Loading...
CEB Minutes 05/28/2009 R May 28, 2009 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida May 28, 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 Nicolas Hemes (Alternate) Kenneth Kelly Edward Larsen Lionel L'Esperance Robert Kaufman James Lavinski Herminio Ortega (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: May 28, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. Location: Collier County Government Center, Third Floor, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Building F, Naples, Fl 34112. NOTICE: THE RESPONDENT MAY BE LIMITIED TO TWENTY (20) MINUTES FOR CASE PRESENTATION UNLESS ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE BOARD. PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. ALL PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN THE PUBLIC HEARING ARE ASKED TO OBSERVE ROBERTS RULES OF ODER AND SPEAK ONE AT A TIME SO THAT THE COURT REPORTER CAN RECORD ALL STATEMENTS BEING MADE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF TIDS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WIDCH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WIDCH 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. April 23, 2009 Hearing 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. MOTIONS Motion to Dismiss 1. Milano Recreation Association, Inc. CEB NO. CESD20080010230 B. STIPULATIONS C. HEARINGS 1. BCC vs. Sandra E. Freedman 2. BCC vs. Theodore W. & Karen L. Wasserman 3. BCC vs. Scott A. Lamp 4. BCC vs. Alberto E. Franco & Juana Leon S. BCC vs. Southern Development Co. Inc. 6. BCC vs. Dawn & Linzel T. Jeffrey CEB NO. CEPM20080003744 CEB NO. CESD20080001776 CEB NO. 2007110819 CEB NO. CESD20080012107 CEB NO. CEVR20080014785 CEB NO. CESD20090003484 5. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. BCC vs. Affordable Whistler's Cove Ltd. 2. BCC vs. Linnette Barrett 3. BCC vs. Thran A. Turcios 4. BCC VS. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. 5. BCC VS. James P. & Laura S. Guerrero 6. BCC VS. Reinhard Marton 7. BCC VS. Bart & Sandi Chernoff 8. BCC VS. Genel Bricius & Dieumila Faugue 9. BCC VS. Steve Loveless CEB NO. 2007060558 CEB NO. CEPM20080015499 CEB NO. CESD20080011952 CEB NO. 2007080008 CEB NO. CESD20080008804 CEB NO. CESD20080010163 CEB NO. 2006030500 CEB NO. CEPM20080004430 CEB NO. 2005091054 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 1. Tereso Bautista & Emiliama Lopez Vasquez 2. Juan Hernandez & Adrianna Garcia 3. William & Laura Mara 4. Jean Claude Martel CEB NO. 2006100651 CEB NO. 2006081209 CEB NO. CESD20080004753 CEB NO. 2007080353 8. REPORTS A. Rules and Regulation Workshop 9. COMMENTS 10. NEXT MEETING DATE - June 25, 2009 11. ADJOURN May 28, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board meeting of Collier County to order for May 28th, 2009. Notice: The respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation unless additional time is granted by the board. Persons wishing to speak on the agenda item will receive up to five minutes, unless the time is adjusted by the chairman. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Robert's Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. And before we start, I'd like to congratulate and introduce two new members: Herminio Ortega, sitting to the right, and Nicolas Hemes, who was once a board member and decided to come back. So I'd like to say thank you for joining our board. And roll call, please. MS. WALDRON: Good morning. Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Kenneth Kelly? MR. KELLY: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Robert Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LA VINSKI: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Herminia Ortega? MR. ORTEGA: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Larry Dean? Page 2 May 28, 2009 MR. DEAN: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Ed Larson? MR. LARSEN: Present. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. WALDRON: And Mr. Nicolas Hemes? MR. HEMES: Here. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And approval -- well, changes to the agenda. MS. WALDRON: The minutes, or the agenda? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, it says approval of the agenda, so before -- MS. WALDRON: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- the approval, we have to have changes. MS. WALDRON: We do have three cases -- or two cases that will be moved under Item 4.B, stipulations. They will be Item C.2 under hearings, BCC versus Theodore W. and Karen L. Wasserman. Case CESD20080001776. And Item C.3, BCC versus Scott A. Lamp, CEB 2007110819. Item C.4 under hearings is being withdrawn by the county. And under old business, A, motion for imposition of fines/liens, number seven, BCC versus Bart and Sandi Chernoff, CEB 2006030500 is being dismissed by the county due to compliance. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other changes? MS. WALDRON: (Shakes head negatively.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion to approve the agenda? MR. DEAN: I'd like to make a motion to approve the agenda. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? If there is Page 3 May 28, 2009 none, do I have a vote? MR. DEAN: All in favor. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. Hold on one minute, please. There's a -- in here there's a motion for imposition of fines in our package to push off the case for continuance that Mr. Kelly just brought to my attention. MR. KELLY: There was a few extra documents laid here before we started, and one of them is from Ibran Alexis Turcios on 51 st Terrace Southwest. I apologize for butchering the name. MS. WALDRON: I believe he is here, so I need to speak to the investigator. I think he's out speaking with him in the hallway right now. MR. KELLY: Okay. The letter just says that he's requesting a continuance on the hearing. MS. WALDRON: Okay. I'm going to have to get clarification on that one. MR. KELLY: So the agenda will stand then for now. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Approval of the minutes for the April 23rd, 2009 hearing. Have you had a chance to review them? MR. KELLY: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) Page 4 May 28, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Hearing none, can I have a vote, please. 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. Thank you. We're going to move on to public hearings. Motion -- first one would be motion to dismiss. Milano Recreation Association, Inc. MR. ADAMCZYK: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Board, Mark Adamczyk for Milano Recreation Association. I understand that the staff is dismissing the case for compliance. I'm just here in case there's any response needed from Milano. MS. WALDRON: The county wishes to dismiss this case at this time. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that we dismiss it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Make a motion. MR. KAUFMAN: So moved. 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. Page 5 May 28, 2009 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. ADAMCZYK: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you, have a great day. We're going to move on to stipulations. The first one is BCC versus Theodore W. and Karen L. Wasserman, CEB No. CESD20080001776. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. SORRELS: Good morning, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Good morning. MS. SORRELS: For the record, Azure Sorrels, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20080001776. The county and Mr. and Mrs. Wasserman has entered into a stipulation agreement. The stipulation agreement is as follows: Pay the operational cost of $87.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. And the respondents are to abate the violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits, inspections and certificate of completion for the mentioned electrical boatlift within 120 days of this hearing or a $200 fine will be imposed for each day the violation remaIns. The respondent may also choose to demolish the structure by obtaining a demo permit, inspection and certificate of completion and remove the mentioned electrical boatlift within 120 days of this hearing or a $200 fine will be imposed for each day the violation remaIns. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of Page 6 May 28, 2009 abatement and request an inspection to be performed to confirm abatement. That the respondent -- 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, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The respondent I take it was here this morning but has left? MS. SORRELS: No, Rocky Scofield is representing the property owners, and he is here. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. If you could stand up. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. SCOFIELD: Good morning. Rocky Scofield, representing the Wassermans. And we've entered into the stipulation agreement. I'm working on permits through the DEP, Corps of Engineers and the county. Problems at this time and the 120 days which we've asked for, everything will be done at that time, one way or the other. If you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. MR. KELLY: That was my only question. Typically we've seen DEP take sometimes much longer than 120 days. I just wanted to make sure. What's your relationship to the owner? MR. SCOFIELD: I've been working with the Wassermans off and on for years. They have several homes in Isles of Capris and I've done permitting for them in the past. And they have -- they bought -- this particular home on Cristobal they purchased, and it has docks on both sides of the property on Johnson Bay and then another section on the south end. There's -- we had problems with the DEP in that they're saying it was all state-owned lands. We're trying to prove that the southern end Page 7 May 28, 2009 of the property was dredged from uplands, which is not sovereign submerged lands now. So this all-- it's all mixed in together. And we do have problems with the county. So I'm trying to get it all taken care of at once. If I can't resolve the state issues in this time, which would help me clear this up, then we will remove the lift and it will be gone within the 120 days. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions regarding the stipulated agreement? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that we accent the stipulated agreement as written. 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. Thank you. MR. SCOFIELD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next stipulated agreement will Page 8 May 28, 2009 be BCC versus Scott A. Lamp, CEB No. 2007110819. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. SORRELS: For the record, Azure Sorrels, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This is in reference to Case No. 2007110819. The violation is for unpermitted alterations of a barn to living space. The county and Mr. Lamp has entered into a stipulation agreement, and the stipulation agreement is as follows: Pay the operational costs of $88.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. The respondent must obtain all required Collier County building permits, inspections and certificate of completion for the conversion of the barn within 150 days of this hearing or $100 a day fine will be imposed for each day the violation remaIns. Respondent may obtain a demo permit, inspection, certificate of completion and demolish all unpermitted alterations, returning the structure to its original permitted state or demolish the entire structure itself within 150 days of this hearing or a $100 a day fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains. Respondent must notify code enforcement with 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator to perform an 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 agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. That's it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. Please state your name for the record. MR. LAMP: Scott A. Lamp. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions? MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question of the county. Is this an area Page 9 May 28, 2009 where -- that can be converted to living? Is that in the code in that particular location? MS. SORRELS: Yes, he would be able to convert it into living space. It would actually in essence turn into a guest -- that's what it is is a guesthouse, a barn converted into a guesthouse. And yes, it would be allowed to be done, just the permits would have to be pulled for all the work. MR. HEMES: I have a question. Is the premises currently occupied? MS. SORRELS: No, that -- well, he lives in the principal structure. As for the guesthouse, no, it is not occupied. MR. HEMES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further questions? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. 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: Thank you very much. We're going to move on to hearings. BCC versus Sandra E. Page 10 May 28, 2009 Freedman. CEB No. CEPM 20080003744. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. MARTINDALE: For the record, Ronald Martindale, Collier Code Enforcement. MS. WALDRON: Hold on. I've got to read this. This case is in reference to violation of ordinance Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Building and Building Regulations, Article 6, Property Maintenance Code, Section 22-231, 12(B), 12(M), 12(N), 19 and Section 22-243. Description of violation: Dwelling and boat dock in deteriorating condition and poorly maintained, creating an eyesore and potential health! safety hazard. Location/address where violation exists: 416 Pine Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34108. Folio 27582200000. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Sandra E. Freedman, 416 Pine Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34109. Date violation first observed: 3/19/2008. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: 10/21/2008. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: 11/21/2008. Date of reinspect ion. January 8th, 2009. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. No repairs made, no permits applied for. At this time I'd like to present Investigator Ronald Martindale. MR. MARTINDALE: Good morning. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is the respondent here today? MR. MARTINDALE: No, sir. I've never had any contact or anybody else in the department, either verbally or through correspondence. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good, thank you. MR. MARTINDALE: I would like to submit an evidence packet Page 11 May 28, 2009 for the board to review. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion to accept? MR. KELLY: Motion to accept the packet. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I have a second? MR. HEMES: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. Alternate's motion? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Alternates cannot vote. MR. HEMES: That's right. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You can speak and ask questions, but you can't vote. Thank you. 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. Thank you. MR. MARTINDALE: Basically this property's been vacant for several years. We've had to maintain it in the past, county has, as far as mowing and so forth. It's now the structure -- the main structure is beginning to deteriorate, as the board can see on the photographs I Page 12 May 28, 2009 submitted. Basically it's just failing all over. The boat dock is extremely poor condition. We haven't made entry to the inside of the dwelling. The initial inspection was done by one of our specialists and he just checked the outside there and provided many of the photographs here. Multiple attempts have been made to contact the owner both via telephone, correspondence and so forth. I've never heard anything, I've never received anything back, and all of the certified correspondence I've sent have been sent back as undelivered. MR. LARSEN: What are we looking at in regard to the photographs? MR. MARTINDALE: Well, which specific one, sir? MR. LARSEN: The last three that I just saw. MR. MARTINDALE: I put numbers at the bottom for -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Do you have a wider perspective photograph to kind of give us a feeling of what we're looking at? That would help me, too. MR. LARSEN: I mean, the violation says dwelling and boat dock. MR. MARTINDALE: Yes, sir. MR. LARSEN: So I assume it's a house and a dock? MR. MARTINDALE: B-5 is the overall shot entering the driveway of the dwelling. MR. L'ESPERANCE: That helps. MR. MARTINDALE: B-1, B-2, B-3 are the upper level. As you can see, it's a bi-Ievel structure, stilt type of home. The siding is failing and the soffit is rotting out. B-4 also shows the missing soffit from the ground level. B-6 is actually a boathouse that's integral with the main structure. It goes in off the side door of the -- if you look at B-5, it goes in the side door of where it looks like you can park a vehicle. There's actually a boatlift in there, or was. Page 13 May 28, 2009 This is the stairs to that. And as you can see, they're failing. It'd be -- obviously I didn't walk down the steps. It's B-6. That's from the outside to the interior boat dock. B- 7, if you could post that, is an indication of some of the boards on the decking going out into the boat dock area. B-8 is an overhead shot of soffit, exposed rafters, exposed insulation. B-9, 10 and 11 are merely the site po stings to show evidence that I did in fact go to the site and post it. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is this property still owned by the respondents or is it bank owned? What's your feeling? MR. MARTINDALE: It's still owned by the respondent as of yesterday afternoon up at the court records. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Do we know if the respondent has been paying taxes, real estate taxes? MR. MARTINDALE: I don't know, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: Do we know if this property has never been occupied in the last couple of years? MR. MARTINDALE: It's been -- it's no longer in my district, but I would say, talking to neighbors, it's been a minimum of four years since there's been any occupancy whatsoever. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is this building secure? MR. MARTINDALE: No, it is not, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: Is the electric on; do you know? MR. MARTINDALE: Not to my knowledge. It didn't show that on the meter. I don't know what condition the interior is. I'm assuming it's probably pretty moldy. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. KAUFMAN: I make the motion that we find this -- the violation exists. Page 14 May 28, 2009 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. MARTINDALE: Do you want my recommendation? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes, sir. MR. MARTINDALE: The county requests that they abate this situation by: Obtaining all required Collier County building or demolition permits, all required inspections and a certificate of occupancy or completion within "X" amount of days or a fine of "X" amount per day be imposed until the violations are abated. That the respondent must identify -- or notify, I'm sorry -- the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated to conduct a final inspection. And if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county will abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of the order, and all costs of the abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you put that up on the screen, please. MR. MARTINDALE: Certainly. Page 15 May 28, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The monitor. Go ahead, Mr. Kelly. MR. KELLY: Investigator, you stated that this particular property's had issues with it before? MR. MARTINDALE: Yes, sir. MR. KELLY: Have they ever been cited on similar cases to where this is a repeat violation? MR. MARTINDALE: Yes, sir. On the -- would you put B-5 up there, please. As you can see, this does not look bad from the street. It was knee high, waste high in weeds and grass when I first started going to this address. I brought it before the board a couple of times, and there has been assessments and liens, and we have maintained the property as far as the mowing and so forth since then. And there's -- actually the liens are in court. I don't have the decisions with me right now. But we're the one that's maintaining that. MR. KELLY: To be considered a repeat violation, I believe it has to be similar in nature to what we're deciding on today. MR. MARTINDALE: Correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So if those were-- MR. MARTINDALE: Those were merely maintenance issues and nuisance abatement. This is in fact a property maintenance issue, correct. MR. KELLY: And your personal feeling on this, does this -- does it pose any type of public safety? MR. MARTINDALE: Personally I do feel it prevents safety. Especially the dock area. Even though it's private property, anybody that would walk on that dock could fall in, drown. The structure is not secured, so any transients or juveniles or people like that could get in there and -- it's a very nice neighborhood. It's not only a health and safety issue, but it's getting to be really bad as far as being an eyesore. The lot next to it is theirs too. They deeded these together some Page 16 May 28, 2009 years ago. They're right on the canal, and it's a very nice area, and it's really a blight on the community. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is it your feeling this property has been or might be abandoned? MR. MARTINDALE: Obviously, ifnobody's been there for four years. No maintenance has taken any of -- you know, the only maintenance done is what we've had -- by a court hearing or an order to do so. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you put the recommendation back up, please. Would someone like to fill in the blanks or change it around? MR. KELLY: I'd be happy to throw my thoughts out there. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, go ahead, Mr. Kelly. MR. KELLY: My thoughts are this is probably going to go one of two ways: Either we're going to stir up the homeowner to where they're actually going to fix this, with potential future plans, or the county's going to inherit this mess and either try to fix it or demolish it, and in all likeliness, demolishing it, demolish the building. MR. MARTINDALE: Like I said, I don't know what the inside's like. But I would think if in fact the property did change hands, especially in that price point area, it would be a tear down, yeah. MR. KELLY: So I'm wondering, should we give the owner enough opportunity to make whatever changes are necessary, or consider it a safety violation -- or a safety issue and put tighter time restraints on it to get this thing moving on towards what could be its ultimate fate. That's my personal dilemma. Originally I was going to say 120 days, but then after the safety issue came in, I'm thinking more like 30. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I would agree with you, Mr. Kelly, on the shorter time frame. MR. KAUFMAN: Do you have any way -- I know you've tried to contact the owners, so unless you can contact the owners, this Page 1 7 May 28, 2009 certainly is not going to go -- MR. MARTINDALE: Sir, the last three, three-and-a-half years I've made every effort. And I don't know where they're at. I mean, we've sent certified mail, it comes back as non-deliverable. Telephone calls. I've went door-to-door speaking to the neighbors, and nobody -- apparently the respondent purchased the place and just lived there for maybe just a very, very short time, if at all, and just never returned. Simply walked away from it. MR. DEAN: You know, the taxes -- my question will be, the taxes are paid, are they not? Somebody's paying the taxes. MR. MARTINDALE: Apparently. MR. DEAN: So that taxpayer might be the owner and maybe that's the person that should be notified, because this person could be deceased that we're talking about. MR. MARTINDALE: It's a possibility, sir. I did run taxes at one time. I didn't for this case. But it was in arrears at the time, but I don't know what the status of it is now. MR. DEAN: Thanks. MR. KELLY: Well, if it pleases the board, I'll take a stab at it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sure, yes. MR. KELLY: I make a motion that we accept the county's recommendation to include 30 days with a fine of $250 per day. Do you understand that? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do we want to include anything in there? Let me see, the county may abate the violation. Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: Because of what Mr. Dean has brought up I think it might be as a suggestion to take a look at the taxes on that. Maybe somebody did pass away and as was mentioned, that may be a way to gain insight. Maybe somebody doesn't know this is even going on. MR. MARTINDALE: I'd be more than happy to do that research myself, sir. Page 18 May 28, 2009 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Kelly, would you be agreeable to including in your recommendation that there be some type of effort to secure the property? MR. KELLY: If I may ask county what you would do and what type of time frame you would need, if that was the case, or is it a safety issue enough to where you need to do something prior to 30 days? MR. MARTINDALE: I think probably you could just put a padlock on the bottom door there. I would recommend perhaps having somebody more knowledgeable than myself to make a check of the structure and the inside from engineering before I went any further with that, just to see what the possibility of perhaps ruling in the future as a dangerous structure, something like that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The main structure, could there -- easy access to that main structure? MR. MARTINDALE: There's right behind -- could you put B-5 up there, please. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I mean, they could board it up also. Put in there secure structure. MR. MARTINDALE: It really wouldn't be that difficult. If you notice basically the carport in the bottom of the structure there, behind the vertical wooded area there is the main door to the structure and it's wide open at this time. The only other entries I know of that are at ground level, which is obviously storage because of FEMA regulations, would be the boat dock interior that's integral with the structure. I don't believe you could gain entry to the house, because everything is such unstable conditions there. So I think it'd be a relatively simple matter to seal the one opening. Just a matter of placing a padlock and a hasp or something like that on there. Until we -- that would cover our liability as far as trying to secure it. And if somebody did enter it, it would be breaking and entering at that point. However, we might look at in the Page 19 May 28, 2009 immediate future of doing a more intense checking the thing structurally. MR. KELLY: Mr. L'Esperance, would you be in favor of maybe giving the owner 14 days to board up the structure and then another 14 after that? MR. L'ESPERANCE: No, I would not. I would recommend that the county take steps immediately, based upon the past history of non-response of the owner. MR. KELLY: All right. In light -- was my motion ever seconded? MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second it. MR. KELLY: Well, I'll go ahead and withdraw it if you want to take a crack at it and see if you can build that in somehow, since you know exactly what you'd like. I'm in aggreance (sic) with you, I just don't know how to word it. So if I may, I'll just go ahead and withdraw my motion. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Can we put the recommendation back up on the screen, please. For item number one, obtaining all required Collier County building or demolition permits, all required inspections and a certificate of occupancy completion within -- I'll put 120 days or a fine of $250 a day will be imposed until all violations are abated. Number two will stand as written. Number three will stand as written. And item number four will be the respondent must -- well, no, let me retract that. Number four, the county will secure the property as soon as possible -- is this going to be reasonable to do within a week? What do you think? MS. FLAGG: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We have to give time for the respondent to get notice, in all fairness. So -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: 14 days? Page 20 May 28, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: 14 days I think would be enough time to go out, if it only does requires a padlock or some way to secure it. I think that would be -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: I just want to be sure that we take action as soon as possible. N ow they're all noticed that this is obviously a public safety -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Nuisance. MR. L'ESPERANCE: -- potential nuisance problem. I just wanted to be sure we take action as soon as possible, so -- MR. LARSEN: Right. But I'm not hearing that any windows are broken in this place or the door is broken in. MR. MARTINDALE: No, it's really hard to see from what you saw on B-5 there. Basically what you see is what you get. I don't see any windows broken, it's just starting to deteriorate just from lack of maintenance. MR. LARSEN: See, my concern is that basically this might be an out-of-state property owner and that we're taking actions adverse to their interest, of course. How many days were we going to give, 120 days? MR. L'ESPERANCE: 120. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And 14 to secure it. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Fourteen to secure it, because it's wide open. MR. LARSEN: So what are we going to do to secure it? Are we just going to close the door and put a padlock on it or are we going to board it up, or what are we going to do to secure it? MR. MARTINDALE: That's up to you folks. I think just by securing the entry door shows that we at least made a forward effort to secure the place. Obviously all the windows can be nailed shut, too, but they're on the second story so it would be hard to gain entry. My concern also lies in the ability to contact the homeowner and to let them know what's going on. Their response to the property Page 21 May 28, 2009 maintenance that we've been maintaining for the last several years kind of makes you wonder what's going on, too. MR. LARSEN: Right, but there's no indication of a foreclosure on it or a tax lien. MR. MARTINDALE: No, there's no lis pendens. MR. LARSEN: So it appears that if there was any debt on the property, somebody's paying that debt. And if there are any taxes due, they haven't resulted in any significant tax sale. MR. MARTINDALE: Correct, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, we have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. KELLY: Not to be a stickler, but Mr. L'Esperance, could you repeat that number four again? What exactly are we doing, giving them 14 days to board it up? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Give them 14 days to secure the property or the county will take the appropriate actions to secure it for them. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: May I make a suggestion for the board? If you'd like, we can check with the property appraiser and see if the taxes have been paid. And if we can determine who's paying them, I can send the certificate of -- I can include that in the certificate of service and provide the findings of fact notice to them as well, if you'd like to make that part of your motion. MR. DEAN: Mr. Martindale said he was going to follow up with that. MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Supervisor Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You're going to have to be -- (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. LETOURNEAU: While I was sitting back there, Investigator Sorrels pulled up the tax document and found that it was paid in March of 2009. The information about who paid it is not on there, but we do know that it was paid at that point. Page 22 May 28, 2009 I'd also like to say that the main safety issue of this property, if Ron would agree with me, is the dock, right? MR. MARTINDALE: Yes, there's no way to secure it. MR. LETOURNEAU: There's no way to secure it. I don't know if we want to go -- as far as securing it, maybe a temporary fence or something like that would be part of the order? I don't know. That's something I want to throw out. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Temporary fence, meaning of a -- like a plastic -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah, they put up those orange warning fences, you know, just to let people know that there's a safety issue before they, you know, approach the premises. MR. MARTINDALE: Nothing structural, just something to -- the warning tape and stuff like that. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Just my concern that we do secure this property, since the owner is obviously not able or capable of taking the necessary actions to secure it. So I would be in favor of that temporary fence also. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We want to be specific as possible. On securing A, the boathouse and B, securing the house itself or the boat ramp or whatever it's called, boat dock. So then if the county does in fact go in and secure both, there's no issue down the road. We want to make sure that the owner is on notice that both have to be secured. MR. L'ESPERANCE: So for item number four, I would amend it to include the installation of a temporary fence -- would you describe exactly what type of fence you're thinking of? MR. MARTINDALE: I would describe it as a safety barrier. MR. L'ESPERANCE: A safety barrier. The installation of a safety barrier around the dock area, in addition to securing the property. MR. MARTINDALE: Just to make sure there's no misun-- Page 23 May 28, 2009 there's an area inside the boathouse and the dock itself is on the canal, but the rear of the structure, so it's two separate. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Would both areas need to be secured? MR. MARTINDALE: I think so, sir. MR. L'ESPERANCE: So both areas shall be secured with this temporary fencing material then. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Jen, would you -- MS. WALDRON: I just received a document that's from the Clerk of Courts that this property is under a guardianship, and it looks like it's under the life insurance company. So we will send a copy of the order to them as well. MR. LARSEN: So that raises an issue, Mr. Martindale, of whether or not they were given appropriate notice. MR. LETOURNEAU: We go by the tax collectors. I don't know, I still think the tax collector shows Ms. Freedman as the actual owner of the property. So I do believe there's proper notice in this case. MR. KAUFMAN: Where was the tax bills -- do we know where the tax bill was sent? Because that was paid, and this there was no response to. So maybe they were sent to different addresses? MR. LETOURNEAU: I believe we just sent it to the address of record. I don't know where the bill was sent. I'm not sure where they sent their bill to. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I think this is a question of our board attorney. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The investigator has complied with what's written in the statute. However, it appears to be clear that the property owner likely did not receive notice. It sounds like she's probably incapacitated and so therefore there's a guardian appointed. So you may continue it and provide notice, if you feel that that's necessary, or if you feel that it's in such a health, safety, welfare issue that it needs to be done immediately, then I'd suggest that we send the notice to both the property owner at the address and also to the Page 24 May 28, 2009 guardian, which is in Maine. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, the issue here is if we then change and go ahead and send it to the guardian and also to the address we have, they can come back and say well, we weren't properly noticed in the first place of the hearing. That's what I think the board is kind of wrangling with. But we also have an issue that needs to be taken care of, but we want to make sure that it was properly noticed so no one comes back to us and says they weren't properly noticed. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I think we followed the statute and the code when it comes to noticing, perhaps the attorney can verify that I'm correct with this, by noticing the owner of record on the public records. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: According to your record, the owner was noticed. You would think they would have some sort of mail forwarding to the guardian. The property was also posted. So you have complied. The issue -- you could make a finding that you find that there's a health, safety and welfare issue here that warrants immediate action. And I think the issue will be later when you want to impose fines, if there's no corrective action that has been done. So, you know, you'll have that discretion at that point in time. So if you'd like to go forward today, I'm okay under the circumstances that we just discussed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good. MR. LARSEN: Right. Here's the issue. The affidavit of mailing I have in my package indicates the respondent was noticed at 416 Pine Avenue, Naples, Florida. And the county knew that the place hasn't been occupied for four years. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is that the address of record for the owner? If so, then the mail is forwarded to a northern address. MR. MARTINDALE: At the time it was. I understand now that it's out of state someplace, but at the time that was her listed -- Page 25 May 28, 2009 MR. LARSEN: So I don't mind them taking corrective action in regard to, you know, securing the facility. In regard to the remainder of the recommendation, I'm very uncomfortable imposing a time limit and, you know, the imposition of fine at the expiration of that time limit if we're not sure that they received adequate notice. Additionally, and I hate to bring this up, Mr. Martindale, but in response to I believe the chairman's question before as to whether or not you think this is a health hazard, you said personally you do. You didn't tell us whether or not in your professional opinion you believe that to be. MR. MARTINDALE: Well, personally and in my professional opinion I believe it's a health hazard. MR. LARSEN : Well, in light of your professional opinion, I think that we have a basis to secure it on an emergency basis. In regard to the imposition of a time table or fines, I think that basically we've got to give them more adequate notice. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think that based on what I'm hearing today, I think as part of your order today you could indicate that, you know, you find that there's a violation and direct that the 14 days that either it be secured with the installation of a safety barrier around the dock and padlocking or whatever is recommended by the investigator within the 14 days, and then you could continue as to the merits of re-noticing and rescheduling as to the impositions of the fine and getting the building permit. MR. LARSEN: Yeah, I believe you're correct. I think that's the best way to go about it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, so we have a motion right now. We would have to amend that motion. Mr. L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Do I need to be more specific in the outlining of the health and safety requirements that you just mentioned, or would my -- Page 26 May 28, 2009 MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think you can indicate that there's a violation. I think you can indicate, number one, that you find that there's a health, safety and welfare issue that requires immediate attention. And then I think you can make a finding that the remaining merits shall be continued after the property owner is re-noticed through the guardian. I can craft it a little bit more articulate for you. And then just leave it at that. And then when you have your rehearing in another 30, 60 days, then that's when you can impose the fines, if it's not corrected. So the health, safety and welfare issue would be addressed immediately, but the remaining issues will be postponed. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I see. Okay, okay. I amend my recommendation for the findings to find that there is a violation and that there is an impending health and safety concern for this property, and that it be corrected within 14 days to include the installation of a locking mechanism on the main entrance to the structure, and some type of a safety barrier on the dock and -- what other area did you mention? MR. MARTINDALE: The boatlift. MR. L'ESPERANCE: The boatlift and the dock area. And the remaining of the concerns to be addressed at the next hearing, within 30 or 60 days. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And a fine -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Just indicate that the property owner will be re-noticed through the guardianship. MR. L'ESPERANCE: And the property owner will be re-noticed, yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And the fines will be 250 a day? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Do we address the fines since we're -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think we address the fines and so forth at the next hearing. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, we do have to have some kind Page 27 May 28, 2009 of fine if after 14 days the work -- they didn't secure it. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman, I think the application was basically is that the county has the authority to secure the premises, based upon the testimony of Mr. Martindale as the expert witness on behalf of the county, and that the homeowner be re-noticed through the guardian, and that everything else is passed to the -- or continued until a, you know, future hearing date. Not that we'd give them notice to secure. Because basically that would result in a delay in the securing of the premises. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So it will be -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: You could indicate that the property owner will be re-noticed in the corrective actions, and fines shall be determined at a future hearing. MS. WALDRON: Can I just have you guys add that any cost of securing the property will be assessed to the property owner that the county may spend? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: I have one thought. You said the door is open? MR. MARTINDALE: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: Before the door is secured, is it possible to get the sheriff to go through the residence to make sure there is nobody in the residence before it's secured? MR. MARTINDALE: I don't know what their -- what their policy is on going inside of a structure like that. I would have to check with them, because -- MR. LARSEN: They'd have to have probable cause to enter into MR. KAUFMAN: Well, I hate to lock up a building if there may be some transient person who is living in there and then you lock them In. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I think we're overdoing this. I think Page 28 May 28, 2009 we have to move and -- MR. MARTINDALE: It's been sitting that way for a while. The neighbors pretty well keep an eye on the place. I think if we had any illegal type of traffic, foot traffic or otherwise -- they're just concerned about the future of it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Call the question, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Call the question. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, thank you. I thought you had another question. Do I hear a second? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: May I repeat what I believe your motion is? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. First you find that there's a violation. Second, you find that there's an immediate health, safety concern. Third is that the owner must secure the property within 14 days of this hearing by installing a safety barrier around the dock and boatlift and providing a locking mechanism on the structure, or Collier County will secure the property 14 days after this hearing if respondent has not taken action. And then fourth will be property owner will be re-noticed and the corrective action and fines shall be determined at a future hearing. And five, costs to the prop -- to secure the property will be assessed to the property owner. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. 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.) Page 29 May 28, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor, say aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Thank you very much. MR. MARTINDALE: Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next case will be BCC versus Southern Development Company, Inc. CEB No. CEVR20080014785. And we do have a speaker on this. MS. O'FARRELL: We do have speakers from the community on this case. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I only saw one slip. MS. O'FARRELL: We were told -- do they fill out slips or don't they? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes, we -- this is on Southern Development Corporation. We do have one speaker. MS. O'FARRELL: Does anyone else want to speak? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Would you like me to call the speaker now? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No, no. Do we have any other speakers? (No response.) (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This case is in reference to violation of reference of Ordinance 04-41, Collier County Land Development Page 30 May 28, 2009 Code, Section 4.06.05(J)(2), general landscaping requirements, maintenance of landscaping. Description of violation: Required landscape has fallen below Collier County approved site development plan amendment 2007ARl1210 standards. Location/address where violation exists: 13245 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida, Folio 00726000009. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Southern Development Company, LLC, care of Mario Curiale, registered agent for Southern Development Company LLC, 845 Bald Eagle Drive, Marco Island, Florida. Date violation first observed: 10/02/2008. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: 11/10/2008. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: December 15th, 2008. Date of reinspect ion: February 3rd, 2009. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. At this time, I would like to present Environmental Specialist Susan O'Farrell. MS. O'FARRELL: Good morning. For the record, Susan O'Farrell, Collier County Code Enforcement Environmental Specialist. This is in reference to Case No. CEVR20080014785, dealing with the violation of a required landscape that has fallen below the site development plan amendment 2007-AR-11210 standards. It is located at 13245 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 0072000009, otherwise known as the Tractor Supply Company. The date when the notice was received by the respondent was November 10th, 2008, as shown on his signed certified mail receipt. I have Exhibit B, which would be the site development plan AR-11210; Exhibits C, photos of the property; and Exhibit D, a Page 31 May 28, 2009 correct work order that was filled out by the Collier County inspector. MR. KELLY: Make a motion to -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Before that, please. Has the respondent seen these documents? MS. O'FARRELL: The respondent has been given copies of all of the exhibits. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. KELLY: Make a motion to accept the exhibits. 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. MS. O'FARRELL: Okay. This case was opened as a result of a complaint to Collier County Commissioner Coletta about the required landscaping at the back of the property, specifically the wall on the northern side and how it had not been installed with required landscaping. The complaint was received on September 24th, 2008. I inspected the property and found the landscaping was deficient. I would like to present Exhibit B, the county approved landscape plan, which will show the required landscape for this property. Please note that the northern boundary of the property, which Page 32 May 28, 2009 includes a wall with exterior plantings. The exterior would be the key word there. MR. L'ESPERANCE: What is the date on this plan? MS. O'FARRELL: The plan was approved by Bruce McNall on September 4th, 2007. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. MS. O'FARRELL: It was completed by Dale Slaybaugh of LA Landscape Architect Land Planting and Irrigation Design. Can everyone see that okay? Or I have a copy here that we could pass from one to the other. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Maybe you can just explain between a commercial and residential zoning, there should be a wall, correct, a cement type wall? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. The code has changed such that they have to have a stucco masonry wall. And the plantings are always on the exterior of the wall, facing the -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The residential. MS. O'FARRELL: -- residential side, yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. So we know at least what we're look at. MS. O'FARRELL: Exactly. At the top of the plan, here -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: There is a mic. around the corner. MS. O'FARRELL: I didn't figure that part out. The plantings are depicted on the plan as being five tahun holly trees, five myrsine, 35 sword ferns and 15 cordgrass per 100 feet. As you can see by the cutout up at the top. The landscape has not been installed and the wall has not been completed. In addition, the property has fallen below the standards of the site development plan. If we can look at Exhibit C, these are the photos of the property. This would be one of the islands in the parking area where palm trees Page 33 May 28, 2009 have died and have not been replaced. Landscape code in such, and it's been included in the packet, requires that replacement within 30 days. C-2 also shows dead and dying landscape. C-3 is the retention pond that is being let go. It also shows the wall at the back. The white is the wall that extends down to just about the property line and has not been completed. This is part of Phase 1. MR. LARSEN: I'm sorry, Ms. O'Farrell? MS. O'FARRELL: Phase II, I'm sorry. MR. LARSEN: Where -- all right. And the homeowners being affected are those where we see the roofs on the other side of the white fence? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes, that would be Falling Waters. MR. LARSEN: Okay, Falling Waters. This retention pond was excavated as part of a commercial, or -- MS. O'FARRELL: Part of the PUD for this development. MR. LARSEN: Is it a residential development or a commercial development. MS. O'FARRELL: Commercial. MR. LARSEN: Commercial development. MS. O'FARRELL: It's a separate development from the Falling Waters. MR. LARSEN: Right. I just didn't know if it was a commercial development or a residential development. MS. O'FARRELL: Commercial. The retention pond is all for the commercial properties. We're talking about the area of 951 at 41. MR. LARSEN: 951 and 41, okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Southeast. MS. O'FARRELL: On the -- is it the north side? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: North, yeah. Northeast. MS. O'FARRELL: Northeast. I get a little confused down there because 41 makes that turn. MR. LARSEN: And is the commercial development finished, or Page 34 May 28, 2009 is it -- MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. MR. LARSEN: -- still a work in progress? MS. O'FARRELL: It's finished. Phase III I guess they're going to continue developing. So Phase III hasn't had its site development plan approved yet. And that would be part of Mr. Curiale's response to our presentation. So I'll let him go ahead and do that, he probably knows a little more about the Phase III. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you have any more pictures? MS. O'FARRELL: C-4-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Before we move on, if anyone would like to look at the site plan, it might further -- I'm familiar with this property because Mr. Curiale has been here several years ago, so I'm familiar where the property is, a little bit of it. But if you want to get a little more familiar with it, you can probably look at the site plan and see where Falling Waters is in relationship to this property. MS. O'FARRELL: Which is why I was going to ask you if you wanted me to hand you this, so that you can look -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If any of the members -- MS. O'FARRELL: -- at it while you're looking at the photos. MR. LARSEN: Yeah, I'd like to take a look at it. MR. DEAN: Susan O'Farrell, I just had one question on pictures three and four. You call that a retention pond? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. MR. DEAN: Okay, in the dry season how are they supposed to maintain that? Cut that, or what? MS. O'FARRELL: Well, usually they keep it down a little bit and you keep it exotic free. And then when the rain comes, you know, it fills back up again. But this -- I believe this was just dug, excavated and let go. MR. DEAN: So in other words, you're saying that should be cut down lower. Page 35 May 28, 2009 MS. O'FARRELL: I'm not sure exactly what they do with these. And especially since these pictures were taken. I don't even know what it looks like today with all the rain that we've had. But there were exotics in it and -- I also believe that as part of the overall site development plan, it's part of their preserve -- native retention area. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Curiale -- MS. O'FARRELL: So C-4 shows where the wall has been constructed. As you can see, the installation of vegetation has come down to this point. And this has not been vegetated. Unfortunately even this should be on the other side of the wall; it should be on the Falling Waters side of the wall. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you have any pictures from the other side? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. O'FARRELL: C-5 is on the other side of the wall. We're looking down the wall east. C-6 is looking in the other direction at the unfinished part of the wall. C- 7 is a photo that I tried to get as much of the wall as possible into the photo so that you could see as far down that there hadn't been landscaping installed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And from what direction are we looking at this one? MS. O'FARRELL: We're looking east. So it's just that I moved over about 15 feet and to be able to -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right. MS. O'FARRELL: C-8 is looking on the interior of the wall, on the tractor supply side of the wall, showing where all the way at the Page 36 May 28, 2009 very tip you can see where the landscaping may have started, and then just wasn't continued down to the end. Which although still should have been on the outside of the wall, not on the inside. C-9 is the same. You can see where the -- actually the cleared area for landscaping has gone all the way around to the corner of the retention pond, retention area. MR. KAUFMAN: Is there irrigation there? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. There is irrigation all the way along the inside of the wall, as shown by C-l O. If you can pick out the little irrigation heads. I included C-ll because the irrigation obviously was wet and functional. You can see where it's organic. And then C-12 is the valve box that's on that side also. Exhibit D that we want to present -- Exhibit D is an agreement with Collier County. The inspector who was doing the certificate of occupancy for the property, he was asked to give an early C. O. in spite of certain things not being done yet, and so made this agreement that the certain things would be taken care of within a certain period of time. As you can see, number one and number two are to finish the wall and to finish the landscaping of the north wall adjoining Falling Waters. This was dated and signed by Mr. Curiale on March 27th of'08. So we had quite a bit of time between March 27th of '08 and September that Falling Waters sort of refrained from making their complaints until they finally decided to call Commissioner Coletta. MR. LARSEN: Are the commercial buildings occupied and are they conducting business out of them? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes, they are. MR. HEMES: Susan, does the irrigation extend on the Falling Waters side? MS. O'FARRELL: No. Page 37 May 28, 2009 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Does it need to? MS. O'FARRELL: There's-- MR. HEMES: Does it need to be? MS. O'FARRELL: It would need to if there's going to be vegetation, the required vegetation. The landscape plans that I have, which we have submitted as Exhibit B, have a second page, which we can put up on the overhead. I didn't make copies of it, but it has the irrigation plan which shows that irrigation was submitted for approval and approved by Bruce McNall to have irrigation on both sides of the wall. MR. HEMES: Thank you. MS. O'FARRELL: It's kind of just straight line with little black dots. But if you'd like me to, I can put it up on the overhead. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I don't think that will be necessary. If it's -- it's going to be similar to -- MS. O'FARRELL: It's the same plan, just without all the vegetation -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But it's similar to what is going to be on the southern side of the wall, correct? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. They're triangulated. MR. ORTEGA: I have a question, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. MR. ORTEGA: This permit was pulled back in 2005. Does that mean the work to be done or completed is out of date with regards to permit? MS. O'FARRELL: It probably took him that long to get through the site development plan process with the reviews. So it was in 2008 that he was finishing up that process, going for his certificate of occupancy with the inspector. So he was probably on time, you know, as far as how long it takes to get through the review process for a building of this nature. MR. ORTEGA: But with regards to the fence, though, is that a Page 38 May 28, 2009 separate permit? MS. O'FARRELL: No, that would have been included in the site development plan. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Curiale? MR. CURIALE: Good morning. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you'd like, you can pull the mic. closer to you. MR. CURIALE: Well, I think we've been here a couple of times. This is not the first time. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's correct. MR. CURIALE: To see maybe we got to figure out how we can solve this things (sic) the easy way out. And the plan that you've been shown from the code enforcement, it's only one little piece of the pie of this development. The development I'm working on right now is phase -- three phases: Phase I, Phase II and Phase III. When we did Phase I, I actually -- and we went ahead and did the planting and all that stuff. And I extend it beyond the Phase I, which I should not have done because I didn't have the SDP for Phase II in place. So when we went ahead and got for partial of Phase II, which includes tractor supply building, so we continued a small portion of landscaping up to I think it's about another 100, 125 feet left to which incorporate what is the retention area to the end of the wall. The retention area and the -- continues all the way to the Phase III, because the retention area is based only to retain the wall temporarily until everything gets shift into Phase III. And we've been playing around here with South Water Management for about almost two years to finally get the approval so we can go ahead and establish an SDP for Phase III so we can go Page 39 May 28, 2009 ahead to finish the whole ball of wax over there. Finally we had a meeting with -- after three or four attempts, we had a meeting with South Water Management about four weeks ago, and I think we finally after about a year and a half, we come up with some kind of arrangement that we should be able to get the final approval from the district within 90 days. As soon as we got the approval from the district within 90 days we can go ahead and pursue to apply for the county in order to formalize an SDP so we-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, we're talking -- that's Phase III, correct? MR. CURIALE: Excuse me? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's Phase III, correct? MR. CURIALE: Phase III incorporates also on the Phase II. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But you're getting separate site development plans for Phase I, Phase II, Phase III, correct? MR. CURIALE: That is correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So Phase II site development plan -- let's just -- let's not talk about Southwest Florida Water Management. That's for Phase III. Site plan, let's say three. Let's talk about this. Your -- the SDP states that you must complete certain items. And according to the letter that you signed off on March of last year states that, that you would complete the wall. It doesn't say after you get Phase III site plan approval. So let's not -- we don't need to talk about the site development plan for Phase III. We're talking specifically why the standards have not been followed or completed for Phase II. So let's try to focus on that. MR. CURIALE: That's fine, that's fine. But to rephrase what you said, I just want to put that in place, that Phase II, only one-half of Phase II is been built out. There's another whole Phase II's been built out. That's what I was bring up to you. The fact is that the retention area is much bigger than what Page 40 May 28, 2009 actually the tractor supply property occupies, that which refers to Phase III project which is already in place in the SDP to be formalized with the county. I'm going back to what you referred to. And if you look on the layout of that that was submitted to you guys and the agreement that I made with the county -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you put that back up, please. MR. CURIALE: It was that -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It would be right up on the screen, if you need a quick reference. MR. CURIALE: Right. If you look at item one and two, will be complete within 60 days based on approval of Falling Waters Association from today, which is 3/27/08. At that time I brought vegetation all the way up to within 100 feet to finalize the wall. And the sprinkler guy came over -- he ran all the pipe all the way through to that point. We cannot continue the vegetation unless we had a water hookup from Falling Water water system. The meeting that we had the day in their association room, boardroom, they all agreed to the fact that we were willing to go ahead and put a connection within the water system in order to accommodate the remain of the sprinkler system all the way to the end. Well, it's very unfortunate that when we had the meeting, within a week after that the president of the master association, she had to leave the area because her mother got sick or whatever. So we kind of lost contact within that time. And the time went by, I got involved with so many other things in the process. But the question -- we could not put anymore vegetation unless the sprinkler system will be connected to the main system, which -- Falling Water system, they are well aware of that, okay, in order to water the whole area. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Are you including the whole area -- Page 41 May 28, 2009 are you including the southern portion of the wall, too? MR. CURIALE: All of -- the remain -- when we get Phase III finalized, okay, the sprinkler system will become fed from the water system from Falling Water. That's the agreement that we had with the Chairman Coletta and the engineer and attorney and everybody else at the meeting. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So you're telling me that includes your side of the wall where they would have no benefit to -- MR. CURIALE: No, no, no, no. The inside the wall is (sic) be watered by the pond that we have in Phase 1. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That wasn't even completed. MR. CURIALE: Excuse me? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That wasn't completed, was it? The vegetation -- is there supposed to be vegetation on his side of the wall, or no? MS. O'FARRELL: He doesn't have to have it, but it is shown on his plan. MR. CURIALE: We got all the vegetation in place. The only one -- MS. O'FARRELL: But you're right, it's not finished all the way to the end. MR. CURIALE: The only area that's not finished, if you look on the item of the picture she was shown was on the C-4, if you look on C-4, the actually (sic) exactly across from the retention area, the shrubs stopped. At that point we have a little jog in the parking lot. We brought vegetation all the way up to the point -- from there to the other end of the wall it would be unnecessarily to put any -- it doesn't show in our plans in the first place, because we going to have to -- there's a 42-inch pipe that goes across there that has to be extended when the Phase III is approved, because we have to transfer this water from here to there. So put those trees in there within short period, it just did not make any sense to do that. That was agreement that we Page 42 May 28, 2009 had with the people at the county for -- MR. LARSEN: Mr. Curiale. MR. CURIALE: Yes. MR. LARSEN: Let me ask you a question: Why did you put trees or vegetation on your side of the wall at all? MR. CURIALE: What do you mean? MR. LARSEN: You've got vegetation along the inside of the wall behind the tractor trailer. MR. CURIALE: I did the vegetation inside and outside. MR. LARSEN: Right. But why did you put it on the inside? MR. CURIALE: Because it required to have on the inside, that's why we put it inside. It would require outside, we put it outside also. MR. LARSEN: Right. But are you required to put it on the inside -- MR. CURIALE: Yes. MR. LARSEN: -- on your own property by statute? MR. CURIALE: Yes. MS. O'FARRELL: On his site development plan he has it proposed and approved. MR. LARSEN: Right. But what I'm saying is, what's the purpose of it? MR. CURIALE: Well, that's beautification -- MR. LARSEN: Beautification. MR. CURIALE: -- respect of people's money. MR. LARSEN: Okay, let's take the beautification issue. Why is it necessary to put it on your side but not on the other side of the wall? MR. CURIALE: No, we put it both sides of the wall. It's not like we -- the removal of my wall. I put vegetation both sides of the wall. MR. LARSEN: So you have vegetation on the other side of the wall on the Falling Waters side? MR. CURIALE: Correct. MR. LARSEN: What's the issue then? Page 43 May 28, 2009 MR. LA VINSKI: That's not what Ms. O'Farrell said. MS. O'FARRELL: Not according to the photos that I've shown you, he does not. MR. LARSEN: So if he -- MR. CURIALE: Let me -- MR. LARSEN: I mean, we've got a real dispute here. She's showing us photos where -- MR. CURIALE: Let me explain. MR. LARSEN: -- there's no vegetation. THE COURT REPORTER: Wait a minute, I'm sorry, I can't get you both at the same time. MR. CURIALE: Oh, sure, I'm sorry. THE COURT REPORTER: Would you repeat your statement again? MR. LARSEN: She's showing us photos -- Ms. O'Farrell's showing us photos, but there's no vegetation on the Falling Waters side and you're saying there is vegetation? MR. CURIALE: No, we short from the opening on the wall all the way up to the end of the retention area. There is no vegetation on either side, okay? But the reason why we stopped the point over there, because we needed a water connection and we have an agreement with Falling Water to connect the water on their side in order for us to continue the sprinkler system all the way down to the end, and then when the time will come when we move to Phase III we already had the wall in place so we could finish to do the planting. That never materialized, okay? If I can show you a picture, maybe you can see something. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Would you like to enter this as an-- MR. CURIALE: Sure. I want to put this in evidence. Make this one here evidence C-l. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You understand that you will not Page 44 May 28, 2009 receive these back, they -- MR. CURIALE: That's fine. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- have to go to the court reporter. MR. CURIALE: I have duplicates. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion to accept? Have you seen the pictures? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes, I have, thank you. MR. KELLY: Make a motion to accept. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. CURIALE: Evidence C-l, C-2 and C-3. If you could be able to put up C-l. C-l actually show you the end of the planting that we did, and there is a stem over there of the riser for the water to be connected. Which if you see it over there, both wires and the pipes is already there. The only connection was supposed to be made, we were supposed to bring a ladder from that point into Falling Water connection. And we had the maintenance guy from Falling Water, okay, we had everybody there, but we never actually finalized where to make Page 45 May 28, 2009 the connection. So my contract, which is sprinkler system -- I'm going to put this name -- I forgot right now. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's okay. MR. CURIALE: Okay. He called three or four times to try to get that thing done, but we never really worked out the point. From that point over there to the end of the wall, we may have about 100, 150 feet which is not landscaped. Which is the same thing on my side, which is not landscaped either, okay? It's not my intention not to continue the landscaping. My intention is to continue the landscape all around, that's the agreement I made with the commissioner, that's the agreement is going to stand for. I never walked away from any agreement I ever made in the past. The only drawback that I have above all of this is that I spent a half million dollars to put this wall up, fine. Then I spent over $100,000 in vegetation for all trees, for all the stuff in it to make the place really beautiful when it was done. Falling Water maintenance people maintained the landscape that I put in for the first couple years. And it looked very nice. They looked good for them, looked (sic) for everybody else. I went there yesterday after a year or so, I haven't been behind that area over there. And I would like to put this things in evidence that shows that the whole wall is looks like a jungle habitat. So what they have done, all this money that I spent for vegetation, they just let it go to waste. MR. LARSEN: Whose responsibility is it to maintain? MR. CURIALE: The responsibility was for the people from Falling Water to maintain the behind the wall. Because I -- there is no way for me to get into their side in order to do the maintenance. It was the agreement that was made with commissioner two, three different time occasion to make sure that was taking place. MR. LARSEN: All right, just so I got this clear, you're saying that you put in all the vegetation you were required to in Phase II and Page 46 May 28, 2009 then basically Falling Waters failed to maintain it so it all died off. MR. CURIALE: Well, it died or they did nothing, but right now it looks like a jungle. MR. LARSEN: Okay. But your position is everything you were required to do in regard to the vegetation under Phase II you did. MR. CURIALE: Yes, correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Whose property is this vegetation on? MR. CURIALE: The property, we -- when we put the wall, that's property's mine, it's 10 feet. We gave that one -- when we went for the SDP, the county-- THE COURT REPORTER: Please repeat what you just said. MR. CURIALE: The property belong to me, 10 feet right-of-way property. When we went for the SDP, since it was going to abut the commercial, the people from the county recommend to leave 10 feet of right-of-way into the Falling Water. And then with the idea they going to have to put all the shrubs and all that stuff in place. In order to make everybody happy, I went along with the whole thing, okay? So when we finally went ahead and did all the planting, everything else, everything was taken care of, it was maintained diligently. At least it shows that the work was done, was capped. But now it's abandoned. It doesn't make any sense. MR. LARSEN: Do you have anything in writing saying it was Falling Waters who was responsible to maintain this vegetation? MR. CURIALE: You know, I do not have anything in writing. But I tell you the truth, I hope when we had a meeting down at the courtroom with the commissioner present and the attorneys and the association member, the president of the association from Falling Water, nine out of 10 somebody should have some of those kind of paperwork in place. MR. LARSEN: Do you have any photographs of the vegetation Page 47 May 28, 2009 when you originally -- MR. CURIALE: Prior? MR. LARSEN: -- put it in, when you put it in and it looked beautiful? MR. CURIALE: I would like to -- believe me, I do hope I have some of those pictures, and I'm going to go through some of the boxes. If I find those pictures, I'll bring it to this board and I want you to see what has transpired. MR. LARSEN: But you don't have any today? MR. CURIALE: Not today, because I-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Today would be the time to bring it. MR. CURIALE: I took this picture yesterday, on the spare of the moment. And I was so sick when I saw it. So I would like to put this in evidence, if it's possible, okay? I got C-4 -- MS. O'FARRELL: May I make a comment, please, about the buffers and what's required by the Land Development Code? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sure, go ahead. MS. O'FARRELL: When you have two properties buffering up against each other, there's a certain amount of space footage that it has to be wide. And in this case it requires the wall, the setback and the vegetation. So the 10 feet that he's talking about he would have been required anyway. So -- MR. LARSEN: So it's a setback requirement? MS. O'FARRELL: It is a setback requirement. There's buffer widths. I don't want to say specifically this one is 40 feet or 30 feet, but there are specific widths that the buffer has to include when it's between two -- MR. LARSEN: And the buffer is the vegetation. MS. O'FARRELL: The buffer is the vegetation, or a wall-- MR. LARSEN: So there's a setback -- MS. O'FARRELL: -- with vegetation. Page 48 May 28, 2009 MR. LARSEN: -- requirement for the wall and there's a buffer with -- MS. O'FARRELL: Excuse me. MR. LARSEN: -- the vegetation on it. MS. O'FARRELL: It includes the whole thing. MR. LARSEN: Okay. MS. O'FARRELL: So generally you have clear area and you have your -- MR. LARSEN: And that's indicated on those plans that you showed us? MS. O'FARRELL: Right. MR. CURIALE: Yeah, but the only drawback we have to respond to that is that the entire 10 feet of the area which is my property over there was completely landscaped. So you don't really have no way for you to get on and take five feet, ride your mower, and then the other five feet you go around the shrubs. So the way that it was designed, the whole 10 feet is landscaped. So you have to go on they (sic) property in order for you to go over there, do maintenance. That's why the maintenance at the time says since they maintain their property, they also maintain them also on the same time (sic). That was the agreement made all along. So if somebody wants to say otherwise, let them come over and speak and see if they like to say that. MR. KELLY: Susan, the folio number that everything's cited under, does that include all three phases? MS. O'FARRELL: No, it's only Phase II, the one that we're talking about today. MR. KELLY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Larsen, do you have some questions? MR. LARSEN: Of Ms. O'Farrell I do. None further for Mr. Curiale. Page 49 May 28, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. MR. LARSEN: Are you ready? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yeah. MR. LARSEN: Ms. O'Farrell, there's quite a discrepancy between the testimony between yourself and Mr. Curiale in regard to what is required and who is required to maintain that. Basically your testimony earlier was that basically the developer was supposed to maintain the vegetation on the exterior of the wall on the Falling Waters, yet Mr. Curiale is saying that there was some kind of unwritten agreement where Falling Waters was to maintain the vegetation, that he put the vegetation in and that it died because of Falling Waters. He doesn't have anything in writing. But do you have any comment on that? MS. O'FARRELL: Well, I deal with facts. I deal with written facts. And if there was an agreement, it should have been filed with the Clerk of Courts, as far as I'm concerned. And when we have a case, we are going to deal with the property owner. Southern Development is the property owner, so he is the one who's responsible. He is the one who submitted the site development plan that you have in front of you, he's the one that got it approved, he's the one that agreed to do the landscaping. Any agreement that he had with Falling Waters would be a civil matter between himself, Southern Development and the Falling Waters people. MR. LARSEN: Right. But what I'm looking at is the landscape plan. And the landscape plan indicates that there's supposed to be certain landscaping, which you referenced earlier. MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Curiale says that he put that landscaping in. Did he or did he not put the landscaping in? That's my question to you. MS. O'FARRELL: I can't say ifhe did or not. When I went and Page 50 May 28, 2009 looked at it eight months ago, there was no landscaping there, as you can see from the photos. MR. LARSEN: And do you know of any kind of arrangement where Falling Waters was supposed to maintain this landscaping? MS. O'FARRELL: No. And I did -- there was mention of them providing the water. When I talked to Falling Waters and tried to get some kind of form of agreement from them, I wasn't able to get anything from them either. MR. LARSEN: Right, and it -- MS. O'FARRELL: So anything I believe that's unwritten, you know, verbal, that's between them. That-- MR. LARSEN: Right. But there's some kind of inference that basically because they didn't provide water or maintenance that the landscaping either was not completed or was not -- did not survive. Do you have any comments on that testimony of Mr. Curiale? MS. O'FARRELL: Only that that's between Falling Waters and Southern Development. MR. LARSEN: Okay, as far as your concern is, you've got this landscape plan and he didn't follow that landscape plan; is that correct? MS. O'FARRELL: Exactly. And I just noticed sitting here today, you know, I've been mostly concerned about the exterior. The interior plantings don't even match his plan. He has groupings of plants. And as you can see, there's a long row of coco plum. So this whole plan has been sort of -- MR. LARSEN: Has this been marked into evidence? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Have you seen the photos that Mr. Curiale would like to enter as evidence? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And I'm not sure the numbers on that. I think it's respondent package four, I think he stated, five? Page 51 May 28, 2009 MS. O'FARRELL: It was C-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, he said C, but-- MS. O'FARRELL: What were the numbers that you gave your photos, C-l through 5? MR. CURIALE: I think so. MS. O'FARRELL: One through six. MR. CURIALE: I believe so, yeah, 1 through 6. Actually, if you would like to put them on the board, we can let the board members find out what it looks like. MS. O'FARRELL: They have screens in front of them where they can see what's on the -- MR. CURIALE: Well, I gave it to her. Maybe she can put it on the screen. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And these were as of when? MR. CURIALE: Those photos were put on by the beginning of the year '08. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Those photographs were taken yesterday, correct? MR. CURIALE: This photograph was taken yesterday, yes. That's where -- if you can see in the photo you can see the rise of the water over there. And then right behind -- next to the rise, you see the last whatever tree, magnolia, whatever they call the tree -- no, holly. Okay, that was the last tree that we plant from them. But we continue, but on 250 feet down we stopped right at the rise over there. Because we needed the water in order to continue down the row. But from that point over there to the opening over the walls is only about 150 feet. So we're not really out of the ball mark (sic) in here to figure why we haven't done them. But if we would actually had the water to put in place, we would have continued those item in there. But now overseeing what I see right now, to put the money there, the each tree, holly, you guys know what the landscaping cost. Page 52 May 28, 2009 In order to do 150 feet of landscape, each landscape is almost $250 a foot, by the time you put the grass, trees, shrubs and everything else in there. And then you see all this landscaping going to waste, it made me sick to my stomach when I saw the pictures. I says -- I mean, I don't mind to go out to spend the money to make the place beautified, but at least you could do, maintain the darn thing. I mean, it makes a lot of sentence. MS. O'FARRELL: May I ask-- MR. CURIALE: Because I utilize the whole 10 feet of the landscaping. It's not that I utilize only five feet, just put one tree in there, this is the whole 10 feet. The property there, it goes right to the edge of their property, which we have a 10-foot easement right-of-way with the power electric -- the electric company goes over there. As a matter of fact, right when I ran to the point over there, within four weeks after that, the electrical company trenched the whole thing out again. What after had all berm (phonetic). Because they had to run the new cable, and I don't know what kind of cable they ran. So they ripped everything apart. But they have the way to get in there. But they maintained it before for the first couple of years. Why they let this things go to waste now? I really don't understand it. MR. KELLY: Susan, since this property's been CO'd, does it fall under the Land Development Code. MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. MR. KELLY: Land Development Code Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended, Section 4.06.05, general landscape requirements, J-2, maintenance. The owner shall be responsible for the continued maintenance and upkeep of all required landscaping so as to present a healthy plant in a condition representative of the species. Given the fact that that falls to the owner, I make a motion that a violation does exist. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. Page 53 May 28, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? MR. LARSEN : Yes. I think Mr. Kelly's point is well taken, but I also consider that basically in regard to the violations as written, that the testimony and respondent's own C-3 indicates that, you know, the plantings pursuant to the landscape Phase II were not made. There's no evidence that Falling Waters was responsible for maintaining this. The testimony in regard to the electrical company I believe does not provide a safe harbor for the respondent in regard to the placement of the vegetation or the maintenance of the vegetation. I think that the respondent's point about spending the money, especially $250 per foot, I assume that's linear foot, is well taken. I believe that it was a financial point. So I agree that basically that there is a violation, and I strongly urge the board to find that a violation did exist. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (N 0 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. We also have a speaker. So if the speaker would like to come up. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The first speaker is Donald Bassett. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. BASSETT: I'm Donald Bassett. I've been a resident at Falling Waters Beach Resort for the last 12 years come July. I was Page 54 May 28, 2009 past president of Association 1, I was past president of the master association. The very first meeting we had with the county on all of this property, phase -- starting with Phase I was in November 2nd of2000. I chaired the first meeting that we had with Mario at our clubhouse. No CO was to be issued after the wall was built. We were to have the wall, landscaping and irrigation and maintenance was completed. Joe Schmitt on January 7th, 2003 said that a temporary CO was issued without these things being completed. He said that the board could approve a side agreement on maintenance. There has been no side agreement approved by the board. We have had four different boards during this period of time from the year 2000. I have pictures of the current state of the wall that I could submit. Mario has not seen them, but I think he would recognize them. They're pictures of the wall. And I would give one to him as well. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Regarding Phase II, have you sat in any of the meetings as a member of the homeowners association -- as a director I guess, have you sat in any of these meetings that have been alluded to within I guess last year. MR. BASSETT: Yes, I have been to many board meetings both with the commissioners and in our clubhouse with Mario. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: As what capacity? Were you on the board? MR. BASSETT: Various capacities. At one time I was president of the board. Other times I've just been a resident of the community. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But what I mean, is the most recent ones, the ones that were referenced last -- I guess last year or the year before. MR. BASSETT: No, I was not present at those meetings. But all of the current presidents have indicated there was no approval given to maintain -- Page 55 May 28, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, unfortunately they're not here to testify to that. MR. BASSETT: They're not here. Three of them are up north and could not be here. That's why I'm speaking. We've waited nine years. The second building has been occupied. Landscaping and the wall are not completed. We also feel that the lighting on the second building for tractor supply is not legal. It shines over into our building. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're not -- we can't discuss that -- MR. BASSETT: Okay. And we also have noise at strange hours coming from the buildings also. And so that's why I'm here again, because I have a strong resident information that I'd like to present here. And I hope that -- we have not promised anything. We did indicate verbally that he could bring his equipment into our property and maintain the wall. And right now there's an opening on the wall so he can get in to maintain or do whatever he wants to right now. The opening has never been closed off. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Curial, did you see the picture that he's referencing? MR. CURIALE: Yeah, it's similar to the picture that I given. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any objection to it being entered as evidence? MR. CURIALE: No. Actually, this helps me out, show what kind maintenance he do. MR. BASSETT: We do not do maintenance. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion to enter this as evidence? MR. DEAN: Motion to enter it as evidence. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. LA VINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in -- any discussion? Page 56 May 28, 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? (N 0 response.) MR. BASSETT: These pictures show basically the same type of thing. They were taken in March of this year. You can see where the trees are was the Phase I property that was landscaped but never maintained. And then the opening in the wall that has never been closed off. And then the rest of the way down, it's just filled with weeds and overgrown. I do not feel that the work that the Florida Power & Light did along there had any effect on this area. It probably cleaned it up, quite frankly. MR. CURIALE: Can I reply to that? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes, you can. MR. CURIALE: Mr. Bassett, I really appreciate your input over here, but for the past four and a half years we never had any communication whatsoever with your involvement based on any kind of agreement that actually has transpired between myself, the master association people and also the commissioner. We had the meeting several times to try to identify and how be able to peacify (sic) all the people from Falling Water and try to be a harmonious person, which I try not to start any trouble with anybody. You know, I'm from this area year here, and I try to stay as close as I can friendship with everybody. So for me to start to make any kind of a problem with Page 57 May 28, 2009 Falling Water was never the case. And for me to accept the fact that all of a sudden we figure out that we never agreed on anything, which you sat at the board meeting from day one, okay, and now you say you were not aware of that, I'm kind of really disappointed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other comments? MR. BASSETT: All of our meetings have been congenial. We have listened to Mario's side, and we have understood that he was going to follow through and beautify the wall that faces our development. And we do not feel that he has done that. MR. DEAN: Thank you. MR. KELLY: Mr. Bassett, just a quick question. MR. BASSETT: Sure. MR. KELLY: Understanding his position, we have found that a violation does exist. MR. BASSETT: Yes. MR. KELLY: Which means our next step is probably going to be setting up some kind of time frame to allow him to make these improvements. MR. BASSETT: I would be delighted. MR. KELLY: And what type of time frame do you feel would be fair to the residents of Falling Waters? MR. BASSETT: We have looked at it for quite some time now with the mess, and it needs to be maintained and then completed. But the maintenance could be done by Mario within a short period of time. The completion, because it does cost money, may take a little bit longer. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I guess two issues here are, the use of the water connection. MR. BASSETT: We do not have a water connection there. We do not have adequate water pressure to put a connection there. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. And two would be the maintenance of the landscaping. Page 58 May 28, 2009 MR. BASSETT: We have never maintained the landscaping. We have never agreed to maintain the landscaping. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And are -- any other questions, I guess, from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, thank you very much. MR. BASSETT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Could we have the next speaker, please? MS. BUTKUS: May I approach the bench? I have something to give to you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, we have to enter that as evidence. So if you could please go -- MS. BUTKUS: I only have five. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Ma'am, if you could please go to the . mIC. MS. BUTKUS: Yes. I only have five, but it gives you the law. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you please state your name for the record? MS. BUTKUS: Yes, I'm Diana Butkus. I live in Phase I of Falling Water Beach Resort. And what I've given you -- this goes -- excuse me, honey. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mrs. Butkus? MS. BUTKUS: That's for the board what I'm giving. You're going to copy it? Because this has the condo laws from Tallahassee. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, now, if I can hold -- if you can just hold on one minute, we need to make a vote to accept this as a package. Do I hear a motion to accept -- we need to make a motion -- do I hear a motion to accept this as a package? MR. LARSEN: I don't think it's evidence, is it? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm not sure, but -- Page 59 May 28, 2009 MR. LARSEN: She said it was the law. Jennifer, what do we have, we have a copy of a statute? MS. WALDRON: Yeah, there's a copy of the statute and also a letter written by Ms. Butkus. MR. LARSEN: Accept the letter. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. KELLY: Motion to accept the letter. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. LARSEN: I second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'll take a vote. 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? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. MS. BUTKUS: Dear Code Enforcement, County Commissioners: As a Falling Waters Beach Resort unit owner, I wish to make these points. First, capital -- this is a very unique situation. Capital Self-Storage, Incorporated has a core agreement with us, Falling Waters Beach Resort, and pays annually 10 percent of our master expenses. Therefore, they would be paying 10 percent of any irrigation pipeline we put through, the maintenance of the landscaping and the upkeep of the wall, which would be unfair to them, since they maintain their landscaping, paint their own buildings and pay their Page 60 May 28, 2009 own irrigation water on top of the 10 percent of the master's upkeep. Secondly, what's to keep ABC Liquor, which is the lot they own, between CVS and Capital Self-Storage from wanting the same irrigation hookup, landscaping maintenance and the wall upkeep for us from Falling Waters Beach Resort when they do their building? Number three, much of the land between the wall and Falling Waters Beach Resort land is an easement for Florida Power and Light power lines, and if we were to maintain said land, we would be trespassing and would result in assuming too much misplaced responsibilities, leading to legal problems. Digging and laying any irrigation pipeline would cross into Florida Power & Light's land, easement land. Capital Self-Storage will not sit idly by and pay 10 percent blindly for Mario's Southern Development's sole responsibility for compliance with Collier County Code Enforcement. Any such steps on Falling Waters Beach Resort's part will need a vote of 75 percent of the unit owners. As stated in Chapter 718, Florida Statutes, the Condominium Act, 718.113, maintenance limitation upon improvements 2-A, Band C, which is what I have gIven you. Falling Waters Beach Resort unit owners legally have no involvement at all with Mario's code enforcement problems. And I do thank you so much for listening to me. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. MR. CURIALE: Can I reply to that? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sure. MR. CURIALE: I believe that this meeting should be adjourned for two reasons. The people in charge of the association of Falling Water, they not legally present here. That they are the people we had got involved in make any kind of agreements with the county, governmental bodies, myself and themselves. This is nothing more than a few residents who internally try to Page 61 May 28, 2009 put their own laws in front of themselves without actually justifying the case that has taken place within the past couple of years in agreements. I really -- if we go back and forth, we find out what one person does over the other, it's kind of really tough to appease anyone. And what I heard right now, that has nothing to do with the storage, I have nothing to do with the storage, I have nothing to do with ABC, I have nothing to do with none of these people. I really don't know where we come and go. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: This is what we've already done, this is what we're going to do. What we've already done is found you in violation. The next step is to give you a time period to correct the violation. And within that time period you can do whatever you may. And we'll tell you what you have to do and you can -- whatever way you correct the landscaping issue, it's up to you. You can go to Falling Water, strike an agreement with them, get irrigation, whatever the case is. But at this point we're done. We're going to talk about the recommendation and then we're going to go ahead and approve a recommendation for you. MR. CURIALE: I would like to -- may I say, sir, another piece of information is that it would be wise for us to have some kind of input with the person who is in charge of the association today. Otherwise we're not going to be able to get anywhere. So at least we can have a -- I don't know if this person is going to be around. Because we need some time -- my time for myself to get anything rectified. What we need to work, with the board and address the problem. We going to have to actually write something down formally, like the cord enforcement said, that we actually made a mistake. The mistake is that the word doesn't seem to go far these days. We need to have things down on paper and we have to make a document and have to sign by the board that we both abide by. That's the only way to do, I Page 62 May 28, 2009 guess. MR. KELLY: Well, today's issue is between Collier County and Southern Development. It really doesn't have anything to do with Falling Waters as a party. Except for they were the original complainant, apparently. We've already decided that there was a violation, or there is a violation. Now we're going to rectify it. So as we continue our discussion, I would hope that you would also provide some input as to a time frame so that hopefully it gives you enough time to do whatever you need to do to get whatever agreements are necessary to continue on with your construction. And at the same time, keeping in mind that we want to also appease the original complainant and take care of the code violation that exists. MR. CURIALE: Right. And I agree with that. And I would like to say if you guys put into consideration that the time frame maybe we're going to be able to incorporate the Phase III also, since we got that almost toward the end, that way we can get the whole thing done all at one time and see if we can work it out. That will be an essential matter for you guys to put that into consideration. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Curiale, how long do you think it will take you to complete the landscaping plan under Phase II? MR. CURIALE: To complete the landscape in Phase II, well, we got to get the -- solve the water issue first, okay? Without the water issue, we're not going to be able to plant anything. MR. LARSEN: Right. But Falling Waters has already taken their position that they're basically not going to be involved in this. MR. CURIALE: Well, they have no right to do so. I mean, if they want to overcome the commission problem, I don't know. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Curiale? MR. CURIALE: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The maintenance of the landscaping Page 63 May 28, 2009 solely falls upon you. In the SDP it states that it's your responsibility as a landowner to maintain that vegetation. It doesn't say anything about Falling Water. So with that being said-- MR. CURIALE: Where does it say that, sir? Is anywhere written anywhere that says that? MR. LARSEN: Does county have a recommendation? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Could we have a recommendation, please. MS. O'FARRELL: The county has a recommendation that the respondent pay all operational costs in the amount of $87.29 in the prosecution of this case -- incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violation by: Bringing the property to the standards set by Collier County approved landscape plan as described in SDPA 2007-AR-11210 within the number of days that the board decides upon, or a daily fine of the amount that the board decides upon, as long as the violation persists. 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 all costs will be assessed to the property owner. MR. KELLY: Susan, on your recommended agreement -- my monitor's down so I've got to look up here too -- you really only state item number two of the charging document, which is the SDP violation. There's another violation, which is violation number one, that specifically refers to the ordinance of landscape maintenance. MS. O'FARRELL: Well, the landscape maintenance I felt fell under the site development plan, that the site development plan gives what the required landscaping is. And so our section of the ordinance is saying required landscaping must be maintained. Page 64 May 28, 2009 MR. KELLY: Okay, what I'd like to do is separate the two out in my recommendation. Because I'd like to see it maintained quicker than what I think is fair for the second part, if that pleases the board. MR. LARSEN : Well, you're talking about -- MS. O'FARRELL: Separating the maintenance from the installation? MR. KELLY: Correct. MR. LARSEN: But it's clear that we found a violation of both, Section 4.06.5(J)(2), as well as the site development plan, right? MR. KELLY: Correct. MR. LARSEN: And that's the -- your understanding as well-- MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. MR. LARSEN: -- Ms. O'Farrell? MS. O'FARRELL: The site development plan shows what the required landscaping is on the property. MR. LARSEN: But they're a separate issue pertaining to the -- MS. O'FARRELL: Exactly. MR. LARSEN: -- maintenance of that landscaping, in which -- MS. O'FARRELL: Also fall under the same section. MR. LARSEN: -- was reflected by both petitioner's and respondent's photos. So I think Mr. Kelly is right on this. I think that this recommendation doesn't reflect, you know, the violations. MS. O'FARRELL: So I was using it a little loosely, because I was saying bring it to the standards which would include the maintenance. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Kelly, would you like to -- MR. KELLY: That's fine. I mean -- MS. O'FARRELL: Phrase it however you want. You're the Code Enforcement Board. MR. KELL Y: You're correct, it's just I wanted to make sure that we were clear before I made a motion to separate the two. Page 65 May 28, 2009 I'll make a motion that we accept the county's recommendation with the following changes: That under number one, that we bring the property to standards set by Collier County approved landscape plan as described in SDPA 2007-AR-11210 within 365 days from the date of this hearing, or a daily fine of $200 per day will be imposed as long as the violation persists. Number two would then be that the existing and future landscaping installed -- or to be installed as per the original SDP be maintained by the property owner within 90 days or a fine of $200 per day will incur for every day the violation exists. And then the existing number two would become number three. MS. O'FARRELL: Existing and future to be installed? Be maintained within 90 days? Is that what you're saying? MR. KELLY: No, to encompass. They would continue to maintain -- the owner would continue to maintain not only what has been installed but what is going to be installed a year from now. MS. O'FARRELL: So in other words, within 90 days he needs to start maintaining the back of that wall. MR. KELLY: Correct. What's already been vegetated. MS. O'FARRELL: Right. MR. LARSEN: How much was the fine on number one? MR. KELLY: 200 and 200. It's consistent. MS. O'FARRELL: 200 and 200? Because I heard 250. MR. LARSEN: Yeah, that's what I heard too. MR. KELLY: I apologize, I meant to say 200 for both of them. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I think 365 days is too long of a period. MR. LARSEN: I second that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: To get in compliance with an SDP that he was approved back in 2007. MR. LARSEN: I echo that sentiment. I think it's way too long under these particular circumstances. I think Falling Waters has to Page 66 May 28, 2009 look at this on a daily basis, or the residents of Falling Water have to. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And the other thing, too, is we're coming into the rainy season -- or we are in the rainy season already. Ifwe push it out the 360 days and he waits, even though it's irrigated and everything, I don't think this would be an opportune time a year from now to start planting. MR. KELLY: May I state my reason why a year, just to see if it helps anything? My thought was if they're going to continue with Phase III, perhaps it would give the owner of the property a little bit of time to start that construction, finish the rest of the wall, landscape it all at one shot to help save costs. Ifhe's going to maintain the part that's already been planted, that in my eyes relieves half of the eyesore and we're working towards progress, taking into consideration both parties and their interests. But I'm open for suggestion. MS. O'FARRELL: I didn't actually see anything planted over there, Mr. Kelly. Basically the maintenance would be mowing down the grass along the wall. And so -- MR. LARSEN: See, I think Phase II, I mean, if I understood the testimony correctly, Phase II, the commercial operation are up and runnIng. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's correct. MR. LARSEN: So the only thing that he's failed to do in regard to that is do the vegetation and complete the irrigation for the vegetation and put that section of the wall there. And I understand their desire to do most of the landscaping for Phase II and Phase III at the same time to cut down costs, but this continues to be an eyesore for the Falling Water residents. And the fact that, you know, they entered into an agreement in March of 2008 and nothing's been done since then indicates to me that if we do not put a tighter timeline on this that basically 365 days from now this might come back to us in regard to -- or, you know, shortly Page 67 May 28, 2009 therefore, you know, a request for additional time. Because basically, you know, nothing will occur during that one-year period of time. So I would think that basically that, you know, a timeline well, you know, less than 365 days is more appropriate for this particular case. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We also -- I look at it as there was Phase I, Phase II, Phase III, they all have separate site development plans not contingent upon another being approved. So I feel that for a second phase, it has a site development plan, let's follow it. MR. LARSEN: I think we should. MR. LA VINSKI: I agree. I don't think we should muddy it by attaching a possible Phase III, which may never happen in this economy. MR. LARSEN: That's also an important consideration. Now, the only question is Mr. Kelly has proposed 365 days. I think it's -- if we're making comments about the timeline, I think it's incumbent upon us to suggest an alternate timeline. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Larsen, do you have a -- MR. LARSEN: Well, you know, the fact of the matter is landscaping is expensive and the economy is not that great. So I don't want to be punitive. But, you know, I believe some type of period between 90 days and 120 days would be appropriate. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The financial issue I think is taken away because based on testimony the property is occupied. MR. LARSEN: It's operating. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It's income-producing. MR. LARSEN: Right. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So this is just one part of the process that should be completed. And I think 90 days would be appropriate, it will tie it into the 90 days for number two existing to maintain the property . MR. LARSEN: I agree with the 90 days. Page 68 May 28, 2009 MR. KELLY: I will amend my motion to be 90 days for both and the fine of $200 for both. MR. LARSEN: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? MR. ORTEGA: I have a question, Chairman. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes, sir. MR. ORTEGA: With regards to the wall and not exactly seeing what's out there as compared to the plan, there was a mention made that the wall's not complete? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. MR. ORTEGA: Is that an opening in the wall that's not complete? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. MR. ORTEGA: Is that opening in the wall not in the plans? MS. O'FARRELL: No, it's not in the plans. The plan shows a complete wall. MR. ORTEGA: There is an opening in the plans, I believe, if you take a look at it. And it might be absent to that pole. MS. O'FARRELL: At the light pole? MR. ORTEGA: Yes. Is that the portion that's missing? MS. O'FARRELL: No, the portion that's missing is down at the far -- you're going to have to help me with these -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Away from 951 or close-- MS. O'FARRELL: Towards Naples. Towards 951, that corner. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The westerly section. MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. The northwest corner is where the opening in the wall is. If you're seeing an opening on the plan, maybe it's a gate that they were intending to use for the maintenance. MR. ORTEGA: So in order to bring all these issues to compliance, and there's multiple issues, is the wall going to be an issue or is that going to be part of the landscaping? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That would be -- I think what we're Page 69 May 28, 2009 saying is come up to the standards ofSDPA-2007-AR-11210, which would include closing the wall. So number one would be to follow that plan, and number two would be to maintain it. MS. O'FARRELL: I think that the question is how is he going to maintain that vegetation on the other side of the wall if the wall is completed? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, does it require a gate or-- MS. O'FARRELL: Well, the site development plan, according to this, isn't showing a gate. I think where the error may have been made was to continue that section of the wall down on to Phase III, which then cut him off from being able to get to Phase II. When the overall site development plan I'm sure is finished, then they would be able to access the whole thing from the very end but, you know, at the end of Phase III. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But can't they access it right now? If the wall ends -- MS. O'FARRELL: They can access it now, but bringing it up to site development plan means closing up that wall. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. But then between Phase II and III there's -- MS. O'FARRELL: Put in a gate. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- there's an opening. MS. O'FARRELL: Except that he continued that wall down to Phase III. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Oh, It's already completed. MS. O'FARRELL: It's already in place. So when he finishes this site development plan, he's essentially closing off access to the back of the wall, unless he goes all the way up around. He'll have to clear that section of the back of the wall up there as well. But, you know, I'm not saying give him any latitude on that, because that's what the site development plan says, that that's what it's Page 70 May 28, 2009 supposed to be. MR. LARSEN: Right, but is that part of the violation here today? MS. O'FARRELL: The violation is that he's not in compliance with the site development plan. So -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The wall is part of the site development plan. MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. Finishing the wall is part of the -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: This might be out of your -- MR. LARSEN : Well, I mean, what it says is specifically property has fallen below required landscape standards set by the site development plan. MS. O'FARRELL: So you could use that as your latitude. Yeah, the wall -- actually Jen has brought up a good point, that the wall is part of the buffer, so it would be considered part of that. Well, it's on the landscape plan. It's up to -- you know, how you-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: This is a question I have. I don't know if it's within your area of expertise. MS. O'FARRELL: Well, you've asked me questions like that before, so I'm ready. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Ifblocking that wall or putting it -- you know, building that wall doesn't give him access, then he can't maintain it. But if he wanted to say listen, you know, I have an opening in the wall, I'm going to need access because I have to maintain it per our -- if we come up with say 90 days, whatever. MS. O'FARRELL: Right. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: How long would it take to go to the county to get approval to put a gate there? MS. O'FARRELL: For the SDP A, the site development plan improvement? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MS. O'FARRELL: I'm guessing six months, six or seven months Page 71 May 28, 2009 to get that reviewed and approved. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So possibly what we could do is maybe separate that -- would it be possible to separate it and give him a six-month period to have acc -- figure out access to that property? MS. O'FARRELL: I would say install--like you have recommended, install the vegetation and irrigation within 90 days and then have an access point established within six months. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's what I was -- MR. LARSEN: I think Mr. Curiale wants to make a comment. MS. O'FARRELL: So there's a maintenance-- MR. DEAN: Let me -- can I just add one thing to this, please? The development I live in had a part of a wall missing exactly like this, and they didn't put it back until the entire development was done. And that was a reason for I think the fire department, there was some reasons they left it like that. So I think that might be, I don't know. MS. O'FARRELL: The other thing to bring into consideration is FP &L is obviously accessing that area. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. MS. O'FARRELL: So there is access. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But they may have access through an easement on other people's property, which he will not have access to. MS. O'FARRELL: Does Phase III go all the way up to the end? So you do have access through Phase III. MR. CURIALE: Can I -- MR. DEAN: I'll call for the vote. MR. CURIALE: Can I say something to clear the air? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Let's hold off on the vote, because we might have to amend our -- or change. We have to give him access. If -- as it stands, if we state that -- MR. DEAN: He has access now. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: With the wall opening. But if in 90 Page 72 May 28, 2009 days he has to come up to the SDP, he will not have access and he won't be able to maintain that property because he won't have access to it. So we have to figure out the access. MR. LARSEN: Well, he has access around the perimeter of his wall. I mean, his property fronts on a major thoroughfare. It's not landlocked. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Correct. MR. LARSEN: So basically he can just start at -- he can just start at the corner of his perimeter and work his way around the wall. I mean, it's not like he has to access other people, because he can go around the perimeter of his wall. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. O'FARRELL: This is true. Because he's done the first two phases. He's done Phase I and Phase II. So Phase I, obviously the wall he would be able to traverse along the wall there. Coming from Phase III would be a little more difficult. But if he owns the boundaries on all three sides of his -- you know, aside from the frontage of 41. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LARSEN: I second it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And no further discussion, 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 73 May 28, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Okay, 90 days. Do you understand, Mr. Curiale? MR. CURIALE: I was going to say something before you guys voted on it, but I guess was not the case. There is no way for me to go around the wall because it is a preserve area on this side of the wall. So it can get -- whatever you guys voted on, I won't be able to get to it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. We're going to take -- let's go until about quarter after 11 :00 so you can take a break. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm going to call the CEB meeting back to order. BCC versus Dawn and Linzel Jeffrey, CEB No. CESV20090003484. Is the respondent in the room? MR. KEEGAN: No. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I need to swear you in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. KEEGAN: Good morning. For the record, Thomas Keegan, Collier -- MS. WALDRON: Hold on. MR. KEEGAN: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You have to say -- are they all new? MR. KAUFMAN: Is this your first rodeo? MS. WALDRON: This case is in reference to Ordinance 22-26(B). 104.1.3.5, Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Building and Building Regulations, Article 2, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e) of Ordinance 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 11.1, Florida Building Code, 2004 edition, Chapter 1. Description of violation: Garage converted into living space, Page 74 May 28, 2009 bathroom and kitchen, interior walls erected and plumbing and electrical work completed without first obtaining Collier County approval, necessary permits, inspections and certificate of completion. Location/address where violation exists: 3141 Pine Tree Drive, Naples, Florida, 34112. Folio 48780640001. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Dawn Jeffrey and Linzel T. Jeffrey, 3141 Pine Tree Drive, Naples, Florida, 34112. Date violation first observed: March 30th, 2009. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: Linzel T. Jeffrey served Notice of Violation on March 31st, 2009. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: April 27th, 2009. Date of reinspection: April 29th, 2009. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. I would now like to present Investigator Thomas Keegan. MR. KEEGAN: Good morning. For the record, Thomas Keegan, Collier County Code Enforcement. This case did open up as a complaint on March 30th, 2009. I was on-site with the owner, Linzel Jeffrey. I observed the garage converted into living space with a kitchen and bathroom, also interior walls erected for the bathroom and a closet, plumbing and electrical work done without permits. I -- at that time I gave Mr. Jeffrey a brochure for the building department and advised him I'll be back the next day to issue the Notice of Violation, which I did. Numerous site visits, checking all computer systems for permits, no permits ever applied for. Up till yesterday I've been checking. No movement or anything. I did speak to the respondent's sister, who lives next door, about a week and a half ago. She said that he is in Haiti. I have not heard anything from that. The garage is vacant. The tenant did move out. At the initial visit Page 75 May 28, 2009 he stated that the tenant was behind on rent and he was kicking him out. When I was talking to the sister, who has the same problem, but she indicated that that's when he was going to Haiti and the place was vacant. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is that it? MR. KEEGAN: That's it. MR. LARSEN: Got any photographs? MR. KEEGAN : Yes, I do. I have six photographs. And these are all of the garage. MR. DEAN: Motion to enter them as evidence. MR. KELLY: Make a motion to accept them as evidence. 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. KEEGAN: That's the closet right there. MR. LARSEN: In the garage? MR. KEEGAN: Yes, sir. MR. KELLY: Investigator Keegan, is there -- that four-inch drop-down, like was that level ever brought up to the rest of the Page 76 May 28, 2009 home? You know the garage, how it's supposed to be level -- MR. KEEGAN: No, it's dropped. It's dropped. There's the full kitchen in the garage. MR. LARSEN: Pretty nice work. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Granite. MR. KEEGAN: There's the bathroom. That's the owner you see. That's the entrance. MR. LARSEN: To the garage? MR. KEEGAN: To the garage, yes, sir. That's the wall built with the room for the bathroom. And that's just the light in the middle of the room, one of the lights in the middle of the garage. MR. LARSEN: Make a motion that a violation does exist. 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. MR. LARSEN: Got a recommendation? MR. KEEGAN: Yes, sir. The county recommends that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of 88.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days, and abate all violations by: Obtaining all necessary permits, Page 77 May 28, 2009 inspections and certificate of completion within blank amount of days of this hearing or a fine of blank amount a day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Or in the alternative obtain a Collier County demolition permit, request all required inspections through to certificate of completion and remove all materials to a site intended for such within blank amount of days or a fine of blank amount of dollars will be imposed until violation is abated. 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 costs of abatement shall be assessed to said property owner. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion at this time that we impose a timeline of 120 days of the date of this hearing or a fine of $200 a day to be imposed until the violation is abated. And the same for the second part of paragraph number one of the recommendation, for them to get a certificate of completion and remove all materials for site intended for such use within 120 days or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 78 May 28, 2009 MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. KEEGAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. We're going to move on to old business. Motion for imposition of fines. BCC versus Affordable Whistler's Cove, Ltd. CEB No. 2007060558. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This case is in reference to violations of Collier County Ordinance 04-41, the Land Development Code, as amended, Section 4.06.05(J)(2). Location of violation: 11490 Whistler's Cove Circle, Naples, Florida. Description of violation: Required landscape has fallen below Collier County approved Site Development Plan 97-006 standards. On June 26th, 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 OR4376, Page 0290 for more information. The respondent has complied with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of October 16th, 2008. The county's recommendation is to issue an order imposing a lien in the amount of $3,300 for fines at the rate of $150 per day for the period between September 25th, 2008 to October 16th, 2008, 22 days, for the total of $3,300. Operational costs of $545.35 have been paid. Total recommended lien amount is $3,300. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you state your name for the record, please. Page 79 May 28, 2009 MS. O'FARRELL: For the record, Susan O'Farrell, Collier County Code Enforcement Environmental Investigator. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And can you state your name for the record, please. MR. ZIMMERMAN: Scott Zimmerman. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And your relationship to Affordable Whistler's Cove, Ltd? MR. ZIMMERMAN: Authorized agent. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Can you move your microphone slightly forward. There you go, thanks. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Zimmerman, why did it take in excess of the days allowed to complete this project? MR. ZIMMERMAN: We immediately moved forward with the work with the landscaper. It was a substantial amount of work. We signed a contract. The contract required the landscaper to complete the work. At the end of August the landscaper did not complete the work in a timely manner. We worked with them diligently, and I believe that they finally did complete the majority of the work. It required an inspection and follow-up from Collier County. The landscaper that we had was -- he was hard to reach to do the final inspection. But we worked hard. It was about a $30,000 landscaping job, and so-- MR. LARSEN: Do you have a request to the board? MR. ZIMMERMAN: Excuse me? MR. LARSEN: Do you have a request to the board? MR. ZIMMERMAN: We would request that you would be lenient and waive the penalty. We did work hard and diligent to complete all the work. MR. LARSEN: Ms. O'Farrell? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes, they did, they worked very hard. As soon as Mr. Zimmerman -- it was a slow moving case at first, but as soon as Mr. Zimmerman came on board, things worked very hard. He Page 80 May 28, 2009 was always e-mailing me and keeping in touch with me. The landscape contractor was difficult to maintain contact with. MR. LARSEN: I make a motion to abate. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I have one other question from the board. MR. KAUFMAN: That's what I was going to do. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You stole his thunder so go ahead. I have a motion and a second. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those if 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? (N 0 response.) MR. ZIMMERMAN: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. MS. O'FARRELL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next one will be BCC versus Linnette Barrett, CEB No. CEPM20080015499. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Building and Building Regulations, Article 6, Section 22-231(12)(1). Location of violation: 4408 18th Place Southwest, Naples, Florida. Folio 35757240007. Page 81 May 28, 2009 Description of violation: Broken windows and damaged fascia. On March 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 OR4442, Page 2248 for more information. The respondent has not complied with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of May 28th, 2009. The county's recommendation is to issue an order imposing lien for fines at the rate of $250 per day for the period between April 26th, 2009 to May 28th, 2009, 33 days, for the total of $8,250. Fines will continue to accrue. Operational costs of $89 have not been paid. The total recommended lien amount is $8,339. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Have you had any contact, and when's the last time you were there? MR. PAUL: I was at the property yesterday. The violation still exists. The property is still boarded up. I haven't had any contact with the property owner. So we're still at the same spot, just the fines continue to run. THE COURT REPORTER: Are you Mr. Paul? MR. PAUL: Yes, Renald Paul, Collier County Code Enforcement. Thank you. MR. KAUFMAN: Is the property occupied? MR. PAUL: No, it's not. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. KELLY: Make a motion that we impose the fines. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. LA VINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? Page 82 May 28, 2009 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, thank you. Do you have the next case, too? MR. PAUL: Yes, I do. He's here. I know you got the letter, but he's here. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: BCC versus Ibran A. Turcios, CEB No. CESD200800011952. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Building Regulations, Article 2, the Florida Building Code, adoption and amendment of the Florida Building Code, Section 22-26B, Section 104.5.1.4. And Ordinance 04-41, the Collier County Land Development Code, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Violation location: 1961 51st Terrace Southwest, Naples, Florida. Folio 36245440004. Description of violation: Owner did not obtain certificate of occupancy for permit numbers 2005052970 and 2006082595. On January 22nd, 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 4425, Page 0521 for more information. The respondent has not complied with the Code Enforcement Page 83 May 28, 2009 Board orders as of May 28th, 2009. The county's recommendation is to issue an order imposing lien for fines at a rate of $100 per day for the period between April 23rd, 2009 to May 28th, 2009, 36 days, for the total of $3,600. Fines continue to accrue. Operational costs of $88.43 have not been paid. Total recommended lien amount is $3,688.43. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Have you had any -- I mean, he's here now, but have you had contact, can you give me a little history why it's not completed? MR. PAUL: I don't know why it hasn't been completed. The gentleman did apply for the permit for the fence the day of the last hearing. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. PAUL: I notice that the permit was recently issued on 4/21 of '09. There has been no inspections and no certificate of completion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right, sir. MR. TURCIOS: Good morning, everybody. The first thing, I don't finish my fence is because I lost my job. I lost my job, so I have very bad situation at the moment. I tried to find ajob everywhere in this town but nobody got no job. I do construction job for 18 year, but it's very low at this moment. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Have you done any work to correct the problem? MR. TURCIOS: I think they give me more other extension, like six more months, I do the job. On the other thing, I am behind my mortgage. I don't know if I lost my house, you know, so I don't want to put more money in my house I lost. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is it for sale right now? MR. TURCIOS: No. I tried to make a deal with the bank. The bank has stopped my foreclosure, but I don't know exactly what's gOIng on. Page 84 May 28, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. ORTEGA: I have a question. With regard to these two permits, the fence was commenced but not completed? MR. PAUL: Right. The fence was put up. They had gotten the permit but they let the permit expire. MR. ORTEGA: But is the fence completed? MR. PAUL: No, it hasn't been completed. There's still I believe something else that he has to do in regards to the fence, and then he can get all the inspections and get the C.O. MR. ORTEGA: Is a portion of the fence finished? MR. PAUL: Yes. MR. ORTEGA: Could maybe he enter a revision to stop it at that point? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I don't know. When was the permit pulled? You said right after the last meeting? MR. PAUL: The day of the hearing, January 22nd. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So how long are fence permits good for, six months? MR. PAUL: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So it's still active. MR. PAUL: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Do I have a motion from the board? MR. KELLY: Sure, make me the unpopular one. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm just looking. I'm not looking in any particular direction. MR. KELLY: Sir, typically if the order has not been complied with, we can't really extend the time frame at this point. So what we do is we general order fines to commence and be assessed against the Page 85 May 28, 2009 property. And if you were to rapidly take care of the issue, and another option was just suggested in a way that maybe would help you in your current situation, you could then come back to the board to ask for some kind of reprievement (sic) possibly. But at this particular point I have to make a motion to impose the fines. 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. TURCIOS: Thank you. MR. KELLY: Can you explain that to him? MR. PAUL: Yes, I will. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next case will be BCC versus Deutsche Bank Trust Company, CEB No. 20007080008. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This case is in reference to violations of Collier County Ordinance 04-41, the Land Development Code, as amended, Sections 107.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06(B)(1)(e), and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i), Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinance, Section 22, Article 2, Subsection 104.1.3.5, and 106.1.2, and the Page 86 May 28, 2009 Florida Building Code, 2004 edition, Sections 105.1 and 111.1. Location of violation: 2414 58th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida. Folio 38840840007. Description of violation: Garage enclosure with no permits converted into living space with full-sized bathroom, kitchen, living room, laundry room and bedrooms. On April 24th, 2008, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board OR 4356, Page 1845 for more information. The respondent has not complied with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of May 28th, 2009. The county's recommendation is to issue an order imposing lien for fines at the rate of $250 per day for the period between August 23rd, 2008 to May 28th, 2009, 279 days, for the total of $69,750. Fines continue to accrue. Operational costs of $399.19 have not been paid. The total recommended lien amount is $70,149.19. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. And -- MS. PEREZ: Good morning. For the record, Supervisor Cristina Perez, Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. Has there been any contact with the bank? MS. PEREZ: Yes. When this property was first brought forth, the case, it was in a foreclosure process. The bank now does own it and they have hired a contractor who has obtained a demolition permit. The demolition permit was issued on May 21 st, 2009. And from the description of the violation, there is an extensive amount of work that has to be done to this property in order to bring it back to the original permitted state. So they are currently working on it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: When's the last time you visited the Page 87 May 28, 2009 property? MS. PEREZ: I visited the property maybe about a month ago. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: A month ago, okay. MS. PEREZ: But I've been in contact with the title company, the contractors, the person that submitted for the permit and was going to do the work with -- just the last few days. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. So you haven't been at the site to see if any work has been commenced? MS. PEREZ: No. When I spoke with them last is when they had submitted for the permit on May 12th, 2009. And I did see that it has been obtained. So they have -- they're supposed to call me, the contractor, when the work has been completed. I did notify them that they have to let me know so that the fines do stop occurring. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. LARSEN: Motion to impose the fine. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. MR. DEAN: 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? (N 0 response.) Page 88 May 28, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Thank you. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman, I have to abstain from the next matter, Collier County versus Guerrero. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question, Ms. Flagg. Is this one of the banks that you regularly -- the one case we just had? MS. FLAGG: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next case will be BCC versus James P. and Laura S. Guerrero, CEB No. CESD20080008804. And respondent's not in the room. (Speaker was 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), and 1 0.02.06(B)(1)( e )(i). Location of violation: 1965 Platt Road, Naples, Florida. Folio 00104520004. Description of violation: Mobile home/modular home placed at location in question without first obtaining the required building permit. On January 22nd, 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 4425, Page 0519 for more information. The respondent has not complied with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of May 28th, 2009. The county's recommendation is to issue an order imposing lien for fines at a rate of $100 per day for the period between April 23rd, 2009 to May 28th, 2009, 36 days, for the total of $3,600. Fines continue to accrue. Operational costs of $86.71 have not been paid. The total recommended lien amount is $3,686.71. And if you guys notice in your packet also, they have submitted Page 89 May 28, 2009 a letter for request for continuance. MR. KELLY: If I could comment on that letter, there's one line that worries me. Whereas the respondents need more time to do one of the following options with the subject property. One, sell the property, or two, incorporate the property as residents to assist in operating the aquaculture plan. I'm not too excited about granting a continuance so that they can sell the property and pass the problem to someone else. MR. DEAN: Also, I don't understand why they're not here. And they do -- it says in their letter they check their property on a day-to-day basis, so I'm not -- MS. PEREZ: For the record, Cristina Perez, Collier County Code Enforcement. My last conversation with Mr. Guerrero was when he prepared this letter. I did not speak with him when he dropped it off, but my understanding was that he was either to sell the structure, the unpermitted structure, or follow through with the site development plan. He has already gone through a pre-application meeting with the zoning department, so he is aware of what he needs to do in order to be able to complete that project. But from my understanding again was that he was going to sell the structure, not the entire property, so I'm not too clear on that. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that the -- we impose the fines and -- MR. KELLY: 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. Page 90 May 28, 2009 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. PEREZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next case will be BCC versus Reinhard Marton, CEB No. CESD20080010163. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This case is in reference to violations of the Collier County Ordinance 04-41, the Land Development Code, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(e), and the Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Building and Building Regulations, Article 2, Section 22-26-B, 104.1.3.5. Location of violation: 4107 Cottage Grove Avenue, Naples, Florida, Folio 23370360004. Description of violation: Unpermitted demolition of approximately 30- foot by 10- foot structure and an unpermitted 10- foot by 10- foot structure rebuilt without first obtaining Collier County approval, required permits, inspections and certificate of completion. 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 1373 for more information. The respondent has not complied with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of May 28th, 2009. The county's recommendation is to issue an order imposing a lien for fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period between April 28th, 2009 to May 28th, 2009, 30 days, for the total of $6,000. Fines continue to accrue. Operational costs of $87.57 have not been paid. Page 91 May 28, 2009 The total recommended lien amount is $6,087.57. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: State your name, please. MR. KEEGAN: Thomas Keegan, Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Have you had any contact? MR. KEEGAN: I have. I've -- I called him. Actually, he applied for the permit, the demo permit, on April 23rd, 2009. It was approved May 11 th, 2009. I called him on May 18th that the permit is ready to be picked up. It was issued to him on May 22nd, 2009. I ran into him on the street and he pretty -- he asked me if I could help him out on fines. I said, you know, that's not up to me, that's up to the board, get what you need to get done and come in and state your case. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: When's the last time you were on the property? Has it been since he picked up the permit on the 22nd? MR. KEEGAN: I drive by the property probably once -- pretty much every day I drive up and down the block. You know, it's in my area. There is a dumpster on site. It is full. The structure was behind the house. He's just waiting for the C.O., for the inspection and the C.O. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further questions from the board? MR. KEEGAN: And if I can, we did sign a stipulation agreement on this case. MR. KELLY: You feel as though the work is done, it's just waiting for an inspector to come out and approve it? MR. KEEGAN: It looks done. I haven't been behind the house. The dumpster's full. I don't know, to be honest with you. MR. KAUFMAN: It obviously would have been a help had he appeared and asked for something. So it's very, very difficult for the Page 92 May 28, 2009 board now to consider a request that's not there. MR. KEEGAN: You know, as the board knows, he's still in violation until he receives that C.O., certificate of completion, occupancy. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. DEAN: Motion to impose the fine. 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 has passed. MR. KEEGAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next case will be BCC versus Genel Bricius and Dieumila -- I'm sure I'm butchering it -- Faugue. CEB No. CEPM20080004430. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Article 6, Sections 22-228.B, and 22-231, Subsections 9, 11, 12(I), 12(P), 19(B) and 20. Location of violation: 2730 Pine Street, Unit A, Naples, Florida. Folio 48730280000. Description of violation: Property maintenance and housing Page 93 May 28, 2009 violations for a duplex that has been converted to four rental units without permits. 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 order of the board OR 4385, Page 0702 for more information. The respondent has complied with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of August 8th, 2008. The county's recommendation is to order -- issue an order imposing a lien in the amount of $91.44 for operational costs that have not been paid. MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. Mr. Bricius was here this morning in regards to this hearing. He wasn't really sure why he had to be here. I informed him that he owed the operational cost. He didn't have the money to pay today, but assured me that he'd be in tomorrow to pay the fine. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. LA VINSKI: I make a motion we impose the fine as recommended. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further -- MR. KELL Y: I wish I heard a motion from county to pull this for next month to give the guy an opportunity to pay. Because it's more than $91 in filing fees. MS. WALDRON: I agree. Ifwe could just postpone this and bring it back next month. It's going to cost us more to do a release of lien from the $91 ifhe pays. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear -- the person that made the first motion, if you could remove or withdraw your motion? And then we need a withdraw from the second. Page 94 May 28, 2009 MR. LA VINSKI: I move to withdraw my motion. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I do the same for the second. MR. KELLY: Well, then I make a motion to change the-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Continue it till next month. MR. KELLY: Does that have to be made by county or can we make it? Well, I make a motion that we continue this till next month. MR. DEAN: 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. So then if it's on the agenda for next month, we can just probably withdraw it at that point, or dismiss it, correct? MS. WALDRON: No, if it's -- we'll put it on the agenda, ifhe hasn't paid. If he does pay, we won't even put it on the agenda. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. All right, the next case will be BCC versus Steve Loveless, CEB No. 2005091054. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 1 O.02.06(B)(1 )(a), and 1 O.02.06(B)(1)( d), and Collier County Page 95 May 28, 2009 Ordinance 2002-01, the building code, Section 106.1.2 and Section 106.3.1. Location of violation: 652 Soliel Drive, Naples, Florida. Folio 25700000408. Description of violation: Occupancy of a new dwelling without certificate of occupancy issued for the structure or swimming pool. On March 23rd, 2006, 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 4009, Page 1130 for more information. One order denied for motion to continue OR 4009 Page 1120, and an additional order for motion for rehearing, which the board found had no jurisdiction to hear the case, OR 4033, Page 2454. The respondent has complied with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of January 19th, 2009. The county's recommendation is to issue an order imposing a lien for fines at the rate of $100 per day for the period between April 8th, 2006 to January 19th, 2009, 1,017 days, for the total of$101,700. Also, fines at the rate of $100 per day for the period between May 23rd, 2006 to January 19th, 2009, 972 days, for the total of $97,200. Operational costs of $252.77 have not been paid. The total recommended lien amount is $199,152.77. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you state your name for the record, please. MR. MARTINDALE: For the record, Ronald Martindale, Collier Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you state your name? Mr. Loveless? MR. LOVELESS: Oh. Steve Loveless. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And sitting down, if she -- Page 96 May 28, 2009 MR. LOVELESS: This is Lisa Ware. THE COURT REPORTER: Could you spell your last name, please? MS. WARE: W-A-R-E. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right, Mr. Loveless, if you could explain the time frame of why it took so long to come into compliance? MR. LOVELESS: Yes. At the time that I received the notice, I was also finishing the neighborhood. The dwelling is in a neighborhood of 18 homes that I was the developer. At that time there were some final things that I had to do in the neighborhood, such as sidewalks and mitigation of the uplands. I had to take out the exotics agaIn. And Collier County asked me to do this. And at the same time that I went down to try to get a -- find out what happened here with the C.O., they informed me that I had to see Ed (sic) Kuck, which was the head engineer at Collier County. Mr. Kuck informed me that he was not going to allow me to get a c.o. until I complied with the finalization of the neighborhood. I then began the process of finalizing the neighborhood, turning over the homeowners association. In that time I also made plans to leave the dwelling that I was in and I also re-permitted the dwelling. I went down to Collier County, asked them to give me a complete record of the inspections that I had gotten. They had an incomplete list. I was able to find the actual inspection card and negotiated with them the amount of inspections I really needed to get, because I had more inspections than they had on record. At the same time, I was also working with Mr. Kuck to complete the neighborhood. I was building a house in another location, which I then, at the end of January or the beginning of February of 2007, moved into. I had a C.O. and moved into that house and vacated this particular house. This house at 652 Soliel Drive has been sitting empty Page 97 May 28, 2009 for two and a half years. They say that I've been in the -- I've talked to Mr. Martindale and he says that, you know, that the only evidence that he has that I've been in the house is that he's seen a pickup truck sitting in front of the house there. Well, that is because the neighborhood I live in doesn't allow pickup trucks to be parked in the driveway, so I have parked that vehicle over there. I brought Ms. Ware as testimony that she will testify that I moved into that house and that I was not in the 652 Soleil Drive house since that time. She has been helping me procure the final C.O. for this dwelling, as -- because she has lived in the neighborhood and I have built a house for her as well. So this is -- I've built 30 to 40 homes in this community in Naples here. I've been here for 15 years and this is the first time I've had any kind of issues like this. This is the first time I've been before the board. And I would hope and ask that you be lenient in this kind of a situation. It is a rare situation. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Loveless, if I was correct, I don't know how many other members were on when the case was originally heard, but you had 30 days to appeal your case in front of us, which you did not meet that time frame, and then you went to circuit court, if I'm not mistaken, to overturn our case. MR. LOVELESS: Yeah, I appealed and apparently I wasn't -- I don't know why I was denied the appeal. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, I think, if -- you can correct me, but it was not within the time period that is within our rules, which is 30 days. MR. LOVELESS: I believe if you look at the letter that I asked for -- my original continuance was that my father has Alzheimer's, and I'm the only surviving child. And I have to go up to the Washington D.C. area to take care of him. I can't remember all the situation (sic) Page 98 May 28, 2009 that happened at that time that I asked for a continuance to go before the board. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: My question is, you went to circuit court, correct? MR. LOVELESS: Well, that was what my former attorney did. They took this case to circuit court because they had talked to the county attorney. In some respect they found that because I was trying to procure the final neighborhood C.O. that -- and they had held my C.O. on this particular house, that he thought that that was sort of a Catch-22. So he took it and put it in as an appeal. And I didn't know what the outcome of that appeal was because they're no longer my attorneys as of about a year ago. So I'm not quite sure of the legal ramifications. I'm up here because I received this notice that we have this hearing. I received this notice on May 23rd, and -- that we had a hearing here today. And this is really the first time that I knew that I would be sitting in front of you all saying okay, this is the disposition of this case. And I don't -- you know, I don't know what else to do except to stand here before you and ask you to be lenient. I mean, $200,000 is a lot of money. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions from the board? MR. LARSEN: Yeah, I have a few questions. Mr. Martindale, I mean, it indicates on the documents presented to me that there has been complete compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders; is that correct? MR. MARTINDALE: Yes, sir, he did obtain a permit, 2008071 in 2008. And it was C.O.'d. Incidentally, I just found this out, he never bothered to call like he was supposed to. I found it out later. But it is -- the certificate of occupancy has been issued for the dwelling. MR. LARSEN: And what was the date the certificate of occupancy was issued? Page 99 May 28, 2009 MR. MARTINDALE: Permit 2008071300. It doesn't give the specific date, but it looks as though it was in July of 2008, as the permit number indicates. MR. LARSEN: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm correct, Mr. Loveless, you did live in this house? MR. LOVELESS: I lived in this house from May 23rd, which was the order that I had to get out. I did live in the house until January of 2007. I will say that. Because I -- it's hard, I was at that time a family of six, to move out of my dwelling into a -- to wherever. So I was in the house at that time. MR. LARSEN: From May 23rd, 2006 through January of2007. MR. LOVELESS: Correct. MR. LARSEN: And you got the C of 0 in July of2008? MR. LOVELESS: No. Well, actually, if you look in the records there, you'll see that I went down. There was a permit issued of 2006 that I had to extend, and then you'll find that finally I had Ms. Ware go down and procure another permit. I actually had three extensions from the county. And they told me that I would have to go before the board to get a final building permit if I should try to go it again. So I had applied for a 2006 permit to C.O. the house, but as I said, I was informed by Mr. Kuck from engineering department that he had frozen the C.O. on the house until I complied with finalizing the neighborhood. MR. LARSEN: Do you remember when you received the final C. of 0., though? MR. LOVELESS: The final C.O.? MR. MARTINDALE: If I may -- MR. LOVELESS: It was January, 2009, I believe. MR. MARTINDALE: February 18th of2009 was the final. MR. LARSEN: And how come you didn't pay the operational costs of $252? Page 100 May 28, 2009 MR. LOVELESS: I didn't know about the operational costs. I wasn't informed that I had an operational cost. I had attorneys that were handling this, Cohen and Grigsby, and they never informed me that lowed the board anything. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further questions? Mr. Larsen? MR. LARSEN: No, I have no further questions. MR. KELLY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Question. Go ahead. MR. KELLY: Mr. Loveless, are you in a position to pay the operational costs of $252.77 today at this meeting? MR. LOVELESS: Yes. MR. KELLY: That's the only question I have. MR. DEAN: I make a motion to abate the fines. MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I feel that as a builder in Collier County, he did live in the house without having a C.O. and he should know that he shouldn't. And I do remember from the previous meeting that that was brought up. And to abate the fines, I cannot agree to that. MR. LARSEN: Well, that's where I'm a little fuzzy. You know, I mean, basically I think some of the fines should be abated, but there does appear to be a period of time when, you know, at least by his own testimony between May 23, 2006 and January, 2007 he was in the house using the facilities. So I would agree to abate the fines except for that period of time. MS. WALDRON: From April 8th, 2006 to January 1st, 2007 is 267 days, which would be $26,700. MR. LARSEN: I'm sorry, Jennifer, that's April 8th, 2006? MS. WALDRON: Yes. MR. LARSEN: Through January what? MS. WALDRON: Through January 1st, 2007. MR. LARSEN: Through January 1st, 2007. Page 101 May 28, 2009 And that would be how much? MS. WALDRON: $26,700 at $100 per day. MR. LARSEN: All right. So that's order one and order item five. Now we've got order item two and six. Two is by obtaining all required Collier County building permits if attainable and all required inspections within 60 days, which would be May 22nd. Now, what about those -- Mr. Martindale, what about those permits, or the -- yeah, what about the permits, when were they first applied for? MR. MARTINDALE: They were first issued in 2008. I believe we said July in 2008. And a final C.O. was obtained February of this year. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Would you like to make a note please that Mr. L'Esperance had to leave. MR. LARSEN: So he was supposed to obtain those permits by May 22nd, right, 2006, Mr. Martindale? MR. MARTINDALE: Affirmative, sir. MR. LARSEN: And when did he actually obtain those permits? MR. MARTINDALE: The permit I see that's issued here was obtained July of 200 -- permit 2008071300 was issued -- I don't know the specific day, but it was issued in July of 2008. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Loveless, why did it take you so long to get that permit? MR. LOVELESS: Sir, actually, I had gone down to the county. And if you'll look in the records, you'll see that there's a 2006 number there. As soon as I found out about this, when it was posted a notice on my door, I went down to the county and started interacting with the county and actually applied for another permit, and it was 2006. And if you'll look in the history of that, you'll find that there is a 2006 permit number. If you'll go back. Because I actually was -- had several final roofing inspections. MR. LARSEN: All right. Well, they're going to check on that right now. Page 102 May 28, 2009 MR. LOVELESS: Okay. If you'll look in the whole history, you'll see that there's -- MR. MARTINDALE: I just had an update. He's going to make another one here on line. The exact date was -- for the 2008 permit that was applied for, 7/23 of '08. And the same permit was C.O.'d on 2/18/09. MR. LOVELESS: The 2008 permit is a reap. MR. MARTINDALE: That's a good possibility it could be. MR. LOVELESS: Two or three times, sir. There were two or three reaps. And if you'll look in the Collier County records, you'll see a 2006 permit. MS. WALDRON: I do have some dates for you, if you -- do you want to swear me in? (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: It looks like the reap permit was issued on 7/23/08. It was also applied for on the same day, but was not C.O.'d until 2/18/09. MR. LARSEN: 7/23/08? MS. WALDRON: Correct. MR. MARTINDALE: It's the same dates I gave you before. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: A little bit of housekeeping. But who was the first alternate? Because Lionel left, so now one alternate is a voting member. MS. WALDRON: I don't think that was determined. It was never told to me which one was -- MR. KAUFMAN: Do we have a coin? MR. DEAN: Make the decision. MR. KELLY: Were both alternates picked at the same board meeting? MS. WALDRON: Yes. MR. HEMES: How about prior service? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Nicolas will vote, since he has prior Page 103 May 28, 2009 . servIce. MS. WALDRON: Okay. MR. LARSEN: Okay, did we figure out whether or not that permit was a reapplication? MS. WALDRON: It looks as though it was a reap, because the original permit was canceled. MR. LARSEN: And when was that original permit canceled? MS. WALDRON: It was canceled on 7/23/08. MR. LARSEN: Do we know when it was applied for? Did he apply for it timely? MS. WALDRON: It was applied for on 4/4, 2006. Was issued on 4/5, 2006. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So then he would have applied for it on time. Because our order was on the 23rd of March, 2006. MR. LARSEN: All right. Now -- okay, I don't have any further questions. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion from the board? MR. LARSEN: In regard to the pending motion, I think that the period of occupancy that he was in the premises, that fine in the amount of $26,700 should not be abated. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I agree with that. MR. LARSEN: Okay. In regard to items two and order item six, in regard to the obtaining the permits, he seems to have applied for the permits, and I'm not quite sure why there was a delay in obtaining the permits of, it looks like, almost two years. I'm not quite sure what happened. Based upon the testimony, I understand they were going through a series of appeals and court cases. I'm not sure whether or not we should hold that against him or whether or not some portion of that time should be includable for purposes of imposing a fine. I don't know if any other board member has any input on that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further input? Page 104 May 28, 2009 MR. KELLY: I don't think we should penalize a citizen for due process. MR. DEAN: You know, look at it this way: You know, this started in '06, this is 2009. The economic condition of our country and Florida and stuffs been in array (sic). And the guy's been in and out, in and out, applying for permits. It isn't like he ran away and ignored something. And maybe there's an overlap there. And maybe he did park his truck there for a while on that. That's why I figure I'm for abating the fine. MR. LARSEN: All right. Well, my position would be that basically in regard to order items one and five that a fine of 26,700 should be imposed. In regard to order item two and order item six, those fines should be abated. In regard to order item six in regard to the operational costs, that they should be paid. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We have a motion, we have a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor -- MR. DEAN: Can I ask you a question? I made the motion, Mr. Kelly seconded. And what does that motion say? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion says that you want to abate the fines. MR. DEAN: Very good. I want to make sure. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Again. Once again, all those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 105 May 28, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And those nays? Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes to abate. And operational costs do still have to be paid in the amount of $252.77. MR. LOVELESS: Thank you very much. MR. KELLY: You kind of like have to pay them right now. MS. WALDRON: And ifhe pays right now, we can not file the lien on the property. Otherwise, there will be a lien filed. MR. LOVELESS: Do you take Mastercard? MS. WALDRON: No, I only take checks. MR. LOVELESS: I have a check. Can I go down to my car -- MR. DEAN: You don't take cash. MS. WALDRON: No cash, just checks. MR. DEAN: The American way. MR. LOVELESS: I'll go down and get my checkbook. MR. DEAN: It's the American way. MS. WALDRON: Yes. Right now, please, though. MR. DEAN: No cash? MS. WALDRON: Unless he's got exact change of252.77, I can't provide any change. MR. DEAN: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next thing we have is request to forward case to County Attorney's Office. That's done with the consent agenda. So next thing is rules and regs. If I remember correctly, last meeting we had I guess one issue; is that correct? What page was that on? MR. DEAN: Is that will, shall, may? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yeah. What page is that on? Page 6? Page 106 May 28, 2009 MR. DEAN: Six. Following procedures, will, shall may. Maybe it's on 8, too. I have Pages 6 and 8. Is there a change on Page 6 and Page 8? MS. WALDRON: Yeah, the issue in question was on Page 6. And I believe Heidi's going to address -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I wasn't aware that I was going to be addressing this, but I have a copy of rules from Jeff Wright. And on Page 6 it says that they're changing it from will to may. And I really don't have the history on it. Mr. Wright met with Commissioner Henning, and that's about all I know. I apologize. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The following procedures may -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Jeffs the appropriate person to address it. I'll see ifhe's upstairs. MR. KELLY: Wasn't he here last meeting and told us that-- MS. WALDRON: He was. And I know that his concern is because he doesn't want misrepresentation. Because county attorney's office is also your counsel as well, so -- MR. KELLY : Well, the thing is, I mean, it just makes sense. Because if these are our procedures then we should follow them, period. Like for instance, one of those procedures is all persons testifying before the board shall do so under oath. What, we might just elect to not follow that procedure? MS. WALDRON: Right. And that was one of the main issues that was brought up was that one in particular, that that can't be a may, that has to be a shall or will. MR. LARSEN: Right. and Mr. Wright was here, basically he was going to check to see which one of these from A to J or A through whatever, S, were going to be required rather than discretionary. Mr. Wright's not here. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, apparently Mr. Wright was not told that this would be an item of discussion, so I'd suggest you Page 107 May 28, 2009 continue it to the next meeting. MR. LARSEN: Oh. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That was quick. MR. DEAN: You were watching TV at home and you heard that comment and ran right down here. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Not even a bead of sweat. MR. WRIGHT: Jeff Wright, for the record, Assistant County Attorney. And I think -- I wasn't that prepared. I think it is on Page 6, the problem was. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you want like two minutes to review it? MR. WRIGHT: No, I think I get the gist of it. Page 6, the word may, that's the new word that was put in place of the word will. And it was -- these rules were presented at the BCC, and Commissioner Henning raised the concern that this might have due process concerns. There are things in this list -- sorry, I just jogged down the stairs. There are things on this list that shouldn't be discretionary. And I think at the last meeting I pointed out that for example the oath is not something that should be discretionary. So I think the idea is focusing on this list, A through S. I think the idea is to parse out which of those items are discretionary or appropriately discretionary with this board and to also make a list of those things that aren't discretionary, shouldn't be discretionary. So I don't have -- I'd prefer the board to work through that rather than to offer my recommendations. But for example, letter A, the only evidence heard shall be the statement of the violation and any stipulated agreement. If that's what you wish to be the case, maybe you should cull out that as a mandatory requirement. And I guess the idea would be to go A through Q and determine which of those items are mandatory and Page 108 May 28, 2009 which ones you want to single out as discretionary items. MR. KELLY: So basically to recap, Jeff, you're suggesting change this back to will, where all of these will be required. And each one of the individual subsections that the board wishes to retain some kind of leverage we then put in that subsection shall or may, rather than will. MR. WRIGHT: Right. And you could accomplish that a lot of ways in that cap. You could accomplish that by saying, the following procedures will be observed, and then have a list of things that will be observed. And then separately the following procedures may be observed, and list the discretionary items. And I'm not sure if you're prepared to do all that. And you might want to consider that between now and the next time and continue it, or go through those. I don't have any preference. MR. KELLY: Well, if you look through them, there are a number of them that do say shall, or at the discretion of the board. And there was one of them that we've recently changed, which is O. And it's part of the change here. So I think we've already done that. I don't know if it's the pleasure of the board to review the list for next time or if you think we could go through it now, but-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, maybe we could do whatever shall be separate, and whatever may, you know, separate those two into -- MR. LARSEN: Or we can just go back and change the following procedures may be observed at hearings before the board to the following procedures will be observed at hearings before the board and have it resolved that way. MR. KELLY: However, there were two items in particular that I believe the board wanted a little bit of leniency on, and that is our E and F. If the respondent, alleged violator, is not present and is represented by another -- by a person other than an attorney, the respondent should submit a notarized letter to the chair of the board Page 109 May 28, 2009 granting that individual permission to represent. Well, there are many times we have agents but we don't get a letter that's notarized from the actual owner. They just state they're the agent, they put it on testimony and we accept that as, you know, grounds to continue. MR. LARSEN: So we should be changing E rather than changing the may -- from the will to may up top. MR. KELLY: Exactly. And then F, presentations limited to 20 minutes. If the respondent believes additional time is required. Well, typically it's the board that just kind of extends it, not necessarily the respondent. So there should either be some kind of information in here about the board having the opportunity to extend the time if requested and does it necessarily have to be requested prior to that hearing, or could it be requested midstream during testimony? And if that's the case, then it's simply adding shall or may. That's it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do we want to move this to next month and go through this? We may have to figure out what way we want to do it. Do we want to separate it or just change will and then go through each of these? MS. FLAGG: Mr. Chair, let me offer a suggestion. If you have the sentence in the paragraph, the following procedures are observed at hearings, then you've delineated in each of the A through S the -- whether it's a mayor a shall. So your delineation is already listed here, if you just change the word to are observed. MR. LARSEN: Sounds like a good suggestion. MR. KELLY: Kudos. MS. FLAGG: And then if there's any additional revisions in the items, Mr. Kelly, that you are referring to, you can make those now. But you don't have to go through this whole separation process. MR. KELLY: E is the one that I was just concerned about. Only because on a regular basis almost at every meeting we just allow that to happen anyway. So our rules should reflect that. My suggestion-- sorry, go ahead. Page 110 May 28, 2009 MS. FLAGG: I was going to say, the respondent should, it's not a requirement that they will. MR. KELLY: Perfect. MS. FLAGG: So it currently says should. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Then in F you had a question. MR. KELLY: No, F's okay. I was using it as an example. It does say may, and that was my example I was using. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So any other comments regarding changing the following procedures from may be observed to are observed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can we go ahead and take a vote on that then? MR. KELLY: Is that consistent with standard legalese? MR. LARSEN: I think you've got to use shall or will. MR. WRIGHT: I think substantively the word will will have the same effect as your proposed word are. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Or shall. MR. WRIGHT: Either one works. MR. LARSEN : Yeah, you've got to use shall or will. MR. KELLY: But if you say will and each one of the individual ones have a may in that, you're still following the rule as it was written. MR. LARSEN: That's correct. MR. KELLY: So it should be will. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Or shall. MR. KELLY: Really? MR. DEAN: And the secret word-- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I mean, will or shall. I mean, legalese is shall or may and so -- it doesn't really matter. I think the A through J is going to be determinative if you have a will or shall. I mean, if you put a may, that means that you don't have to follow your shall that later Page 111 May 28, 2009 occurs, so -- MR. KELLY: Which one do you like better? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, I like the following procedures shall be observed. And then clarify. If you want to leave should, if you want to use legalese, I'd probably change that to a may instead of should. I mean, should just references that it's a preference that you do that. MR. KELLY: So line E -- I'm sorry, subsection E -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: You can leave it should or may. I mean, it's not a requirement. But I think you might want to add under F, if you leave it the way it is, that the Code Enforcement Board shall determine whether additional time will be permitted or allowed. I would just add that sentence. MR. KELLY: And that would be more consistent with what's read on the opening statement. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So they'll have to notify the secretary and then the secretary will let you know, and then you determine at the hearing they've requested the additional 10 minutes and we're going to give it or not. But I still think that doesn't prohibit them during their presentation from asking for more time. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, so the changes you're looking at is -- are are. The following procedures will be observed at hearings before the board. Then in E, on the second line the respondent may submit a notarized letter to the chair granting that individual permission to represent him/her at the hearing. And then in F, we would have some verbiage regarding the board shall, if it decides to extend the time; is that -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, the board shall determine whether additional time will be allowed. Page 112 May 28, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, thank you. Do we need to take a vote on -- MS. WALDRON: Can I make a comment on that? In that item it already says may, so that already gives you the option to give them more time. I don't know if we need to actually add that extra wording in there. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The reason to add it would be to let the person who's coming before the board know who's making that determination. They may not read into it as you are -- I mean, what you're saying is correct, it says may, it's up to the board to determine. But it puts the person on notice that it's not the secretary who's approving it, it's going to be the board. But again, it's up to you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Does the board need to take a vote, I guess? MS. WALDRON: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further comments on these few changes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MS. WALDRON: Actually, I need to know if you're adding wording on that one, what the wording is going to be. MR. KELLY: I'll make it in the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. I was going to use her exact verbiage, but -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Would you like me to read it again? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you could. And then maybe do you want to incorporate her verbiage? MR. KELLY: Perfect. That's great. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The Code Enforcement Board or CEB, however you have it defined in the document. So the CEB shall determine whether additional time shall be allowed. Page 113 May 28, 2009 MR. KELLY: All right. Make a motion that we accept the following changes: And under Article 6, hearings, last line of the first paragraph, the following procedures shall be observed at hearings before the board. Subsection E, second line, the word should will be replaced with may. And subsection F, the line that was just stated will be added, and I believe it's the Code Enforcement Board shall decide if additional time will be allowed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is it determine or decide? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I read determine, but decide is -- either word is fine. MR. KELLY: Determine. Determine. Sorry. That's the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. WRIGHT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you, Jeff. All right. Any further comments? MS. WALDRON: Can I just make one comment, that Mr. Page 114 May 28, 2009 Loveless did pay his operational costs. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And just for procedural purposes, can I just ask a question? Is this ready for signature, the rules with the change, or are you going to put it back on the agenda for them to look at first? MS. WALDRON: I'll put it back on the next agenda. It is going to go in front of the Board of Commissioners for their approval, so I'm going to check with them first, make sure it's okay before I have all of you sign it again. MS. FLAGG: It will be on the June 9th BCC hearing. And one additional comment. The Board of County Commissioners approved a pre-purchase code inspection by a private company prior to the sale of a house that was done this week, Tuesday. And currently they're in the process of updating May, but at the beginning of May there were more than 500 code cases that we were working with banks on, and almost 50 percent of those code cases have been resolved by the banks at no cost to the county. MR. DEAN: Wonderful. MR. LARSEN: Wow, excellent. MR. HEMES: Very good. MR. KELLY: Terrific. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The new ordinance would be for vacant homes and foreclosed homes, correct? MS. FLAGG: Correct. We're researching the legal language, but basically no one living in the home and that it's a foreclosed home. MR. KELLY: When does that take effect officially? MS. FLAGG: It won't take effect until the ordinance is approved. And we're in the process of working with the county attorney's office on the ordinance. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And that's going in front of the Page 115 May 28, 2009 board for final approval the 23rd of June, is it? MS. FLAGG: It's anticipated because the ordinance would have to be advertised, but it would be anticipated to be on board agenda June 23rd. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next meeting date will be June 25th, 2009. And motion to adjourn? MR. DEAN: Motion to adjourn -- MR. LARSEN: Well, don't you have a consent agenda? Do we do that? MR. KELLY: Once we approved the agenda, the consent went with it. MR. LARSEN: All right, so we don't have to deal with that? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No. MR. LARSEN: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I have a first, second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. ***** Page 116 May 28, 2009 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:32 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD GERALD LEFEBVRE, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on presented or as corrected as Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 117 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER lOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS lAST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCil, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE L '/t.5e:,J CI ~ t:.€~(",J~ (/,,)IIA. MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCil, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMI EON o f<f 0;1(,1" WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: CITY COUNTY 0 CITY iir6'OUNTY 0 OTHER lOCAL AGENCY _ j \ NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: ~, l) . o ELECTIVE IB"" APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 88 This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss ofoa business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: . You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 1 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) . A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. . The form must be rea~ publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: . You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. . You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST {;";;:>I</""'-<) (~v ,he"'byd;",'o,e'h"o" <;j~o '7 (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) I, ,20_: inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, inured to the special gain or loss of whom I am retained; or , by inured to the special gain or loss of is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: , which lJ()IJ/l~ i ~ v/V1j C e S D '2.-0<f8 ~I'1MfJ.s(~ v. 6- rI t:.M.eA-o avo cffa t( CPr/{ t(c-r Q. J~J 1- 1 :wr-~J--, /&L~~ ;2cy~J cJ~ ?A.,Iv.J;:. P. 6-u~ 0.. 'ffM-~ S/~~ c!?L y~- Signature Date Filed NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES 9112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2