live in there. MR. KELLY: If you're talking about setback issues, that's a whole nother can of worms. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Are you saying the additions are encroaching or the actual structure is -- MR. MUSSE: Additions. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Additions, okay. Page 32 April 23, 2009 All right, do we have a -- the second has not been pulled or withdrawn. MR. LARSEN: All right, Supervisor Snow? MR. SNOW: Sir? MR. LARSEN: Now, if the Martinezes appeared at the Immokalee facility for permitting purposes, how -- if they made an application, say by the end of April, when would a decision be made by the county as to whether or not to issue a permit in regard to either the renovation or the demolition of this structure? MR. SNOW: Well, sir, once a determination has been made concerning setbacks and issues and can it be permitted and things like that, and a lot of research is going to have to be done on the property. If the structures remain for 13 years or 14 years, which the respondent claims, then I think some leniency should be granted to find out. Because there are other issues, more issues that are involved. I know that's not what you want to hear, but a lot of research needs to be done on this property to determine what's available and what's not available. If they submitted a complete permit and it was determined they couldn't do the setbacks and they want to submit a variance or try to keep the structure or can they remove the structure and place another structure on the back, that's all going to have to be determined by permitting. They have to bring the surveys in and look at it. And she can normally tell them that day is it feasible for them to do what they're asking. And that's what you're asking me, is it going to be feasible for them to do what they're asking to do. And I can't answer that question right now because I'm not familiar with the logistics of this case. But they can usually render an opinion that day if it's feasible and press forward and know this is not going to work. MR. LARSEN: All right. Well, thank you very much. MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. MR. LARSEN: That's exactly what I wanted to know. Page 33 April 23, 2009 MR. KELLY: So just to recap, you're talking about a survey, a site plan, you're going to have to have some kind of drawing done with the existing structures. Then you're going to have to have an engineer or a building official go into the structure to see what needs to be done to bring it to the code. In this case maybe 94 is code. So the research would be to go back to that code and find out where the violations exist, specifically. Then have a contractor come in, give them bids, setback and get the work done. It is a good time frame. MR. LARSEN: Right. And what I'm afraid of is basically if we be too punitive in nature what we're doing is removing them from their home prematurely. MR. KELLY: What I'd like to do is withdraw my motion and create a new motion breaking down the times of the process in ways that are quantifiable so that we can ensure that there is progress. MR. LARSEN: And would that be in line with what Supervisor Snow just stated? MR. KELLY: I believe it -- yes, I believe it would. And it also in the end ultimately gives the 365 days for C.O. MR. LARSEN: All right. Okay, on that basis, I'm going to withdraw my second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. KELLY: My new motion would be to -- that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $87 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days, and abate all violations by: One: Applying for a building permit for the unpermitted additions to structure within 90 days, or a fine of $200 per day. Number two: To obtain building permit within 180 days of today's hearing or a fine of $200 per day. Number three: To obtain a certificate of occupancy/completion within 365 days of the date of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day Page 34 April 23, 2009 will be imposed. And then the last one would be: The respondent must notify code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I would second that motion. MR. LARSEN: Just point of clarification, Mr. Kelly. That 180 days for the permitting, that's either for permitting the unpermitted additions or a demolition permit? MR. KELLY: Correct. MR. LARSEN: Okay. All right. MR. KELLY: This -- if there is type of setback issues and the respondent needs to submit for a variance, the time between 90 days and 180 days I think is sufficient to go through whatever motions are necessary . MR. LARSEN: Now, from the county's point of view, does that create any problems? MR. MUSSE: Not at all. I check it monthly anyway. MR. LARSEN: All right. So we're not going to run into any problems with the county and their time line for appearing I guess wherever they want to appear to apply, whether up in Immokalee or down here, and it would be fine? MR. MUSSE: That would be fine. MR. KELLY: I think that will be simple. Because CD Plus will show an application submitted, and then it will show the approval whether or not he picked up the permits. So it would be easy to track. MR. LARSEN: All right. And in regard to oversight, you I assume work for Supervisor Snow out in the Immokalee area? MR. MUSSE: I don't currently work in Immokalee right now, but I do go there periodically. Page 35 April 23, 2009 MR. LARSEN: And you can monitor the situation on the property? MR. MUSSE: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We have a motion, we have a second. We've had discussion. Any further discussion? MR. KAUFMAN: Just a clarification on the fines, that they're not cumulative. In other words, 200 doesn't add to 200 doesn't add to 200 as time goes by. MR. KELLY: I don't think we've ever had that question posed, but it's a good one. Once you get to the second one, does it now become $400 a day? And then if we go more than a year does it become -- MS. WALDRON: Well, in order to get to the second one, they would have had to complete the first one, so they'd be in compliance of that first section. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LARSEN: Right. I understood it was $200 per day, and it wouldn't be a -- they wouldn't run concurrent, they would run consecutive. So you'd have 200 and just per day. And they wouldn't be doubled the fines. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: If you'd prefer, we can place in the order that it's a maximum of200 per day, if you'd like. MR. LARSEN: Does that satisfy your criteria, Mr. Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. 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 36 April 23, 2009 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. LARSEN: Do you understand what happened, Mr. Martinez? INTERPRETER LOCANO: Yeah, I explained. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'll go through it and if I miss something, Mr. Kelly will catch me. Eighty-seven dollars you have to pay as operational costs within one month. You have to apply for a building permit within 90 days of today, or $200 a day fine. They'll give you a -- obtain the building permit or demolition permit within 180 days or a $200 fine per day. And then he will have 365 -- total from today 365 days to complete all work or a $200 fine per day will be assessed. And he has to notify code enforcement when he's completed the work so they can come out and inspect. MR. KELLY: Just to add, the board would like to see some kind of progress, so please do not wait. MR. MARTINEZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Entiendo? MR. MARTINEZ: Okay, thank you. Have a good day, everybody. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next case will be BCC versus Jose Rodriguez, CEB No. CESD2008003864. Cherie', you okay? We'll see how long this one goes and possibly take a break around 10:30; is that okay? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, that's fine. Thank you. MS. WALDRON: The investigator has just told me that they would like to work out a stipulation agreement, so if we could bring Page 37 April 23, 2009 this one back? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. KELLY: Make a motion to amend the agenda. And we can put that at the very end of hearings? MS. WALDRON: That would be good. MR. KELLY: To the end of hearings. MR. DEAN: I'll 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 nay? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Okay, we're going to move on to number four, BCC versus Ivan and Marjorie Bloom and Charles T. Kennedy, CEB No. CESD20080011995. Sir? What we're going to do is you agreed to try to work out the stipulated agreement, correct? No entiendo? Can you translate for him, what we just did? Well, what we did is -- can you translate for me? Very good. He agreed to try to work out the agreement. So what we did is we pushed his case to the end of the hearings, this section here. So we're not going to hear him right now. You're going to go out with the investigator and try to work on an agreement. MR. BARERRA: My name is Juan Barerra (phonetic.) Page 38 April 23, 2009 I looked at the project or at the structure and -- THE COURT REPORTER: I haven't sworn him in. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: This isn't -- MR. LARSEN: Is that Jose Rodriguez? MR. BARERRA: This is Jose Rodriguez. MR. LARSEN: Okay. We were just informed by the county that Mr. Rodriguez wanted additional time to speak with the officer and to work something out, rather than going to a hearing right now; is that correct? MR. BARERRA: Okay. Or we can go into the hearing. We have a solution for the problem, that's the only thing. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, why don't you go work it out with the investigator. It'd be much quicker. Then you can come back. At the beginning, if you saw, that people came and stipulated, they agreed to certain terms. That's what we're going to have you do. And then you can come back after the hearings are all heard, okay? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: You need to stay-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go out with the investigator in the hallway -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- until the end. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- and then work it out and you can come back to us. MR. LARSEN: Recall the case. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, again, we're going to go to BCC versus Ivan and Marjorie Bloom and Charles T. Kennedy, CEB No. CESD20080011995. Are you the investigator for the last case, too? MR. MUSSE: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Oh, okay. All right, is this going to be -- THE COURT REPORTER: Let me just swear you in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) Page 39 April 23, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you can just sit down, we'll be with you in a minute. MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06 (B)(l)(a); 10.02.06 (B)(l)(e); and 10.02.06 (B)(l)(e)(i). Description of violation: Permit No. 86-2172 for a room addition was expired without obtaining all the inspections and certificate of completion. Location/address where violation exists: 660 94th Avenue North, Naples, Florida, 34108. Folio No. 6270764002. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Ivan and Marjorie Bloom, Charles T. Kennedy, P.O. Box 12379 Aspen, Colorado, 81612. Date violation first observed: August 12th, 2008. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: October 21 st, 2008. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: November 6th, 2008. Date of reinspection: February 17th, 2009. Results of reinspection is that the violation remains. I'd like to now turn it over to Investigator Jonathan Musse. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And just for the record, the respondent is not in the room, correct? MR. MUSSE: No, he's not. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. And after this case, you're all set, you don't have any other cases, correct? MR. MUSSE: Well, besides that one. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. So you could work on the agreement. MR. MUSSE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, good, good. MR. MUSSE: For the record, Jonathan Musse, Collier County Page 40 April 23, 2009 Code Enforcement. On August 12th, 2008, observed a single-family home with an unpermitted dwelling unit. Spoke to the tenant who lived in the main house. She stated the unit is being occupied by another tenant. She gave me the number to a Mr. Bob Chapman, a realtor. Attempted to call Mr. Chapman. No answer. Let a message. I then got in contact with Mr. Charles T. Kennedy. I explained to him the violation. He then referred me to Mr. and Mrs. Bloom. Attempted to call. No answer. Left a message. Checked CD Plus on property card and found Permit No. 9200008363 for a storage building which was the original plan for the dwelling unit that was issued on June 22nd, 1992 and expired on December 30th, 1992 without obtaining a certificate of completion. September 26th -- I'm sorry, I do have pictures of the dwelling unit that I would like to submit into evidence. MR. KELLY: Make a motion to accept the exhibit. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll 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. MR. MUSSE: On September 26th, 2008, met with Mr. Chapman Page 41 April 23, 2009 at his residence located at 567 101st Avenue North and gave him all the copies of the permits and documentation I had for this property in question. Referred him to the building and permitting department to ask him precisely what he needed to do that would bring the property up to code. October 16th, 2008, checked CD Plus, found no permits for the dwelling unit. Sent Notice of Violation certified mail. November 10th, 2008, sent out an e-mail to Alamar Finnegan of building and permitting, requesting a permit meeting with Mr. Bloom and Mr. Chapman. December 18th, 2008, permit meeting was held at the main office. I came to the conclusion that a dwelling unit was not permissible due to the fact that this property was just over 1,700 square feet. And in order to have a dwelling unit, you would need at least 2,400 square feet. The only option was to convert the dwelling back to its original plan and get it permitted for a storage building. January 21st, 2009: Received a call from Mr. Chapman. He stated that he's hired a contractor and is in the process of obtaining the permit for the storage building. February 17th, 2009: Had a second permit meeting with Mr. Chapman and Rodney Moulder, the contractor of Royal Construction, and the permitting staff. Went over again the details of the case and explained to Mr. Moulder what he needed to do to reapply for the storage building. February 18th, 2009: Prepared the case to appear before the Code Enforcement Board. April 18th -- April 8th, 2009: Posted notice of hearing on property and in courthouse, and spoke with Mr. Chapman, which is the realtor. He stated that they're just so close to getting the permit by affidavit for the storage building. So it should be done -- I think he Page 42 April 23, 2009 requested like 60 days. MR. L'ESPERANCE: When you say get a permit for the storage building, do you mean to convert it to a dwelling or -- MR. MUSSE: No. MR. L'ESPERANCE: -- keep it as a porch? MR. MUSSE: To convert it back to a dwelling unit. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. MR. MUSSE: Or I'm sorry, to a storage building. MR. KAUFMAN: Is there anybody there now living in there? MR. MUSSE: He says no, but if you see the pictures, there's a bunch of clothes everywhere. MR. LARSEN: Am I correct in assuming that Mr. Chapman is the realtor? MR. MUSSE: He's the realtor, yeah. He's actually very helpful. He helped me a lot with the case. MR. LARSEN: But you've had previous discussions with Charles Kennedy? MR. MUSSE: Yes. MR. LARSEN: And what was Mr. Kennedy's position? MR. MUSSE: He referred me to Mr. Bloom. And I've spoken to Mr. Bloom once. And Mr. Bloom just said speak to Mr. Chapman. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Who's Mr. Bloom? MR. MUSSE: He's the property owner. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Oh, okay. MR. LARSEN: All right. No other questions. MR. KELLY: Investigator, do you know if this is in lis pendens or foreclosure? MR. MUSSE: No, it's not. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that a violation exists. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. LA VINSKI: Second. Page 43 April 23, 2009 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. Recommendation? MR. MUSSE: Respondent is to pay operational costs in the amount of $87.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case, and obtain a Collier County building permit for any constructions, addition or remodeling, and obtaining all inspections and certificate of completion within "X" amount of days of this hearing or fine of "X" amount of dollars will be imposed until violation's abated. Or obtaining a Collier County demolition permit to remove this illegal construction addition. Remodel to include inspections and certificate of completion within "X" amount of days of this hearing or a fine of "X" amount of dollars per day will be imposed until violation's abated. The respondent must notify code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order. All costs of abatement will be assessed to the property owner. Page 44 April 23, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The permit that you state here in the description of violation, was it for a room addition or for storage? MR. MUSSE: It was for -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It says for a room addition. MR. MUSSE: It was for the -- well, when I issued the permit, I was under the assumption it was a room addition, which it was, because it was an added storage building at one point. But he converted it to a dwelling unit. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Anyone want to -- MR. KAUFMAN: Let me take a stab at it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: Operational costs of$87. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And 29 cents. MR. KAUFMAN: And 29 cents. Sixty days to abate the violation, and $200 a day after that. Sixty days. MR. KELLY: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So it's 60 and 60? MR. KAUFMAN: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: 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.) Page 45 April 23, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Thank you. MR. KELLY: Break time. MR. KAUFMAN: Break time. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Take a 10-minute break. Nice and clean, from 10:20 to 10:30. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're going to call CEB metting back to order. Next case is BCC versus Kenneth C. Hill and Elizabeth 1. Lefebvre Hill. And just for the record, there is no relation, even though there's not too many of us down here. But there's no relation. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I should ask how she pronounces it, that will tell if there's any relationship. Because we all pronounce it differently. MS. LEFEBVRE-HILL: Lefebvre. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: See, no relationship. MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to Department Case No. 2007100809, violation of Ordinance 2004-41, Sections 1 0.02.06(B)(1 )(a); 1 0.02.06(B)(1)( e); and 10.02.06 (B)(l)( e )(i), Florida Building Code, 2004 edition, Section 105.1. The description of the violation: Unpermitted additions made to existing permitted carport in an unpermitted storage shed. Unpermitted electrical in the storage shed. Location/address where violation exists: 1392 Henderson Creek Drive, Naples, Florida, 34114. Folio No. 00725200004. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Kenneth C. Hill and Elizabeth 1. Lefebvre-Hill, residing at 5806 Tollman Terrace, Madison, Wisconsin, 53711. Date violation first observed: October 24th, 2007. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: Page 46 April 23, 2009 November 5th, 2007. Date onlby which violation to be corrected: November 27th, 2007. Date of reinspection: December 3rd, 2008. Results of the reinspection is that the violation remains. I would now like to present Investigator Azure Sorrels. MR. OSSORIO: Good morning. For the record, Azure Sorrels, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This is in reference to Case No. 2007100809, dealing with the violations of unpermitted additions made to the existing permitted carport and unpermitted storage shed with electrical, located at 1392 Henderson Creek Drive, Folio No. 00725200004. Proof of service date was for November 5th, 2007. And I would like to present Exhibit B, which would be seven photos. MR. KELLY: Make a motion to accept the exhibit. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. LA VINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any discussion? MR. LARSEN: Have they seen it? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Have you seen the photos that she's going to present? MS. SORRELS: In the past, but not this morning. I can-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you could, please. MS. SORRELS: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Make a note on the record that they were shown to the respondents. Thank you. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those if favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 47 April 23, 2009 MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. SORRELS: Sorry about that, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No problem. MS. SORRELS: I'll show you the pictures first and -- to kind of explain what we're looking at here. But on the 24 -- yeah, the 24th of July, I had made a site visit to address a complaint about rental units. And while I was on the property, I had observed what we're going to look at right now. This is a carport that was permitted back in 1993, and it was for the measurements of 30 by 31. On the north end of the carport, this is an addition that has been obviously added onto. And then the next, please. And in the back of that addition you just saw was another addition. And that is actually completely enclosed. And the door that you would access that from would be inside the first addition. On the south end of the carport is another addition. And as you can see, it's completely enclosed with a door. And here is a standalone shed that is also located south of the carport and the additions that's on the property. The next two photos are aerial shots from GIS. This one is for 2008, showing you what's existing there as of right now. Right here is the standalone shed. What she's pointing at is the standalone shed. And that -- like I said, this is a photo of what's there at this present time. And the next aerial is going to be from 1995. And it's not as Page 48 April 23, 2009 clear. But you can kind of see a structure of some kind sitting approximately in the same location back in 1985. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Which property are we looking at? Could you point it out? MS. SORRELS: Oh, sorry. This one right here. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. SORRELS: And this -- you'll understand why I presented these two aerials here in a second. Upon research, as I had mentioned, we found a '93 permit for the big carport. I could not find any permits for the additions or any of the electrical. This property had a lot of other things, so I did a lot of research on it. And we had found permits all the way back to 1962. Unfortunately none of those permits are for the standalone shed. I do believe Mrs. Hill is going to state that, you know, from her understanding the standalone shed has been there for quite some time. In '75 I also -- I didn't bring in the photo, but in '75 there's an aerial and it appears that there could very well be a shed in that same location. However, it's very blurry and not clear enough. Back in '68 the property was zoned -- well, let me stop here, I'm kind of getting out of order here. Sorry. The additions that are to the carport, Mrs. Hill has already hired a contractor, she's willing to fix all the additions to meet the Land Development Code and have them permitted. Basically the reason why she wanted to have the hearing today is she would like to keep the standalone shed. I have served the Notice of Violation stating that it needed to be permitted, because I could not find any permit. So we told her her best venue was to come here and let you guys hear and make a decision on the standalone shed. She's been very cooperative. There's -- like I said, there was many other issues on this property. She has done everything we have Page 49 April 23, 2009 asked her to do. And again, like I said, she has a permit that was issued back in March of 2009 for the additions to the carport. They have two rejections on them, which I have informed Jim of today, and he's going to -- and Jim being the contractor that she's hired -- and he is going to address those rej ections to get the permit issued for that. So back to the standalone shed. In '68 the property was zoned R-4, and the setbacks at that time were seven and a half feet. Through other research, our setbacks -- excuse me, that's from the side property line. In other research, we have found that our setbacks from side property lines have never been less than five feet. They had a survey conducted in February of2009, and the survey shows that it's 2.8 feet -- the standalone shed is 2.8 feet from the property line. Therefore, that's probably why we did not find a permit, because it would never have been permitted with that setback. And that's where we're at today. We've had several meetings. We've been in communication. And, you know, she would like you guys to make a determination on that. So that's really all I have for you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The large structure towards the bottom of the picture, is that the 30 by 31 carport? Where's the carport? MS. SORRELS: On that photo, it would not be there, because that carport was not put in until '93. That's an '85 aerial. And I actually tried to pull up those, but they go by 10-year intervals. So it was '85 to '95 and then that was it. So all you see in '95 is the big carport with the additions. MS. LEFEBVRE-HILL: Good morning. Azure's already supplied so much information it's -- I'd better shorten mine up a little bit. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you just state your name for the Page 50 April 23, 2009 record, please. MS. LEFEBVRE-HILL: Betty -- Elizabeth Lefebvre-Hill. I appreciate the opportunity to present my case. We purchased this property in May of2005, did an enormous amount of cleanup on the property. It used to look like ajunkyard when we started, now it's cleaned up and well kept. And we've been very excellent and welcome neighbors. Unfortunately, though, we inherited this zoning difficulty. As Azure has mentioned, we've been very cooperative thus far doing much of what was required, in addition to removing two travel trailers -- or excuse me, two trailers that cost us an income of approximately 1,000 month. Financially it's been a very, very difficult process for us. We applied last year for a demolition permit for my husband Ken and I to remove the two unpermitted storage sheds that were built on the property, added on to the carport. We didn't argue the fact. Our demolition request was denied because we weren't general contractors and we didn't live on the property. It would have cost us about $500 to have the materials hauled away, but that probably would have been too quick and easy of a solution and financially manageable for us, so we were told no exceptions to that. So we started getting our estimates, realized we didn't have the funds at that time, and so that's been the reason for our delay. And now we finally have some funds to take care of it. Hired Jim here, and he's been doing a great job pursuing getting what needs to be done. As Azure mentioned, we had the paperwork in, but twice the permit has been rej ected. So we're asking the board to grandfather in the standalone shed on the property. As I mentioned earlier in my letter at the last hearing, it's an old metal shed/storage building that was there before the permitting Page 51 April 23, 2009 process was even formalized in Collier County. I have signed letters -- and I apologize I didn't get them to you five days ahead, but I have signed letters from two old timers that have been in that area for some time. And they both have signed and dated to the effect that that shed's been there since at least since the 1960s. So I am asking you to rule that you -- rule to grandfather in that standalone storage building, given the evidence or lack thereof by the county and taking into account these signed statements. And we're certainly willing to bring the electric up to code on that storage building, or remove it. This whole ordeal has been very, very difficult with the negative cash flow, the repairs and the zoning requirements. It's getting more and more expensive for us. Recently with this back permitting issue on the two additions, it's getting more complex, becoming exorbitant for us in terms of finances. So I'm asking the question, is it possible not only to ask to grandfather in the standalone shed but also these two additions? And I'll let Jim tell you a little bit more about what's been going on there and the difficulty and our increasing costs. My flights down here. What I think we could have resolved at $500 has become just enormous and ridiculous. MR. LARSEN: Have you shown those letters to the county? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Unfortunately I don't think this is the venue to grandfather something in. MR. LARSEN: Why don't you show the letters to the county. MR. KELLY: I'm willing to stipulate that the letters exist, as it's part of her testimony. MR. LARSEN: I'd like to see them. MS. LEFEBVRE-HILL: I did mention that I had them in hand. I didn't specifically show them to her. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I think the Chairman has a good point, Page 52 April 23, 2009 though. If this is any type of a zoning issue, then I don't think this is our bailiwick. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. I mean, the testimony is that it's not within the boundary survey. It's encroaching. We're not -- we cannot tell you to keep that there if it's encroaching. We're not a variance committee. So -- and that -- I think you're at wrong venue if you're looking for approval to keep it with the current -- that would be a variance committee. Go ahead. MR. KELLY: This may be a discussion amongst the board, but respectfully I disagree. I believe that we do have the authority to decide whether a violation exists or does not. The testimony of an investigator -- no offense, Azure -- is not the zoning department. There's no letter, there's no surveys showing me that two and a half feet is accurate. No offense again. But so far I've not been shown enough testimony to say that that particular shed is in violation. MS. SORRELS: Mr. Kelly, if I could answer just that. I do have a survey, a copy of it that I can show you that the 2.8 feet is there. And I can also show you the '65 zoning regulations that would show that would be seven and a half feet for setback lines. MR. KELLY: Well, I apologize for my rant. And I'd like to admit that into evidence. If that's okay, I'll make a motion to admit. That will help just prove a point then. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Can we all second that? MR. LARSEN: Ms. Waldron, can you put the letters up, please. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do we have to accept that as -- MR. LARSEN : Well, you just said it was part of her testimony. MR. KELLY: Well, which one is this? Is this the-- MR. MOYER: The letters. MS. SORRELS: The letters. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Would you like to accept that? MR. LARSEN : Would you like to put that into evidence, please? Page 53 April 23, 2009 MS. LEFEBVRE-HILL: Yes, please. MR. LARSEN: Okay, do you have any objection? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. LARSEN: I move we accept the evidence. MR. DEAN: I'll 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. MS. SORRELS: The first thing that I'll put on the screen will be the survey that was given to me by the contractor Jim, and it was dated February 23rd, 2009. MR. LARSEN: Okay. Well, we're looking at the letters first. MS. SORRELS: Oh, sorry. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Has everyone read that? MR. LARSEN: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do we need to have this entered as evidence? MR. KELLY: Unless it was marked for original -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Would you like to enter this as evidence? MS. SORRELS: Yes, please. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Has the respondents -- have they Page 54 April 23, 2009 seen it? MS. SORRELS: I'm assuming so. This is the same survey that was provided to them from the contractor Jim. So I believe she has a copy as well. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is that correct? MS. LEFEBVRE-HILL: That's correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. We'd like to have a motion. MR. KELLY: Make a motion to accept. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second the 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. MR. KELLY: This is a much better view than those aerials. MR. LARSEN: So Jim, what are we looking at? MR. MOYER: What we're looking at here in this lower section is the building that she is talking about. The standalone shed is right here. It's 21 by 8 feet. THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Moyer, excuse me, could you speak on the microphone. MR. KAUFMAN: Could you give us your name and the Page 55 April 23, 2009 company that you represent? MR. MOYER: My name is Jim Moyer. I represent Florida Built-Rite. What we're looking at here is this is the standalone shed that's used strictly for storage. It does have electric to it. They could either be brought to code or eliminated. That's a pretty easy situation. These two -- this building here is an attachment to this original building that was permitted. And I am under the belief that the building -- this attachment that we're now permitting was built at the same time, but they just didn't apply for the permit. You can tell by the age of the concrete, the stress on the steel, and it has all deteriorated in the same fashion. So it isn't anything new that has been added. This too is just used for storage. It has an enclosure on this end but it's just strictly storage. There's no one -- no occupants or anybody living in that storage. MR. KAUFMAN: How close is that corner to the property line? MR. MOYER: This corner here? MR. KAUFMAN: No, on the other side. MR. MOYER: This corner here is -- I think it's 4. -- 4.7 is this corner right here. From this property line to this corner is 4.7. What we are doing now is -- in the permitting process is what we've done is we've hired Cronin Engineering to establish that the buildings will meet wind load and the current code now. If we are unable to permit this little section here, we will remove it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further testimony? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: I have one question. Maybe I'm missing something. But ordinarily on a title search, don't they show on title searches any encroachments on property on that survey? MS. SORRELS: That I could not speak for. I do not know. Page 56 April 23, 2009 MR. DEAN: Absolutely. MR. LARSEN: Jim, this building, the large building with the unpermitted extension, can you estimate the age of that? MR. MOYER: They have said that it was permitted in '95. It looks like it's older than that to me. MR. LARSEN: All right. And the small standalone shed, could you estimate whether or not that exceeded, you know, construction in the 1980s? MR. MOYER: In my estimation this standalone shed has been there a lot longer than this building that was permitted. MR. LARSEN: Okay. What's the -- what construction materials were used in that standalone shed? MR. MOYER: It's a metal corrugated shed, metal roof. Metal corrugated shed. MR. LARSEN: Is it on a concrete slab? MR. MOYER: I believe it is. Is it on concrete -- no, it's not. It's not. These are on concrete slabs, this is not. This is just on a dirt floor. MR. LARSEN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Kaufman, are you all set with your questions? MR. KAUFMAN: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Kelly? MR. KELLY: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other further discussion, questions from the board? MR. LARSEN: Well, I mean, discussions. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Questions. MR. LARSEN: Well, I have some discussion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, go ahead. MR. LARSEN: I guess the question is whether or not the code requiring permits required that small standalone shed to have a permit prior to construction. Now, you're saying in that standalone shed there Page 57 April 23, 2009 is electrical? MS. LEFEBVRE-HILL: That's correct. MR. LARSEN: All right. So my question to the county is, if it was actually built in the 1960's, would it have required at any point prior to or after construction of that standalone shed a permit? MS. SORRELS: Gentlemen, if you let me present 1965 zoning regulations, that will answer both yours and Mr. Kelly's questions. MR. LARSEN: Okay. MS. SORRELS: Would you like me to read it and then present it on the thing, or would you like me just to put it down there and let you guys read it? MR. LARSEN: Why don't you put it down on the ELMO and then we'll-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, it might be good to read it into the record. MR. LARSEN: Yeah, but she could put it down so we can read along with her. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. SORRELS: Okay, I will try to do that. Let me get the microphone from him so I can stand over there. The first sheet you're going to see is the actual cover of the 1965 coding zone -- county zone regulations. The next page that you're going to see is R-4-A, which is circled on the paper, use regulations. This is indicating what the uses on the property can be in 1965. I just wanted to show you that that was the section for that zonIng. And then the next page would be C, which is the area regulations. Minimum lot size shall be 4,000 square feet. Number two that is circled it says, minimum lot width at building line shall be 40 feet with front yard of 25 feet and a minimum size yard of seven and a half feet. Rear yard must be sufficient to take care of septic tank and Page 58 April 23, 2009 drain field. And I do believe if you go down -- give me a second to scan. On this page it's number seven. It states -- can you see it -- a permit shall be required for installing mobile and/or trailer home and for the construction of any structure thereto. Said permit shall be obtained by county authorities who shall be authorized to receive a fee for the issuance of said permit. The county shall have the authority to revoke or refuse -- to issue a permit to any mobile home trailer that's -- or attached structure. But I guess what I wanted to point out is that it does say the construction of any structure. Does that answer your question? MR. LARSEN: Well, it says any structure per tenant thereto. Is this a mobile or a trailer home? MS. SORRELS: No. Correct, it's not attached to that, no. MR. LARSEN: But is the main structure on the property a mobile home or a trailer home? MS. SORRELS: There was at one time. MR. L'ESPERANCE: But these appurtenances aren't attached to a mobile or a trailer is what he's saying; is that correct? MS. SORRELS: No, they were not attached, no. MR. L'ESPERANCE: That's the intent of this paragraph. MS. SORRELS: Okay, understood. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I feel it is. MR. LARSEN: Right. But the main house, is it a mobile home or a trailer home? MS. SORRELS: No, the main house is not. Gentlemen, I'm sorry, I'm just trying to scan through here to make sure that I can't answer your question further. MR. LARSEN : Well, look at number lOon the area regulations. Could you move that up a bit. MS. SORRELS: This one? Minimum lot size for single-family Page 59 April 23, 2009 residence for the minimum building size living area. MR. LARSEN: So the setbacks apply whether or not it's a mobile home or not. MS. SORRELS: Correct. MR. LARSEN: Same setback. And your contention is on a survey it shows the storage shed to be 2. whatever feet from the property line. MS. SORRELS: Correct. MR. MOYER: If I could add something. How I see that when I read -- and maybe you could tell me if I'm wrong. We were reading for mobile homes and anything attached to the mobile homes had to be seven and a half feet from the property line. This is a standalone shed that's not attached to anything. MR. LARSEN: Well, my understanding of the word appurtenant is something that is in conjunction with or on the property associated with the other mobile home or trailer home. Does not necessarily have to be attached. Maybe the counsel for the board has a different interpretation but, you know, I question the applicability. Because that was for mobile or trailer homes and it's not a mobile or trailer home. But the area regulations with the setback don't seem to pertain just to mobile or tenant homes, because they talk about a family residence. And that was the -- what I was trying to key in on on number 10 where it said for single-family residence, which would be in the same article or chapter. MR. MOYER: Right. And how I'm familiar with commercial or more than residential property is that there are some situations, and I don't know whether this is the situation, you can build right to the property line on commercial property. MR. LARSEN: On commercial property, I agree with you. MR. MOYER: This is a -- the residence is a four-plex is what it IS now. Page 60 April 23, 2009 MR. LARSEN: Was it always a four-plex? MR. MOYER: Originally I think it was built as a shelling house, converted to a four-plex. MS. SORRELS: To clarify that, a '62 permit was issued for an oyster house. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think you're looking correctly at the issues. It appears that the principal structure is a house. And the question is whether or not the 7.5 setback applies to an accessory use. And it appears to me that the language is unclear. Ms. Sorrels put up the R-4 standards, and there's also a reference to the R -1 standard, I don't know that you've seen that, as to the main residence. And frankly, I don't recall whether or not it said attached appurtenant, you know, attached to the trailer or mobile home without her putting it back up. But again, I think the issue that you're identifi -- you seem to be identified as the accessory use in setback. MS. SORRELS: Can I make a clarification on something? I think the confusion came into play when I had read that the county would require a building permit. And it was into the statement stating that it was in conjunction with a travel trailer. Set that aside, okay. So as right now I'll say that I don't have in front of me any proof saying that it would need a permit in that time frame in 1965. But the setbacks -- again, I'm holding it up and I'll put it back on the -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're not looking at setbacks. That's not the case. MS. SORRELS: But I think the setbacks were -- my understanding, you guys are questioning the setbacks as they are connection -- if the shed was being in connection to a travel trailer. And that would not matter in 1965. Because the use regulations on this, any use permitted in R-3 Page 61 April 23, 2009 district, the installation of mobile home and travel trailers for residential use, adjacent structures are to be limited to those which complement trailer and must exceed 25 of the lot area. Commercial trailer parks, horticulture nurseries, tourist camps, motels, fish houses and marinas. The very next section is going into the minimum lot line. Lot width at building line shall be 40 feet with front yard of 25 feet and a minimum side yard of seven and a half feet. So if the shed was put there in '65 with, let's just say the oyster house, it would have to meet the seven and a half setback lines. Because that is an approved use for that property. MR. LARSEN: Right, I understood that. I'm just -- you know, I'm trying to match it up with the violation that they were noticed on, which was basically an unpermitted addition made to an existing permitted carport and an unpermitted storage shed. Unpermitted electrical and storage shed. So the question now is in regard to the storage shed whether or not a permit was required. Now, in regard to the violation, that's all we have to go on. It says unpermitted. It doesn't say unpermitted for setback, it doesn't say unpermitted for, you know, uses of storage shed or for construction. And, you know, it's unfortunate in that regard, because basically they may have intent to say that you can construct it without a permit. Now they have a full back argument which is that basically it's too close to the property line. And they've shown us evidence that back in 1965 there was at least some requirement that it be set back from the side of, what is it, seven and a half feet? MS. SORRELS: Correct, sir. MR. LARSEN: Seven and a half feet. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's not what we're looking at here. We're not looking at setback here. We're looking at strictly is it permitted or unpermitted. Page 62 April 23, 2009 MS. SORRELS: Understood. And can I make a comment with that? With the regulations being written for 1965, the only way for us to ensure that the regulations were being followed would be that a permit would be required for inspection. So with that being said, it would need a permit. That would be the only way we would be able to verify that those regulations from 1965 were being followed. MS. LEFEBVRE-HILL: And may I make a statement at this time? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Absolutely. MS. LEFEBVRE-HILL: I just wanted to say, when I had asked Azure about when historically did the permitting begin to be something that was required in the county and pretty formalized, and she responded she thought about the 1960's. So when I approached these two people that had been there for a long time and took me a long time to find them, I really just asked them to make a statement from the Sixties. My belief is it was there even longer than that. So I just went to the Sixties for that purpose. And I could certainly go back to them and ask them how far prior to that time they thought it was there. But I think it's been there a long time. I think the house was built in the Forties. So I just think it was there before the -- before a lot of the permitting requirements were necessary. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead, Mr. Kaufman. MR. KAUFMAN: My question is along the lines that you just mentioned. If this was built before '65, then the '65 regulations that you have here, they probably don't come to play. Do we have any idea what regulations existed before 1965? MS. SORRELS: The zoning regulations that I have found go back to '65 is the most complete zoning regulations that I have found. If there's others out there, I'm not aware of them. Page 63 April 23, 2009 I have researched everything that's been available to me, and the only difference in setbacks were very minimal. And in 1975 the side setbacks only went down to five feet. That I do not have with me, but that was the only difference that was in the setbacks from that time until now. MR. KAUFMAN: So then it is possible that if this was built in 1950, for instance, there were no rules at that time on where this structure could be located. And do we know when the main structure was built? MS. LEFEBVRE-HILL: From an insurance document I looked at recently, it was in the Forties. MS. SORRELS: Understood. We have --like I said, I've done extensive research on this property, and I have a permit from '62 showing an oyster house. Do I have anything prior to that? No, I do not. But I can only also talk about what I can prove. And an aerial is -- I have an aerial showing that there was some kind of structure at least on the property in the same general area back in 1975. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion from the board? Questions? MR. KAUFMAN: Do you have to separate now that storage building from the other parts -- the other buildings that need to be permitted and completed? MR. MOYER: Right now we are not even addressing the standalone storage shed as permitting. We're not addressing that as in the permit process. MR. KAUFMAN: No, but as far as this complaint is concerned from the county's perspective, is this two items or is this one item? MS. SORRELS: It's going to be one item. They're both accessory structures that are not permitted. The distance that sets between that structure and the other structures on the property, those setbacks are fine. So it would -- as for Page 64 April 23, 2009 being too close to another structure, it would not be a problem. It's just the property line is what's prohibiting them to obtaining a permit to today's standards or even to the standards of 1965. MR. KAUFMAN: So if we were to find that that structure that's in question now was built in the Forties and there were no permits at that time, et cetera, what would that do to the other buildings as far as this particular case is concerned? MS. SORRELS: It would -- we would pursue the other building. Because the other building is clearly put in place in '93 with a permit and the additions were done either at the same time, shortly after the construction of the carport. So we would still pursue that. MR. KAUFMAN: So then taking that further, an existing -- the existing buildings, excluding that, I guess everybody is in agreement that there is work to be done and they need to be permitted. So from that perspective, you have to find that a violation does exist. And I'd like to make that as a motion. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Further discussion. I just want to make it clear, these are not residential buildings, these are storage buildings? MS. SORRELS: That is correct, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead, Mr. Kelly. Go ahead. MR. KELLY: My discussion would be if that standalone storage building -- if we felt that that was not in violation, how do you separate the two out on this particular case? MS. SORRELS: We would continue -- the case would remain open until the other violations were abated with being permitted or removed. And that would just be noted on the case that the ruling of the Code Enforcement Board was of this. And that would basically say the violation according to your rule is there or is allowed to stay or you don't see it as a violation or whatever. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Kaufman, could you restate your motion? Page 65 April 23, 2009 MR. KAUFMAN: I find that being the other buildings are in violation, that we find it in violation. And then I guess when we get to the point of what are the remedies, I guess maybe then at that point you can separate it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, I think you need to separate it now. Because is it in violation or not? What is in violation, what is not? So that has to be separated. MR. KAUFMAN: Well, the whole scope of the complaint shows several different things. If one of those things is in violation, then you have to find that it's in violation, I would think. Otherwise, if you find it's not in violation, everything is removed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I think what the investigator was just saying is that let's say you make a motion that the storage said is not in violation, but everything else is in violation, they would work to remedy the other items that are in violation, but not the structure. MR. KAUFMAN: That would be fine. I would modify my motion to that effect. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So there is not a violation in regards to the unpermitted electrical and storage shed and the unpermitted storage shed, but there is a violation regarding the permitted carport. MR. KAUFMAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: With the addition. Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, and that's correct, we can proceed that way and either find no violation or dismiss the charges as to the storage shed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I have a second? MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? MR. LARSEN : Yes, I'd like to have some further discussion. Are you saying that the electrical as well in the storage shed is fine and that basically anything to do with the storage shed? Because I don't think there any testimony about the age or the quality of the Page 66 April 23, 2009 electrical or whether or not that required a permit. And that I'm a little concerned about. I understand not finding the storage shed, but in regard to the electrical in the storage -- because I read this as being unpermitted additions made to an existing permitted carport; second, an unpermitted storage shed; and third, an unpermitted electrical in the storage shed. So I just want a clarification on the motion. Does that include or does not include finding a violation as to the electrical in the storage shed? MR. KAUFMAN: Well, further discussion. If the shed required no permitting, say it was built in 1949, anything that was done in there didn't require a permit. So how do you now -- I would assume that that would be grandfathered then. MR. LARSEN: Unless they added the electrical at a later time. MR. KAUFMAN: That's correct. I don't know that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The contractor stated that it wouldn't be a problem to disconnect the power to the shed, correct? MR. MOYER: That is correct. The power into the shed looks to be -- it appears to be to code. It appears to be in excellent condition, that there's no harm or safety issue there. But if it's the board's wishes that we disconnect the power, we would do that. MR. LARSEN: Or get a permit for it within the time permitted by the board. MR. LA VINSKI: Yeah, I would agree that the electrical is a separate issue, and especially in a metal building, it makes me a little more nervous, that that ought to be dealt with, either permitted or removed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The first would have to be amended to include that. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That the shed is permitted, but the Page 67 April 23, 2009 unpermitted electrical in the shed has to be brought up to code or removed. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LARSEN: That there's a violation with regard to the existing carport. There's no violation in regard to permitting of the storage shed but there is a violation as to permitting of the electrical in the storage shed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Correct. MR. KAUFMAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Amended first, do I hear an amended on the second? MR. KELLY: Amended second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right, any further discussion? Lionel? MR. L'ESPERANCE: None. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a vote in favor? All 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. MOYER: Thank you. MS. LEFEBVRE-HILL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Recommendation. MS. SORRELS: I want to first make sure I understand what you guys just did. Weare claiming that there is a violation to the additions Page 68 April 23, 2009 of the carport, correct? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's correct. MS. SORRELS: We are saying that the standalone shed it is not a violation, correct? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's correct. MS. SORRELS: We are questioning the electrical that is going to the storage shed, correct? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's correct. MS. SORRELS: Okay. Before I proceed with a recommendation, I need to present something to you. I'm not a permitting technician, but I want to make you aware that there is a possibility if you ask them to permit the electrical to that storage shed, that it might be declined because the permitting department's going to question why the electrical going to that shed is not permitted. MR. KELLY: I don't think it's an issue. They'll just have it removed then. MS. SORRELS: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that that was at least brought to your attention that there is that possibility that if you had asked them for electrical permitting that it could very well be declined. MR. KELLY: That's a very good point. Thanks for bringing that. That is a good point. MS. SORRELS: All right. Now, with the little altercations (sic) of what you guys ruled on, I've got to adjust my recommendation. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yeah, I kinda figured that. MS. SORRELS: First we'll start out with of course the operational cost of $87.29 paid within 30 days of this case -- or excuse me, I should say 30 days of this hearing. I apologize. The respondents are to obtain all required building permits, inspections and certificate of completion within whatever you guys rule on days and the fine. And that will be for the unpermitted additions to the existing carport -- permitted carport. Page 69 April 23, 2009 Is that all agreed? Okay. They will have whatever time frame you guys issue. The fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains after that time. Obtain -- the respondents also have the opportunity to obtain a demo permit, demolish unpermitted structures and obtain all required -- and let me go back and say unpermitted additions to carport. Because we're not going to require them to do anything with the standalone shed, correct? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Except for the electrical. MS. SORRELS: Except for the electrical, okay. So do you want me to go back to the first one then and put in electrical permit? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MS. SORRELS: Okay, back to number one, obtain building permits, inspections and certificate of completion for all unpermitted additions to carport, and obtain if possible an electrical permit with inspections and certificate of completion for the electrical going to the standalone shed within so many days and the fine that you guys have issued. Back to -- MR. LARSEN: Or remove same. MS. SORRELS: Correct. And that would be number two option would be to obtain a demo permit -- demo the unpermitted addition structures and obtain a demo permit for removing of the electrical that's existing to the standalone shed. MR. MOYER: You won't need a demo permit to remove the electrical. They won't require that. MS. SORRELS: I can't speak for that. I know in past cases it has been to ensure that the electricity is capped off properly to wherever it leads to. MR. MOYER: Okay, well, that's fine. W e'llleave it like that then. Page 70 April 23, 2009 MS. SORRELS: If they don't need a demo permit, that's fine, but that's not for me to say. That's the building department. The third part would be the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. 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 order and assess all abatement costs incurred by the county . CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you put that up on the screen, please. MR. KELLY: Sir, do you know approximately how long it's going to take you to get all of the setback information, permits and everything taken care of on those additions? MR. MOYER: We have applied for a permit 3/31 of this year. We have ran into several difficulties of issues of -- and it's mainly communication issues. I mean, I get most of my information from Azure, that she seems to be able to have the information quicker than I can get it or receive it. We've -- I can't tell you that. I would like to have it done tomorrow. I don't know that that's feasible. MR. LARSEN: How much time do you think you're going to need? MR. MOYER: I think she would request 90 days. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is that a recommendation, Mr. Kelly? MR. KELLY: I was thinking 120, just because these are storage sheds and in case there's any other additional snags. MR. MOYER: You know, I think you're very wise in that decision. Even though that we have went through the permit process, we still have -- we have done this through affidavit by engineering, and we were required to do some work on the premise just to bring Page 71 April 23, 2009 them up to the current code. So I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: How about a fine, per day fine? MR. LARSEN: I was thinking $100 per day. 120 days sounds satisfactory . CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Do I hear that in a motion, Mr. Kelly? MR. KELLY: I'll make a motion that a violation exists to the additions to the carports, and electrical service to the standalone shed. The recommendation: The Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay $87.29 in operational costs that have been incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days, and abate all violations by: Number one, obtain permit, inspections, certificate of completion/occupancy within 120 days or a fine of $100 per day until all -- will be imposed each day the violation remains to the additions to the carport. Number two: Or obtain a demo permit, demolish unpermitted additional structures, and obtain all required inspection and certificate of completion/occupancy within 120 days of the date of this hearing or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed each day the violation remains. Number three: Permit or remove electrical service to the standalone storage shed within 120 days, or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed each day the violation remains. Number four: Notify -- the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order. And all -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Agrees all costs -- MR. KELLY: -- agrees all incurred by this abatement will be charged against the property owner. Page 72 April 23, 2009 MS. SORRELS: I apologize for my chicken scratch. It just say, and assess all abatement costs incurred by the county to the property. MR. KELLY: To the property owner. Did you get that, Cherie'? THE COURT REPORTER: I did. MR. DEAN: Yeah, sure. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We have a motion. Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll 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. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. LEFEBVRE-HILL: Thank you, gentleman, and ladies. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're going to be moving on to BCC versus Allen W. Fuller and Barbara A. Davis, CEB No.. CESD200800 1 0447. And there's one other case, too. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to Department Case CESD20080010447. Violation of ordinance Florida Building Code 2004 edition, Chapter 1, Section 105.1, and Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06 (B)(l )(a), and 10.02.06 (B)(l)( ei). Page 73 April 23, 2009 Description of violation: Residence on agricultural property has been altered, added to, converting structure to a two-story duplex structure with structural plumbing and electrical alterations without obtaining required building permits. Location/address where violation exists: 267 Price Street, Naples, Florida, 34113. Folio 00730160003. Name and address of opener/person in charge of violation location: Allen W. Fuller and Barbara A. Davis, residing at 265 Price Street, Naples, Florida, 34113. Date violation first observed: April 16th, 2008. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: July 17th, 2008. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: August 11th, 2008. Date of reinspection: February 26th, 2009. The results of the reinspection is that the violation remains. I would like to now present Investigator Azure Sorrels. MS. SORRELS: For the record, Azure Sorrels, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This is in reference to CESD200800 1 0447, dealing with the violations of a stilt residential structure that has been altered, added to, converting the structure to a two-story multi-family duplex structure with electrical, structural and plumbing alterations without first obtaining all required building permits, located at 267 Price Street, Naples, Florida, 34113. Folio No. 00730160003. Proof of service was July 25th, 2008. And I would like to present Exhibit B, with six photographs. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Have the photos been show to the respondent? MS. SORRELS: No. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Ma'am, you might want to bring the microphone down so we can hear you. Just bend it. That's it. That's fine, it won't break. Page 74 April 23, 2009 Okay, do I hear a motion? MR. DEAN: Motion we accept the photos. 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. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. SORRELS: I do apologize again for that, gentlemen. On 4/16/08 I was on the property addressing another complaint about rental units on the property that were not registered as rental units. In addressing this complaint, it evolved into the violations that we're going to be talking about today, which is again the unpermitted alterations/additions to an existing permitted stilt home that is on the property. I met with Mr. Fuller, the husband to Mrs. Fuller. And on my initial visit -- and I explained to him what I -- what violations I had observed. He provided me with some of the history on the property. I would like to say that they had informed me that this property was bought by him and his wife as-is, so this is something not of their doings. He did inform me that the stilt -- or the residential structure that Page 75 April 23, 2009 was on the property had been put there in approximately 1985 and he had informed me that it was actually moved from another location to that location. Upon research of all the computer programs and the property cards that we have accessible to us, I found an '85 permit for the relocation of the structure. I believe it was moved from Lakeview Drive to Price Street. The permit shows that it's a 994 square foot structure. And the property card indicates that it's a stilt home with piers and wood frame. And actually, can you go ahead and show the picture? I'm sorry. The first picture you're going to see is a distance shot. Sorry for not being able to get a clearer picture. But it's a beautiful piece of property with lots of vegetation. But as you can see, there's two sets of staircases going up to the second floor, and you can see that the bottom floor is completely enclosed. And again, this was a stilt home. The next picture. This is just showing the stairs and then the entryway to the top floor, which was being rented at the time. And this will be the doorway entrance to the bottom floor. And at the time was also being rented. And this is a photo showing two AC units that are providing central air to both floors. Thank you. Being that I found the '85 permit, our permitting is pretty well organized in the Eighties, and I was unable to find any permits indicating that the bottom part of the stilt home had been enclosed, turning it into residential living space. Also, being that the flood zone that they are in, FEMA would not allow livable space on this property. Therefore, permits would not have been issued anyway. I kept Mr. Fuller and his wife up to date as much with the Page 76 April 23, 2009 progress of the case, the research that we found. Unfortunately this case has caused them a financial hardship and I'll let her explain that. But they pretty much informed me that there would be no way they could abate the violation, whether it's to permit it or remove the unpermitted additions. So that's what I have for you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: My name is Barbara Davis-Fuller. My husband was here this morning, but because we didn't know what time we were going to be called, he needed to get back to work. And I've got all the paperwork here. As to what Ms. Sorrels has said, when we bought the property I left my job and I stayed on the property one year and worked it myself. All these buildings that were there on the property were there. It was an elderly woman and her son. She was confined to a wheelchair. Her son was in a wheelchair/walker. He had a terrible motorcycle accident. Everything that you see on the property was there. I did not enclose -- her husband was a plumber. I don't know when the man passed away. He did all the plumbing on the property. The son lived in a trailer. He wouldn't let us in the trailer to see it prior to buying this piece of property so I had no idea what the inside looked like. The main house -- picture two people incapacitated and the place is a disarray, mess, filthy. They had farm animals on the property. Some we found homes for, some we kept. And, you know, cleaned it. It took a good year to clean it out. What brought about this catastrophe was we had another piece of property in River Wood where we are living now. I had some irate neighbors that lived next door to me and this is what caused and brought Ms. Sorrels out to this property. We live there all year. And the only way we could stay on this property was to rent -- now she, the elderly woman, had all these Page 77 April 23, 2009 places rented. Like I said, her son lived in the trailer, she had a young couple in the back. Downstairs in the bottom floor was not rented because whoever was there left and the son collected garbage, wheelchairs; it was just loaded with garbage from top to bottom. It took me months to clean it out. Put new peel and stick tile on the floor, cleaned it up, painted, corked, that I could rent it. And that was the only way we could survive there was renting all these little houses plus the trailer. When Ms. Sorrels came out and she said, you know, it's a violation, she got a phone call and this is agricultural, you cannot rent. Told all my tenants, everybody had to get out. I got the papers on July 10th. July 16th we went to the lawyer, Richard Hollander, Miller and Hollander on Shadowlawn Drive. He told me -- we told him what happened. He said immediately take your house off the market in River Wood, because it was up for sale. Immediately take it off the market. I had to give him a $1,500 retainer right then and there. He said and move to River Wood. And everybody has to leave the property . So we informed them that everybody has to leave. So it is in bankruptcy . We were at the lawyers yesterday. And it would have been done yesterday and I would have had a case number, but we had to go through this little counseling thing that's on the telephone in order for them to give you a number. And the girl did not fax it in yesterday. So after sitting at the lawyer for an hour yesterday, he had still not received it. So we have to redo it again. But all the papers are filed. I have all the lawyer papers here. MR. LARSEN: Are you saying that a bankruptcy case was fil ed? MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: Foreclosure, bankruptcy, yeah. We've been out of there since July 16th. Whatever the lawyer told us to do, that's what we did. Page 78 April 23, 2009 MS. SORRELS: Can I make a clarification? The -- they are not actually in bankruptcy, because it has not been filed with the Clerk of Courts. There's no case, there's nothing saying that there is an open bankruptcy case. As for the foreclosure, there's only a lis pendens at this time. MR. LARSEN: You understand what the officer said was that basically when she checked -- and when did you check? MS. SORRELS: Yesterday. MR. LARSEN: That as of yesterday there was not a bankruptcy case filed. MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: No. MR. LARSEN: So did you file it between when she checked yesterday and this morning? MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: Well, I have to go there today because I received more papers yesterday. MR. LARSEN: Because what's the situation if there's a bankruptcy case filed on your ability to move forward with this case? MS. SORRELS: I'm going to let Ms. Waldron answer that. This is what her job is. MS. WALDRON: If the bankruptcy is filed and we do have a case, we can't move forward at this time. MR. LARSEN: And that's because there's an automatic stay in the bankruptcy court, right? MS. WALDRON: Right. MR. LARSEN: So how do we confirm whether or not she's in banlcruptcy? MS. WALDRON: Well, I believe Ms. Sorrels has talked to the attorney yesterday and said that the hearing was pushed off. So there is not officially a case at this time. So as per our policy, we move forward. MR. LARSEN: All right, you understand what they said? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I've got a question for you. Did you Page 79 April 23, 2009 live next door to this property, or do you currently live next door to this property? MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: On Price Street? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: No, we owned a home in River Wood Estates. 278 River Wood Estates. And then we bought this property on Price Street, 26 -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: 267, correct? MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: 26 -- yeah. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But is your address 265 Price Street? MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: It's two pieces of property. It's two and a half acres. And that's -- it's two addresses, but that's -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. That's what I was -- MR. LARSEN: Where is Price Street located? MS. SORRELS: It's off Barefoot Williams Road. It's over in East Naples. Probably to say Eagle Creek, it would be behind Eagle Creek. MR. LARSEN: Behind Eagle Creek. MS. SORRELS: Correct. MR. LARSEN: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Are we hearing this case and the next one -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's correct. MR. KAUFMAN: -- separately? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay, I'd like to make a motion that the violation exists. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. LA VINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) Page 80 April 23, 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. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Order -- not order. Do you have a recommendation? MS. SORRELS: Yes, sir. The county recommends that the respondent pay all operational costs in the amount of $ 8 8 .14 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of the hearing. Respondent must obtain all required Collier County building permits, inspections and certificate of occupancy for described structure/improvements within however many days. The fine will be imposed each day the violation remains after the compliance date's passed. Two would be to -- respondent to demolish said improvements, returning the structure to its original permitted state by obtaining a Collier County demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion. And then the rest would be days and fines. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when a violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order and assess all abatement costs incurred by the county to the property owner. Page 81 April 23, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Anyone like to take a shot at this? MR. KAUFMAN: I'll take a stab. Given the fact that the paperwork that you have in front of you hasn't been processed yet, I think that 90 days would certainly give enough time to work whatever is going to happen out. So I'd like to submit 90 days and $200 a day fine after the 90 days. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. For both of the -- MR. KAUFMAN: For those two fill-in-the-blanks. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. LA VINSKI: I'll second it. 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. MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: Okay, could you explain to me now? I have to go to the lawyer today after I leave here, so I'm going to get paperwork from -- how does this work? I don't understand. . CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, actually, the paperwork, you'll receive it probably via mail, correct, after I sign the orders? MS. WALDRON: Correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Which would be next week. MS. WALDRON: And I think what she's referring to is her bankruptcy, correct? Page 82 April 23, 2009 MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: Right. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. MS. WALDRON: If you could provide Ms. Sorrels, with your information. MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: Okay. So because yesterday he didn't have this faxed paper from the counseling thing that we did, if he has it today, today's Thursday, say he says to me come in Monday and sign the papers. MR. LARSEN: Okay, what the board has done is it approved the motion by one of its members. And in that motion it said that you have 90 days to get a permit for the use of the premises as it is. If you can't do that within 90 days, then you have the option of going in and getting a permit to demolish it within 90 days. If you don't do either one of those, then what's going to happen is you're going to get fined $200 per day until there's some compliance with the order. But that young lady standing next to you is actually an attorney -- sitting next to you. She's an attorney. And she's going to prepare an order. And that order is going to be signed by the chairman. And then a copy of the order is going to be served on you by mail, okay? So what you've got to do is you've got to bring that down to Mr. Hollander and give it to him. So it's not going to hold up filing your bankruptcy. And he'll know what to do with it from that point. Okay? MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: Even if we per se go say Monday and sign these papers, when I receive this paper I just hand it to Mr. Hollander? MR. LARSEN: That's correct. And he'll know what to do with it. MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: Okay. MR. LARSEN: All right, it will be part of your bankruptcy case. MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: Okay. MR. LARSEN: Okay? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, an oral decision has been made Page 83 April 23, 2009 and I will be placing that in the form of an order which will be mailed to you. So you do need to let Mr. Hollander know what transpired today. MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: Is there a number that I need to give him or something, a case number? MR. KELLY: Azure, can you -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Do you have a copy of your notice of the hearing? MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That has your case number. MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: Should I give him -- I got these papers in the mail. Should I give him these? MR. LARSEN: Yes. MR. KELLY: Azure, can you give her the recommendation? Just write in the Ope costs, the days and the fine per day? MS. SORRELS: Absolutely. MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: I got the two things here. So when I go today, I just hand him these? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. She's also going to give you what we have right in front of us. If you look right up there on the screen -- MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- that's what you're going to get. She's going to fill it out, write out what we just -- it would be $88.14 incurred in the prosecution of the case, and then it's going to be for number one, 90 days from the date of this hearing or a $200 fine. If you want to look up there, you can follow along with me. And then number two, the first blank, you have another 90 days or $200 per day will be imposed. So she'll fill that out in -- she'll write it out, what -- fill in the blanks, and then you can take that to the attorney. Page 84 April 23, 2009 But then additionally will be mailed to you more information. You'll probably receive that next week sometime, end of next week, beginning of the following week, correct? MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: So should I tell him this is coming -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, with this -- MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: No, that he waits for me to sign? I mean -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I can't advise you on how to proceed with your bankruptcy. It's-- MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: Oh, okay. I don't know. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Your attorney will advise you, but you need to inform of what transpired. MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: Okay. All right. So I give the attorney this paper also? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's correct. And then your name. The investigator's names on it, correct? MS. WALDRON: (Nods head affirmatively.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: On a notice and everything, your name's on the notice. MS. SORRELS: Correct, yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So if there's any further questions, you can -- he can contact code enforcement, all right? We're going to proceed on to the next case. And everything we just said would apply obviously to this case, too, regarding notifying your attorney and so forth. MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: I'm the next case, too? MR. LARSEN: Yes, the mobile home. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We have two cases. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to Department Case CESD20080010474, violation of Ordinance Florida Building Code, Page 85 April 23, 2009 2004 edition, Chapter 1, Section 105.1, and 04-41, the Land Development Code, as amended, Section 10.02.06 (B)(l)(a). Description of violation: Mobile home placed on property with utility connections without first obtaining all required building permits. Location/address where violation exists: 267 Price Street, Naples, Florida, 34113. Folio No. 730160003. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Allen Fuller and Barbara Davis, residing at 265 Price Street, Naples, Florida, 34113. Date violation first observed: April 16th, 2008. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: July 17th, 2008. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: August 11 th, 2008. And date of reinspect ion: February 26th, 2009. Results of reinspection is that the violation remains. I would like to now present Investigator Azure Sorrels. MS. SORRELS: Azure Sorrels, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20080010474, dealing with the violations of a mobile home placed on property with utility connections without first obtaining all required building permits. Located at 267 Price Street, Naples, Florida, 34113. Folio No. 00730160003. Proof of service was received July 25th, 2008. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibit, Exhibit B, which is five photographs. And the respondent did see them. MR. KELLY: Make a motion to accept the exhibit. MR. LARSEN: I second it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) Page 86 April 23, 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. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. SORRELS: On the same day that I had made the site visit regarding the other case, which was the 16th of -- here the case was broken off, so this date doesn't really comply to what she said. But since the case was broken off, we put that date it was broken off. 4/16/08 was on the property. I had addressed the -- spoke with Mr. Fuller, met him on-site, had spoken with him regarding the violation of what I observed, which was a mobile home that was on the property. The reason why I questioned if it was permitted or not was because the property is zoned agriculture. Agriculture property does not allow a mobile home on the property when there's already a principal structure on the property. In which there is, which would be the two story multi-family home you saw in the prior case. The only other time they're allowed to remain is if the mobile home is being utilized in active, agricultural use, which it was not, it was being as the residential unit rented out. I informed him of the violation. I also did my research to verify there was no permits issued for the placement of the mobile home. The aerial photos that I have -- well, actually, let me show you the mobile home. This is just the front part where the entrance is for the residence. Page 87 April 23, 2009 The rear of the mobile home with the addition. And also note that you can see the plumbing and everything. And then the picture showing the sewage pipe running from the property -- or excuse me, from the mobile home to its location and a septic tank. This is -- I do apologize, it's kind of small. This is the current view, aerial view of the property, 2008. And I'll point out with my finger where the mobile home is located. Where my finger's at is where the mobile home is in place. I want to also make note, because it actually had come up prior about if she resided. The property that's highlighted is 265 which is where she resided. This property was broken into two separate parcels. This is 267 back here where the two-story structure was. And this is the mobile home, which is actually located by the driveway for 267. This is an aerial photo from 1985. And in the location that we just saw the mobile home, you can see there is no -- there's a bare spot, but there is no mobile home on-site. So I am estimating that the mobile home was put in place somewhere between -- after 1985 to 200 -- actually, I do apologize, I think that other aerial was 2001. Is that correct? MS. WALDRON: 2002. MS. SORRELS: 2002. My apologies, 2002. And again, at research I have no permits showing that it's allowed to be on the property, and plus the use would not allow it to remain either. And the same situation as what I had said with the Fullers, it's a financial burden. And you know the process that she's already going through. And that's all I really have. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What is the -- where is the two and a half acres? What's -- is it just the highlighted part? MS. SORRELS: That -- I highlighted that to get to the location. I should have taken that off. But that's 265. Page 88 April 23, 2009 At one point in time, and I don't know when, but at one point in time that was all one parcel. And then -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What was all one parcel? I mean, there's three or four different -- MS. SORRELS: From this point, and continues on back to wherever it ends, just a straight line back. Of course it would come over to this line and straight down. So what has been broken off is this -- it's been basically divided in half. This is 267, this is 265. This little section that you see right here does not have an address. It's part of 267. It's their access. It's an access road. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But it looks like that mobile home, as it stands right now, is the -- the property line dissects that mobile home. MS. SORRELS: The property lines on the GIS aerials unfortunately are not completely accurate, correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: May I say one thing? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Absolutely. MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: The picture that you had shown before, Azure, remember I had that little tiny travel trailer? MS. SORRELS: Yes. MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: That's what that piping was for. Not for the blue trailer. Because the husband -- like I said, that was there. I had a guy, he lives in his little travel trailer, and he loved it there so much, he asked if he could rent a little spot. So for a few hundred dollars he rented. We did hook him up electrically to the trailer because it had electric. We did hook him up with a big pipe. I don't know if we were supposed to do that or not but my husband said oh, yeah, we can do that, whatever. So they did it. But that, when Azure came out, she said he can -- the trailer Page 89 April 23, 2009 could stay but he cannot live in it. So we thought, oh, my God, we don't want to get in trouble, I'm sorry, you've got to go. So because that that was the man's home, he left. So that picture that you see, that was a sewage pipe for that little travel. It was not -- because the husband, I told you, the lady's husband, before he passed away did all the plumbing and -- because he was a plumber. So whether he had permits for anything, I don't know. But the trailer had plumbing for washer, dryer, plumbing for dishwasher and all the water utilities inside the trailer. So that big long pipe that you see there, that was for that little travel trailer. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Could you tell where that pipe was going to? What structure? MS. SORRELS: There was a similar piping that did go to the travel trailer that was on the property. I'm not a plumber so I wouldn't know -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But this up here -- MS. SORRELS: It passes right by the mobile home. I'm going to say that it -- their sewage from the mobile home probably connects into that and follows to the sewer -- the septic, excuse me. MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: Because once we did -- the man left, then we removed that pipe. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further questions of the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you have any further statements to make? MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: No, thanks. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that a violation exists. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. LA VINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? Page 90 April 23, 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: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Recommendation? MS. SORRELS: County recommends that the respondent pay all operational costs of$87.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Respondent obtain all required Collier County building permits, inspections and certificate of occupancy for the mobile home within however many days of the hearing, or a fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains. Respondent may obtain a demolition permit and demolish said structure, followed by required inspections and receive certificate of completion within the days given of this hearing or a fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order. All abatement costs incurred by the county will be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Kaufman? Page 91 April 23, 2009 MR. KAUFMAN: Fill in the blanks. Ninety days, as we did in the past case, $200 a day fine. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What was the operational costs once again? MS. SORRELS: 87.57. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Oh, okay. MR. LARSEN: And you broke out the operational costs between the two different violations, or is that a -- MS. SORRELS: Broken out in two different violations, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: No sales. Two for one. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right. We have a motion. Do I hear a second? MR. LA VINSKI: I'll second it. 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. If you can just fill in the blanks and hand them to her so she can hand them to her attorney. MS. SORRELS: Yes, sir, thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. We're all set. MRS. DAVIS-FULLER: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm going to bring up again BCC Page 92 April 23, 2009 verse Jose Rodriguez, CEB No. CESD20080003864. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Were you able to come up to a stipulated agreement? MR. MUSSE: (Indicating thumbs up.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right, very good. Would you like to read it in the record? MR. MUSSE: Sure. This is in -- for the record, Jonathan Musse, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20080003864, Board of County Commissioners versus Jose Rodriguez, in dealing with a bedroom and bathroom addition located at 607 Glade Street, Immokalee, Florida, 34142. Folio No. 6385740007. The respondent and the county has entered into a stipulated agreement, and has agreed to pay operational costs in the amount of $86.71 incurred in the prosecution of this case. And abate all violations by obtaining a Collier County building permit, inspections and certificate of completion within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until violation's abated. Or obtaining a Collier County demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until violation's abated. Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request investigator to perform site inspection to confirm compliance. 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. All costs of abatement will be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: One thing I don't think I heard was number one, that it would be paid within 30 days of this hearing. I don't think that was -- Page 93 April 23, 2009 MR. MUSSE: So repetitious that I just said it unconsciously. So if it's not on there, I could add it and have him initial it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That would be very good. MR. MUSSE: And again, all costs will be assessed to the property owner, I have to add that as well. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Make sure they do initial both of those. Any further discussion -- or any discussion? MR. DEAN : Well, I guess I'd like to ask if this property is occupied. MR. MUSSE: No, it's not. MR. DEAN: Nobody lives there at all? MR. MUSSE: No. MR. DEAN: Why is that? They built it for that purpose, now you're telling me nobody's there, but -- MR. MUSSE: Because it's in really bad shape. The roof is falling off. MR. DEAN: Okay, so it's not habitable. MR. MUSSE: No. MR. DEAN: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And he has agreed to the stipulated agreement? INTERPRETER LOCANO: Yes, he has. I explained it and I read it over, so he understands what needs to be done. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. Any further discussion, questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that we accept the county's recommendation and stipulation. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: With the few changes -- MR. KAUFMAN: Yeah. Page 94 April 23, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll 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. Before you leave, if you can have -- there's just a couple minor changes we made. And the one change -- two changes we made. One was that the fine would be paid within 30 days, okay? And the other one was -- if you can just repeat for me the last one? All the costs -- MR. MUSSE: All costs will be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. I'd just like to have him in it -- if you can explain it to him and then initial. INTERPRETER LOCANO: Okay. Will he receive the recommendations by mail or -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. INTERPRETER LOCANO: -- writing, in writing? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. INTERPRETER LOCANO: That way it's clear and we don't have to come back. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. What happens is the attorney writes up the orders, I sign them, and that's usually done by beginning to mid next week. And then they're sent out. So you'll probably see Page 95 April 23, 2009 them by the end of next week or the beginning of the following week, all right? But you will have 90 days from today. INTERPRETER LOCANO: Okay. We went this morning and applied for a demo permit, so it will be taken care of. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It's in the works. Okay, excellent. Thank you very much. INTERPRETER LOCANO: Thank you. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Chair, can we take a 10-minute break? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We can. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Call the Code Enforcement Board meeting back to order. Next case is BCC versus John Cowden, CEB No. 2007050845. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Ordinance 04-41, the Land Development Code, as amended, Sections 1 0.02.06(B)(1)( a); 1 0.02.06(B)(1)( e); and 10.02.06 (B)(l)( e )(i). And the Florida Building Code, 2004 Edition, Section 105.1. Location of violation: 413 San Juan Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34113. Folio No. 52454760009. Description of violation: Electrical boatlift added to existing boat dock without first obtaining all required Collier County permits. On March 27th, 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 violations. See the attached order of the board OR 4347, Page 0590 for more information. The respondent has complied with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of February 13th, 2009. The county's recommendation is to issue an order imposing lien for fines at a rate of $200 per day for the period between April 27th, Page 96 April 23, 2009 2008 to February 13th, 2009, 293 days, for the total of $58,600. The operational costs of $328.52 have been paid. The total recommended lien amount is $58,600. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you just explain, that original lien, we have a stipulated agreement between BCC and Brien Spina, and now we have -- the case is John Cowden. Was it a transfer, property transfer? MS. SORRELS: Yes. The property was sold after the order was gIven. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. Go ahead, sir. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. For the record, Rocky Scofield, representing John Cowden. This is a -- this was a violation of a dock -- boatlift that was added onto an existing dock that was permitted back in 1980. The boatlift was put in without a permit under the previous owner. As you heard, the code enforcement took action against Mr. Spina, the previous owner. And while he was trying to permit this without any outcome out of that, the home was for sale. It was sold to Mr. Cowden. Mr. Cowden was made aware of the violation. And so while the action -- while everything was going on, Mr. Cowden purchased the home. And at that time, right as he was purchasing the home, while he was going through the motions, he contacted our office, Turrell, Hall and Associates. We do a lot of these things. We do a lot of the marine permitting. And I do a lot of cases in this which are after-the-fact or violations, not only through the county but the state and the federal government. So this is a common thing that happens. So Mr. Cowden says, I need to get this thing corrected. We've been in contact with the county the whole time saying that we're working on the DEP and Corps of Engineer permits, which we have to get first. And then we come to the county and apply for a boat dock extension petition through the Planning Commission. Page 97 April 23, 2009 Well, these things take a lot of time for the DEP and Corps. We thought we had our permits back in October of last year. The state at that time said you don't comply with the proprietary issues, because it's in an aquatic preserve, that part of Isles of Capris. It's the sovereign submerged lands. So we dealt with the sovereign submerged lands issue with them; finally got a permit January of this year. In February -- so this thing obviously drug out a long time. The county said it's time, it's gone on too long, we need to bring this to an end. So the first part of February, Mr. Cowden removed the boatlift. We're still in the county. We're right now in the cycle to have a hearing for a boat dock extension so we can put a lift back. We've had to do dock modifications because of the state requirements in aquatic preserve. We're going to have to do that. So that will all come under the same thing. And hopefully in the next month or two we're in the queue here. We'll get the boat dock extension heard and be able to put the lift back. The problem has been abated. The operational costs have been paid. The owner has always acted in good faith trying -- the new owner, in trying to get this done. We've been undergoing -- which I just explained to you. And we're requesting that no fines be imposed on Mr. Cowden. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What's the county's position? MS. SORRELS: We don't object to the fines being waived. MR. LARSEN: Let me ask. I'm sorry, I didn't get your name. MR. SCOFIELD: Rocky Scofield. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Scofield, when were you first retained? MR. SCOFIELD: Pardon me? MR. LARSEN: When were you first retained? MR. SCOFIELD: When we were first retained. I believe it was March of'08. MR. LARSEN: March of'08. And our order is April of'08, Page 98 April 23, 2009 right? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes, sir, that was for Mr. Spina. MR. LARSEN: Right. And when did you first make application? MR. SCOFIELD: To the state and -- MR. LARSEN: Any entity to obtain permits. MR. SCOFIELD: Do you have that information here? MR. LARSEN: Just generally. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. Well, he contacted us in March of'08. We start -- it usually takes us about a month to get the permit applications ready to go. And then we applied to the state probably within a 60-day period after that. MR. LARSEN: Really, my question is geared towards, you know, this order was dated April 2nd, 2008. MR. SCOFIELD: Right. MR. LARSEN: And that's when the time started to run. And my question is, is basically in and around that time was application made in good faith by -- MR. SCOFIELD: Yes, sir. MR. LARSEN: -- either Mr. Spina or Mr. -- MR. SCOFIELD: By Mr. Cowden, it was. MR. LARSEN: And it was just a matter of processing and that's why the delay occurred? MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. Normally it takes us five to six months to get a state and federal permit. And this time it took longer because of the aquatic preserve issues. MR. LARSEN: All right. And I'm not sure the board, when we issued this ordered, had a sufficient amount of information pertaining to the process or the number of entities that needed to be applied to. MR. KELLY: Actually, we did. If I can comment to that. I remember it was either Todd or Mr. Hall was here himself and commented and told us ahead of time this is going to be a long Page 99 April 23, 2009 process. MR. LA VINSKI: Do you know, sir, if there was any compensation between the seller and the buyer, knowing that this thing was hanging out there? Did they -- did the current owner get any ability to back charge this to the current owner? MR. SCOFIELD: Not that we're aware of. I'm sure -- you know. MR. LARSEN: Well, my point being, you know, we gave him 120, and it doesn't seem like 120 days was sufficient. MR. KELLY: Not at all. MR. LARSEN: And, you know, I just want to ascertain whether or not they acted in good faith, and it seems like they have. MR. SCOFIELD: Yes. As I said, we do these things a lot of time, we contact the DEP because normally they put us into a consent order. And they say they want to impose fines. As long as we're working on application, they're okay with it. We kept the county informed, but obviously this drug out so long. And in February, we just ripped the lift out to abate it. MR. LARSEN: And I think that's reflected in that Ms. Sorrels is not really vigorously, you know, contesting your application here. So my motion would be -- I'm sorry, if there's not anymore discussion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. LARSEN: My motion would be to abate the fines. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KELLY: Second. MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. Page 100 April 23, 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. MR. SCOFIELD: Thank you. MS. SORRELS: Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next case will be BCC versus Florida Metal Master's, Inc. CEB No. 2007094640. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violations of Collier County Ordinance 04-41, the Land Development Code, as amended, Sections 1 0.02.03(B)( 5). Violation location: 4443 Arnold Avenue, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 00279520007. Description of violation: Airplane fuselage, granite marble slabs and dumpster in parking area intended for vehicular parking, violating Site Development Plan 99-125. On September 25th, 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 4398, Page 3846 for more information. The respondent has complied with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of April 1 st, 2009. The county's recommendation is to issue an order imposing lien for fines at the rate of $100 per day for the period between March 21st, 2009 to April 1st, 2009,12 days, for the total of$1,200. Page 101 April 23, 2009 Operational costs of $87.44 have been paid. The total recommended lien amount is $1,200. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead, sir. MR. TRAPASSO: Basically we removed the fuselage. The dumpster was in an unused drive area, and we inadvertently didn't have that moved to the other side of the property. And that's basically what happened. As soon as we were informed by code enforcement, the dumpster was pulled out of there. MR. LARSEN: Good morning, Mr. Trapasso. I must admit, I kind of miss the fuselage when I drive by there. MR. TRAPASSO: I miss the parking under it. MR. LARSEN: Yeah. All right, I'd make an application to abate the fines on this, because I think they acted in good faith, and especially when contacted. MR. BOX: We have no objection to that. THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, what is your name? MR. BOX: My name is Investigator Box, Code Enforcement, Collier County. 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. Page 102 April 23, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. TRAPASSO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next one. There was discussion of pulling it, correct? BCC versus Washington Mutual Bank? MS. WALDRON: Yeah, I think that we are okay. We did serve Washington Mutual Bank and we do have a certified mail return receipt signed by them. MR. DEAN: Did they pay the money? MR. McCARTHY: I'm here. MS. WALDRON: Oh, okay, come on up. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good. CEB No. 2007050259. (Speakers were duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please. MR. McCARTHY: Daniel C. McCarthy. M-c-C-A-R-T-H-Y. Like Senator Joe. MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violations of Collier County Ordinance 04-41, the Land Development Code, as amended, Sections 10.02.06 (B)(l)(a), and 10.02.06 (B)(l)(e)(i), and the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Section 22, Article 2, Section 106.1.2, and the Florida Building Code, 2004, Section 105.1. The location of the violation: 6061 Painted Leaf Lane, Naples, Florida. Folio 38163440003. The description of the violation was improvement of property without valid Collier County building permit. On July 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 4385, Page 0719 for more information. Page 103 April 23, 2009 The respondent has complied with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of February 24th, 2009. The county's recommendation is to issue an order imposing a lien in the amount -- for fines at the rate of $100 per day for the period between September 30th, 2008 to February 24th, 2009, 148 days, for the total of$14,800. Operational costs of$89.75 have not been paid. The county's recommendation is to impose a lien for the total of $14,889.75. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. McCarthy, your relationship to Washington Mutual Bank, please? MR. McCARTHY: I represent Watson Title, which is Washington Mutual-- actually it's Fannie Mae. They're the ones that currently have the property. They have a buyer for this property. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Correct. MR. McCARTHY: We just -- we need to clear the lien. The lis pendens in this case was -- this obviously is a foreclosure case. You folks have been through this enough time to already know this. The lis pendens was filed on the 14th of February of2008, well before your lien was imposed. The prop -- the Washington Mutual finally got title to the property on September 16th of 2008. I have copies of the -- they have the recording information on them. I don't think there's any dispute about that. The board's lien was issued in the interim period of time there, subject to the lis pendens. They'd like to deliver the property free and clear. They'd --like I say, they have a contract on it. They're prepared to pay your operational costs, they don't have a problem with that at all. Otherwise, they just have to go back to court and get an amended foreclosure order, which is not very effective for Page 104 April 23, 2009 anybody. MR. KELLY: Are you prepared to pay the operational costs today? MR. McCARTHY: I can't, sir. I don't write the checks, if you will. But I have authority to make that assertion. And that's already proposed in the application, I believe. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, that would have to be made at closing anyways. MR. KELLY: Right, I was saying if that was paid and we decided to waive the fines, you would have a completely clear title. Because nothing to this point has been filed against the title. MR. McCARTHY: It's -- for whatever reason, they think there is a -- the lien's actually been placed at this point. MR. LARSEN: Yes. Ms. Flagg, that's my understanding is that there's, you know, a cloud on the title because of this, right? MS. FLAGG: That's correct. Once the fines are accruing, which the fines are accruing, they can't provide a clear title. MR. LARSEN: Okay. Mr. Morad, what's the nature of the underlying violation on this? MR. MORAD: I'm sorry? MR. LARSEN: What was the nature of the underlying violation? MR. MORAD: Okay. For the record, Ed Morad, Code Enforcement Investigator. It was improvement of property without permits. MR. LARSEN: Was it a structure or addition? MR. MORAD: It was a carport that was enclosed and a standalone shed type structure. MR. LARSEN: And that's been taken care of? MR. MORAD: Yes. MR. LARSEN: And Ms. Flagg, in regard to the banks that-- they're called REO property now, what's the county code enforcement Page 105 April 23, 2009 office's position with regard to these imposition of fines? MS. FLAGG: What the respondent will need to do is to pay ops costs, because that is something that cannot be waived by the board. MR. LARSEN: Okay. And is the county objecting to the abatement of fines in light of the fact that this is going to be sold? MS. FLAGG: No, sir. MR. LARSEN: I'll make a motion to abate the fines. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? MR. KELLY: Should we put in that motion that the operational costs still remain? MR. LARSEN : Yeah, we're just abating the fines, not the operational costs. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We can't abate the-- MR. LARSEN: I guess you were saying that for clarification for the attorney preparing the order, correct? MR. KELLY: Correct. MR. LARSEN: Okay. MR. McCARTHY: Could somebody kindly-- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Did you want to put a time period by which they're to pay the fines -- or the operational costs? MR. KELLY: It's going to be a lien on the property. I don't think we can put a date on it. MR. LARSEN: On or before closing. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. McCARTHY: Can somebody tell me how much they are, by any chance? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: $89.75. MR. McCARTHY: Thank you very much. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Call the question, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. KELLY: Aye. Page 106 April 23, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? MR. DEAN: I oppose. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: One nay. MR. DEAN: One nay. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, at this time I have a prior engagement and I'll have to depart the hearing. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Make a notice of record Mr. L'Esperance has left the building. MS. FLAGG: If I may bring a point to the board. Heidi, at this point, once a lien is imposed, it would require the Board of County Commissioners to give approval to remove that lien for the operational cost. Is there an option that this gentleman could pay the ops cost before the lien is imposed? Otherwise, if you have a buyer, it's going to significantly delay the sale of the property. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Why would it delay? MR. KELLY: That's what I was trying to say, they have to go in front of the BCC to -- MS. WALDRON: Every time a lien's filed, we have to bring it to them. We have to set it on an agenda. They have to give us permission to release the lien. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But a release of the lien would be at least closing if they -- MS. WALDRON: No. MR. DEAN: If it's paid. MS. WALDRON: No. Because it's still part of our orders and it's still on the Clerk of Courts' records, and we have to release that. MR. DEAN: Can I ask one question? If a lien is paid at closing, Page 107 April 23, 2009 dollar amount, okay, that's satisfied. You're obligated to release if it's paid. MR. KELLY: Right, but they won't -- MS. WALDRON: But what we're saying is in order for us to release it, we have to bring it in front of the Board of County Commissioners. They have the ultimate authority to do that. MR. LARSEN: But what we're saying is, Watson Title Company can collect the money on or before closing. MR. DEAN: Right. MR. LARSEN: They can then ensure title, and they basically follow up and get a release at a later date, correct? MR. McCARTHY: Yes, sir, that's exactly what happens. MR. LARSEN: Okay. MR. McCARTHY: As long as we know it's happening, that's all that really needs to -- MR. LARSEN: Okay. MR. McCARTHY: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're all set. Next case will be BCC versus Frank Paz. CEB No. 2006081159. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. LEFEBVRE: Respondent's not present, correct? MS. O'FARRELL: No. MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violations of Collier County Ordinance 04-41 of the Land Development Code, as amended, Sections 3.05.01(B). Location of violation: 2864 1 Oth Avenue Southeast, Naples, Florida. Folio 4098650006. Description of violation: Property has been cleared in excess of one acre without required permits. 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 Page 108 April 23, 2009 the violation. See the attached order of the board OR 4407, Page 1775 for more information. The respondent has not complied with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of April 23rd, 2009. The county's recommendation is to issue an order imposing a lien for fines at a rate of $100 per day for the period between January 30th, 2009 to April 23rd, 2009, 84 days, for the total of $8,400. Fines continue to accrue. Operational costs of $86.43 have not been paid. The total recommended lien amount is $8,486.43. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman, may I? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MR. LARSEN: Ms. O'Farrell, you submitted an affidavit of noncompliance to the board and everything in that is true and correct? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. MR. LARSEN: All right. So they're not in compliance. They didn't pay their operational costs and they didn't pay any of the fines, right? MS. O'FARRELL: Right. MR. LARSEN: Okay. I make a motion basically find -- to impose the fines. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KELLY: And the lien. Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any discussion? MR. KAUFMAN: One point. Have you been in contact with them at all? MS. O'FARRELL: No. They have not made any contact with me and I have not been able to find them. The house is not in foreclosure, and the last time I was there I posted the house and got kind of creeped out because there were cars parked right up to the door. So I wasn't going to knock on the door and find out if they were at home. Page 109 April 23, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We have 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. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. O'FARRELL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next one would be BCC versus Baby Boy Gallegos, CEB No. CEPM20080016779. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, 200458, Section 12. Violation location: 2401 Eden Avenue, Immokalee, Florida. Folio 30731920005. Description of violation: A derelict home declared to be a hazardous and dangerous building through property inspection by a certified official. On February 26th, 2009 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 4434, Page 1371, for more information. The respondent has complied with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of April 1st, 2009. The county's recommendation is to issue an order imposing a lien for fines at the rate of $500 per day for the Page 110 April 23, 2009 period between March 14th, 2009 to April 1st, 2009, 19 days, for the total of $9,500. Operational costs of $87.57 have not been paid. The total recommended lien amount is $9,587.57. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You had some work that was supposed to be completed by the 13th of March; is that correct? MR. GALLEGOS: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What's your reason for not having it done by then? MR. GALLEGOS: Well, two reasons. We were here about nine months ago for a different project on 1318 South Bridge Street, which has become a financial burden. We're getting that wrapped up. The second reason, we tried to get someone in a reasonable amount of time within the laws and everything to get it knocked down. We finally got a construction company to knock it down. So we pulled a permit. We met with Mr. Snow, or -- I can't remember her name. Marsha, the lady -- MR. SNOW: Maria Rodriguez. MR. GALLEGOS: Maria Rodriguez. We met with her out in the office in Immokalee. We got the permit in sufficient enough time for us to get the money to knock the building down. I think we've complied, you know, in the amount of time that we had to knock it down. You know, we tried to knock it down as fast as we could with what money he had in getting a construction company with a reasonable amount of money to knock it down. MR. KELLY : We only gave them 15 days. MR. LARSEN: Right, I remember this case. This was -- we imposed a heavy fine and a short period of time to get action out of them. It seems like we did get action out of them. It's no longer -- it was mulch, right? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir, that's correct. MR. LARSEN: Okay. And everything is in full compliance? Page 111 April 23, 2009 MR. SNOW: Yes, sir, that is correct. MR. LARSEN: All right. I make an application -- MR. SNOW: The operational costs, sir. We just need the operational costs in their fine. MR. LARSEN: Okay. MR. KELLY: Is there any way you could pay those today, 87.57? MR. GALLEGOS: Yes. Where would I pay them and I'll pay them today. MR. KELLY: If we see a check go across, we don't have to -- we can just abate everything right now. MR. GALLEGOS: Okay. I mean, can I run to my truck and get the check? MR. KELLY: What do you want to do? MR. GALLEGOS: Or can I pay cash for it? Where do I pay cash? Or you can't pay cash. MR. SNOW: Sir, we recommend -- the county recommends-- obviously anything the board -- we agree with anything the board does. But they tried to be compliant. And again, with the financial situation, they got them out there as soon as they can, and they were keeping an eye on the property also, so we have no objection. MR. LARSEN: You have to pay the operational cost. You have to pay them now. Otherwise what we'll do is we'll abate the fine but you could still have the lien for the operational costs until you pay them. Can you pay those operational costs now or within the next 10 or 15 minutes? MR. GALLEGOS: Yes. MR. LARSEN: Okay. So what we'll do is we'll hold in abeyance the motion, we'll go do the rest of the calendar, go take care of your business and we'll just pass you to the end of the calendar. MR. GALLEGOS: Okay. Page 112 April 23, 2009 MR. LARSEN: Or the agenda. MR. KELLY: I make a motion that we move the ruling on this case to the end of our agenda today. MR. LARSEN: I 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. Next one would be BCC versus Horse Creek Partners, LTD. CEB No. 2005090022. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Ordinance 04-41, the Land Development Code, as amended, Sections 9.03.03(D)(1)(d), 9.03.03(D)(2A+B), 9.03.03(D)(5), 1 0.02.06(B)(2)( a), and 1 0.02.06(B)(2)( d)(ix). Location of violation: 102 Palm River Boulevard, Naples, Florida. Folio 65220000100. Description of violation: Nonconforming sign erected prior to 1991 and exists beyond the amortization schedule regarding conformity to current code and not properly maintained according to code. On November 29th, 2007, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was Page 113 April 23, 2009 found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board OR 4309, Page 1347, for more information. And a note, there are some changes on this executive summary that I will read. The respondent has complied with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of April 17th, 2009. The county's recommendation is to issue an order imposing a lien for fines at the rate of $150 per day for the period between December 1st, 2008 to April 17th, 2009, 138 days, for a total of $20,700. Operational costs of $536.32 have been paid. The total recommended lien amount is $20,700. MR. HANCOCK: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Code Enforcement Board. Many of you may recall we stood before you in December of 2007 and you provided us 12 months time to bring a sign into compliance that was constructed in the Sixties. We proceeded with that, filed the necessary variance applications. Due to two delays in the review process, that matter was not heard by the Board of County Commissioners until January of this year. The board did hear and approve on January 27th necessary variances to replace the sign. My client applied for a sign permit two days later on January 29th. The permit was issued on February 12th. The former sign was taken down and a new sign installed 30 days later, completed on March 12th, and the sign was C.O.'d on April 17th. This has a four-plus year history. Mr. Snow is anxious to get this file off his desk. My client is anxious to stop paying for my time to appear before you. And what we seek today is an abatement of the fines, because we have proceeded over a long course of time in a very difficult situation. At one point the county attorney's office and the Page 114 April 23, 2009 planning staff didn't even know how to handle this. We applied new waters and there was even a change to the Land Development Code that affected what variances were being requested while we were in process. So we simply request abatement of the fines. The issue has been addressed. The new sign is up. The material effect is something that looks exactly like what used to be there but five feet shorter after only four years and tens of thousands of dollars. MR. LARSEN: Sir, what's your name? MR. HANCOCK: My name is Tim Hancock with Davidson Engineering. MR. LARSEN: How say ye, Mr. Snow? MR. SNOW: Well, sir, I'll tell you, Mr. Hancock and his firm were very, very diligent in what they were trying to do. This had to go before the CCPC, it had to go before the Board of County Commissioners, they had to go for variances, and it was just -- took longer than the board initially thought. And they were diligent in what they were trying to do. And as always, we would agree with anything the board decides, but we would recommend abatement also. MR. LARSEN: In that respect, I would make a motion to abate the fines in this matter in light of the fact that the operational costs have been paid and they're in compliance. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. Page 115 April 23, 2009 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. SNOW: Thank you, the board. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you. Mr. Snow, we thank you. MR. LARSEN: Sorry to keep you all morning. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And part of the afternoon. MR. LARSEN: And part of the afternoon. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any new business? MR. LARSEN: Yes. I've got to alert the board that for the June meeting I shall be absent. MR. KELLY: Unacceptable. MR. LARSEN: So I'm asking permission to be excused. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You don't need permission from us. MR. DEAN: The secretary will okay you, I'm sure. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Did you want to talk about the program you're working on? MS. FLAGG: Sure. We're actually -- if it would please the board, we're working with a couple of different groups. The community task force are up and running and the community members participation in all the agencies has been just phenomenal. We're over 300 foreclosure cases that we're working right now, and we have many more than that on the community caretaking list, cases that have been abated that were previously code violations by the banks. In addition, the cases that you saw today, just the six hearings that you had today, four of those six, 67 percent of the cases, were cases wherein the violations occurred prior to the purchase of the Page 116 April 23, 2009 property . Recognizing this as the -- early on when we met with the board to talk about this, subsequent to that we've been meeting with community members, and also Naples Area Board of Realtors, to share with them the experience that both the Code Enforcement Board and the special magistrate have had with this where people are spending their life savings in a lot of cases, purchasing a home, thinking that that three inches of paperwork that they signed covers them in terms of their buying a home that is within code requirements, and then finding out later, sometimes as early as 24 hours later, that the home is not in code compliance and they're facing tens of thousands of dollars of abatement costs to abate the violation. The good news is that after explaining the situation to a sub-committee with the Naples Area Board of Realtors, they all agreed and the board subsequently passed a motion to support addressing this issue. So the final conclusion about how the issue is going to be addressed will ultimately be made, probably by the Board of County Commissioners. But the big picture is that everyone involved that we've talked to, once we've presented the case, fully understand now that there is a significant issue with people purchasing homes in good faith, not realizing that all that paperwork that they're signing and the title search that they do and the home inspection that they receive doesn't cover the inspection of a property as to whether it meets code or not. So we anticipate at the end of next month that there will be right now tentatively scheduled a presentation to the Board of County Commissioners about this situation. In closing, the code enforcement investigators have been divided into districts. There are five code district supervisors. And so in the county there's five districts and they each now have a team that reports to the district supervisor. Page 11 7 April 23, 2009 And the cases -- we're in the process of transitioning the cases, so that if you have a case in Immokalee, it will be handled by the Immokalee district supervisor and the assigned team members. So that change has taken place. It's worked really well. And now the district supervisors are working with their team members to get all the cases properly transitioned over to be handled by district. MR. LARSEN: Excellent. MR. DEAN: Very good. MR. LARSEN: Now, if I had a client who wanted to buy a property and I wanted the code enforcement officers to inspect that property, who do I contact? MS. FLAGG: We have the ability and we are doing it for some folks. They can call the code enforcement department to request a code inspection. They would just need the approval of the current property owner to conduct that inspection. I would tell you, one of the other things that we're working with is encouraging a private market solution to this situation where there's lots of folks that with some training could also conduct a code inspection. And so we -- in speaking with NABOR, we've also been encouraging a private market solution. The goal is, is to make sure that no one purchases a piece of property that has code violations on it, at least without them knowing. MR. LARSEN: Great. MR. DEAN: You know, when somebody gets a mortgage, isn't that culled out, any of that? MS. FLAGG: No, sir. There's nothing unfortunately -- what happens is if there's an open code case when they do the title search, they do contact code enforcement to find out if there's an open code case. If there's an open code case, it does stop the transaction. And then typically what we're finding now is that the banks have to abate. I'll share with you that a year ago we were doing probably five to eight lien searches for code cases a day. Now we're over 60 lien Page 118 April 23, 2009 searches a day. What that means is that the foreclosures -- we're over 10,000 foreclosures in Collier County right now. We had more than 1,000 new foreclosures in January, more than 1,000 new in February, and more than 1,600 new foreclosures in March. So we are in what was anticipated a second wave of foreclosures. The number of foreclosures in Collier County is . . IncreasIng. However, what we're also seeing is that people are buying these foreclosed properties from the bank. If the -- if somebody through the community task force teams, which is really where these calls are coming in, the community task force teams. There's five teams that are assigned to each district which correspond with the code enforcement districts and the sheriffs office districts. If a property is identified, such as a vacant, abandoned property is identified by the task force team, we open up a code case. If the bank at that point finds a buyer for that property when the title company calls code and says are there any open code cases, we respond yes, everything stops until the bank abates the violation. But if there is not an open code case on the property, the property will get sold with code violations on it. And that is what-- these cases, 67 percent of the cases that you saw today, because there was not an open code case on the property, they bought the property thinking it was fine and then later learned that there were code violations on the property. MR. DEAN: And in Florida it's the buyer's responsibility. MS. FLAGG: In the -- there are many communities throughout the United States that have taken and created local laws to address that. Collier County does not have one. One of the things that NABOR is looking to do is to do a voluntary by informing. Our biggest challenge was to work with folks to get them to understand that this really is an issue in Collier County. And code enforcement's developed a brochure, it's in draft form Page 119 April 23, 2009 right now, but what it does, we're going to work with the community to explain to them that when they purchase a piece of property that there's no guarantee that there aren't code violations on it, and to be informed before they purchase the property. Because what we're finding, these cases that you heard today, when you ask them such as the one case where they've had to declare bankruptcy as a result of this code case, you asked them, they said but the paperwork we signed was three inches thick and we thought that in that was covered verification that the property was in compliance with code. And in that case it was structures on an ago zoned property, so they would have never been able to get permits for that property. MR. DEAN: See, a lot of states have seller disclosure. And that's where these people come here from other states thinking they're protected and they're not. Because where they come from, a lot of them have that seller disclosure and they have recourse back to that seller. Where here it runs with the land and it's not -- MS. FLAGG: Well, there is disclosure requirements. And maybe Mr. Lefebvre could speak to that, because I know this is his profession. MR. DEAN: I've heard that too, but I heard they're not very good. MS. FLAGG: Well, there are disclosure. I think that the big picture is that everyone seems to be on the same page now, that we do have an issue and we need to work hard to educate potential buyers that they need to be assured through a pre-sale code inspection, preferably a private market solution, to have that inspection done before purchasing the property, or they may face code issues in the future. MR. LARSEN: A lot of the communities up north that have this kind of trigger mechanism is that basically before a transfer can occur you have to get a new C. ofO. And so at that time they have inspectors come out and they look at the structure, and they won't Page 120 April 23, 2009 issue a C. ofO. if there's any violations. Unfortunately that's not the way it occurs here. Here we've got more of like a New York standard where they issue a C. ofO. on a structure, the C.O. could go back to the original date of completion, you know. And I think it has to change. MR. DEAN: Also, I might add, where I come from you don't go to closing unless you have an attorney. And it's unfortunate a lot of people here go without an attorney. And it doesn't make sense representing yourself. MS. FLAGG: Well, I think for us, we're not trying to solve the issue. We -- our goal was to bring the issue forward. Whether it's solved through a voluntary code inspection or some other means, that's not our call to make. What our goal was, after seeing the number of cases come before the Code Enforcement Board and the special magistrate where more than 50 percent of the cases that you all consistently see are cases where folks bought property believing that it was within the requirements, code requirements, and then later learning. And what we're also seeing is that the folks that are being foreclosed on, knowing that they made illegal additions, they're actually calling code once that house sells. Because it's an interesting economy we live in right now and there's some pretty angry folks. So our code cases are going off the charts in terms of the number of cases that are getting reported. So we're just spending a lot of time helping people understand that that massive amount of paperwork they signed does not include verification that the property is in compliance with the codes. And the most often things we see, which is what we're putting in the brochure, if you step four inches down and it looks like it was a garage, it most likely is not permitted, even though it's been made into a bedroom or made into a family room. A more difficult one to pick out is a lot of the cases that you've Page 121 April 23, 2009 seen, it was a lanai and it was permitted as a lanai, but the situation is is that they've run electric in there, bought the blocks, blocked it in, put trusses over it, typically all unpermitted, and created a family room out of it. And it's -- particularly for new home buyers to walk in, if you're not familiar with that, you wouldn't really necessarily pick that out. Certainly stepping four inches down into a bedroom or a family room, that should send out some signals. We've seen cases that the garage door is intact on the outside of the structure, but when you walk into the -- what is permitted as a garage, they put drywall around, sometimes even leaving the garage rails in place and then just dry walled around the rails. So the main -- certainly our main focus is to work with our community members, particularly now, because we have so many foreclosures happening in selling that folks need to understand when they're buying these foreclosures to be very careful to make sure that the property is in compliance with the codes. MR. LARSEN: Thank you very much. MR. KELLY: Did Baby Boy Gallegos pay the Ope costs? MS. WALDRON: He's on his way getting a money order as we speak. MR. KELLY: I have to go. See you next month. MR. LEFEBVRE: We still have a quorum, so -- MR. DEAN: Keep 'em flying. MR. LARSEN: I've got to get going, too. MS. FLAGG: There's one item, it's under reports, the rules and regulations. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. MS. FLAGG: There's one minor change that needs to be made to that. MR. LARSEN: Do we have anybody speaking on that today? MS. WALDRON: Jeff Wright will be-- Page 122 April 23, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You need to state -- MR. DEAN: What page is that? MS. WALDRON: The issue in question is on Page 6, I believe. Am I correct, Jeff? MR. WRIGHT: Yes. MS. WALDRON: Yeah, Page 6. MR. WRIGHT: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Jeff Wright for the record, Assistant County Attorney. As you know, there's a workshop held on your rules. A joint workshop, I believe, with the special magistrate. And there are a few what appear to be minor changes. Specifically the board -- this board recommended a change to their order of business, which was not deemed problematic at all. And a couple of other changes that were not problematic. The only one that I want to focus on is on Page 6, and it was the change of one word, from will to may. And it was brought to our attention that the list that follows, letter A through S, does not contain items that are always discretionary. Just as an example, the administration of the oath I believe is on there. And once this was brought to our attention, we felt kind of obligated to get it right. MR. LARSEN: So Mr. Wright, do we have to change it back from may to shall or will? MR. WRIGHT: Well, the recom -- I spoke with my boss, the County Attorney, before this and I asked what's the best way to handle this. And he said, well, since the original rule change was done in a workshop setting we could -- the best way to do this is to put it on the next agenda, call it another workshop, notice it as we would any other workshop, and make sure that we get the same level of public input on this change. And in going through these, it might actually be good. And my recommendation would be to have the workshop focused specifically Page 123 April 23, 2009 on Items A through S, beginning on Page 6. And I guess any other changes. I don't want to preclude the board from making it better. But that would be the recommended focus. MR. LARSEN: Can we take a vote right now to leave it the following procedures will be observed at hearings before the board, or we can't do that? MR. WRIGHT: Well, I'm not going to prohibit it. I don't have that ability. But I think that the safer way to go, now that this is on our radar and we've noticed some flaws in it, would be to really give it a good look. And there's a lot of mays and -- for example, L, the right to present rebuttal evidence is discretionary with the board. All these things should probably be sorted into these are the things that are required and these are the things that are discretionary. So you can vote as you suggested, but it might run into the same -- MR. LARSEN: No, I just thought if it was just that one issue. But if you have other issues to address, I agree with you that it's better to do it at an opportunity when we have more members here and of course when we have more of an opportunity to discuss it. MR. WRIGHT: So in the meantime, until the BCC is okay with the changes, the existing rules and agenda format will apply. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. WRIGHT: And also, if there are no other questions on that, I just wanted to let you know that we're available if there's any questions about the procedures for foreclosure, how we handle this, the disclosure requirements. One thing I wanted to make the board aware of, Chapter 162.06, Subsection 5 contains disclosure requirements for somebody who's been cited and has a hearing coming up and they want to convey the property. And there's potential for fraud there if they don't make these disclosures. So I just wanted to highlight that and piggyback on the last conversation that was going on. MR. LARSEN: Thank you. Page 124 April 23, 2009 MR. WRIGHT: Thanks very much. MR. DEAN: Thank you. MS. WALDRON: So we'll set the discussion for the rules and regulations for the May 28th -- MR. DEAN: Yes. MS. WALDRON: -- meeting? MR. LARSEN: Fine. MR. DEAN: Very good. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do we need to swear him in again? (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You have received the check? Okay, very good. MR. LARSEN: All right, I renew my motion to abate the fines, now that the operational costs have been paid. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? 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. LARSEN: Congratulations. MR. SNOW: Thank you, Board. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, we already consented to move the cases to county's office. Page 125 April 23, 2009 The next meeting -- any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next meeting will be May 28th. Do I have a -- MR. DEAN: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. MR. DEAN: Mr. Chairman, you're seconding my motion? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm -- no, I didn't. I'm sure there's no discussion. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:49 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD GERALD LEFEBVRE, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on as presented or as corrected Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 126