Loading...
CEB Minutes 06/25/2009 R June 25, 2009 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida June 25, 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 (Excused) Nicolas Hemes (Alternate) Kenneth Kelly Edward Larsen (Excused) Lionel L'Esperance Robert Kaufman James Lavinski Heriminio Ortega (Alternate) ALSO PRESENT: Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attorney J en Waldron, Code Enforcement Specialist Jeff Letourneau, Code Enforcement Supervisor Cristina Perez, Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA Date: June 25, 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 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. 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROV AL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - A. May 28, 2009 Hearing 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. MOTIONS B. STIPULATIONS C. HEARINGS I. BCC VS. Alberto E. Franco & Juana Leon 2. BCC vs. Daniel Herrera 3. BCC vs. Reynaldo Cortez JI. 4. BCC vs. Gentilhomme and Jean Saurel Louissaint 5. BCC VS. Catalina Calderon Est., Dimas Ofelia & Jorge Calderon 6. BCC VS. Martha Erebia CEB NO. CESD20080012107 CEB NO. CESD20080002499 CEB NO. CESD20080008613 CEB NO. CESD20080014978 CEB NO. 2007110455 CEB NO. 2007100673 5. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens I. BCC VS. Linnette Barrett 2. BCC VS. Israel & Delma Gallegos 3. BCC VS. Robert Toski 4. BCC VS. M & M Developers, LLC. 5. BCC VS. Hamo Gutic 6. BCC VS. Carlos Perez 7. BCC VS. Marek Okenka & Lenka Okenkova CEB NO. CELU20080016064 CEB NO. 2007060101 CEB NO. CEPM20080014037 CEB NO. CESD20080002249 CEB NO. 2007100180 CEB NO. 2007080099 CEB NO. CEVR20080003423 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. Teudis Zamora 2. Noe Garcia 3. Susan Williams 4. Frank Paz CEB NO. 2006120209 CEB NO. 2006081160 CEB NO. 2007060820 CEB NO. 2006081159 8. REPORTS 9. COMMENTS 10. NEXT MEETING DATE - July 23, 2009 11. ADJOURN June 25, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board Meeting to order for June 25th, 2009. Notice: The respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation, unless additional time is granted by the board. Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes, unless the time is adjusted by the Chairman. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe 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. May I have the roll call. 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. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LA VINSKI: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Heriminio Ortega? MR. ORTEGA: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Nicolas Hemes? MR. HEMES: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Edward Larsen has an excused absence Page 2 June 25, 2009 and Mr. Larry Dean also has an excused absence. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Since we have two regular members that are not present and have excused absences, the two alternates will be full voting members today. And I know there's quite a few changes to the agenda, so if you could just run through them. And if you go slowly so we can make our changes. MS. WALDRON: Under item number four, public hearing/motions, letter A, we have a motion for rehearing. This is Case CESD20080008804, BCC versus James P. Guerrero. Also under motions, we have a motion for extension of time. This will be Case CESD20080005775 versus Sara Barrera. Also under motions, we have a motion for continuance, which will be under old business Item 5.A.6, BCC versus Carlos Perez, Case 2007080099. And we have some stipulations. Item C.2 under hearings has been stipulated, BCC versus Daniel Herrera, CESD20080002499. Item C.3, BCC versus Reynaldo Cortez, Jr., Case CESD20080008613. Item C.4 under hearings; BCC versus Gentilhomme and Jean Saurel Louissaint, Case CESD20080014978. Item C.5 under hearings; BCC versus Catalina Calderon Estate, Dimas Ofelia and Jorge Calderon, Case 2007110455. And item number C.1 under hearings, BCC versus Alberto E. Franco and Juana Leon, Case CESD200800 121 07. Under hearings: Item C.6, BCC versus Martha Erebia, 2007100673 is being withdrawn by the county. And we also have an emergency case we would like to add, it will be item number C. 7, it's BCC versus Michael Doty and Marcia Doty, CEPM200900 1 0461. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Those all the changes? MS. WALDRON: (Nods head affirmatively.) Page 3 June 25, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Move that we accept the changes as proffered. MR. KELLY: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. The approval of the minutes for last meeting, May 28th, 2009 hearing. Do I hear a motion? MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that we accept the minutes from the last meeting. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. HEMES: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. Page 4 June 25, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes -- MR. KELLY: Abstained. I didn't get a copy of them, so I didn't actually read them. MS. WALDRON: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And Mr. Kelly has abstained. We're going to move on to public hearings. Motion for rehearing: James P. Guerrero. Sir, you can go to your left right over here. (Speakers were duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please? MR. GUERRERO: James Guerrero. G-U-E-R-R-E-R-O. MR. LEFEBVRE: Good morning, sir. MR. GUERRERO: Good morning. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you could state why you would like to have a rehearing. MR. GUERRERO: First of all, thank you for letting me have a rehearing. I'm sorry I wasn't here for the last one. I think there was a misunderstanding on the request for a continuance. And it may be my written language. But when I referred to property, I meant the manufactured building, which is the subject of the whole code of enforcement here. And this is the building that I want to sell. As you know, I've already stated currently not being used, it's not permitted, it's just there for storage. And I need time to sell that building. And I'm asking for 180 days. I believe I can do it, but I just need more time. I'm running against a wall in this economic situation right now. And I'm self-employed. And I'm in construction. And I'm trying to survive. So I just need the time to do that. And I believe I can and take care of this problem. It is secured and it has a lock, it has a fence. And I keep it Page 5 June 25, 2009 secured and I look at it every day. And I make sure that there's nobody in there. And it's not -- it never has been habited. So I'm very concerned about that. And security. And I try to do my best to maintain that. That's the reason why I'm here. But I think the main thing is the misunderstanding of the language in the request for the continuance. I'm not trying to sell the property, the 20 acres, I'm just trying to sell the manufactured building right now, and need time to do that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Are you looking for a rehearing of the case or are you looking for an extension of time? MR. GUERRERO: Well, I believe the extension of time was denied or rej ected. And so this rehearing I would hope would hear my evidence as to why I do need the request for continuance. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can we rehear a case -- I thought it was 30 days that we have to rehear a case; is that correct? And we heard this case back in January, January 22nd. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, I think under your rules, if you determine to the extent you want to grant a rehearing, you can either schedule a hearing and discuss the extension and amending your previous order that you entered last month, or I think you can do that today, if you want to modify or reverse your prior order without further evidence. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Does the board have any questions of the respondent? MR. ORTEGA: I do. The manufactured building is secured, as you displayed on the picture, it has a fence around it. But how is it secured from weather? MR. GUERRERO: From weather? MR. ORTEGA: From weather. Tie-downs, et cetera. MR. GUERRERO: It is anchored down. I mean, it was set it place. I had it anchored in place, according to code requirements for a manufactured building. The idea was to try to permit it, but we ran out Page 6 June 25, 2009 of capitol to do that, so we left it as storage. This is -- by the way, I have plans to do a site development plan in the 20 acres. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd like to try to keep this testimony to why you would like a rehearing or to amend. It sounds like you'd want to amend your -- or our order to extend the time, basically. So I'd like to keep any questions directed towards that, if we are going to rehear it. So you're not asking to rehear the case, per se, but you're asking to voice why you want 180 days versus what the order currently states. I think it says you're supposed to have it either corrected or demolished by April 22nd. So you're looking to extend that time? MR. GUERRERO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, could I ask of the recommendations from the county, please? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Absolutely. MS. PEREZ: The County has no objection. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: To what time period? MS. PEREZ: To the 180 days. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: From today or from April? MS. PEREZ: It would be from today's hearing. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Today's hearing. MR. KAUFMAN: I have one question. What have you done since -- in the last two or three months to accelerate the activity as far as sales of the unit are concerned? What's going to change now going forward versus the past? MR. GUERRERO: Several things are in play right now. I've advertised it in EBay for sale, one. I'm putting it on the market with direct marketing for construction companies to take over a building of this type, which I believe they would want to use, at a reduced price. And so I'm making strict efforts to try to sell it. Page 7 June 25, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The board has given you an option to demolish it, so I don't understand. MR. GUERRERO: An option. That's an option, too, to, you know, just to donate it to some organization that could use it. Because it is a brand new building, it's never been used, and I'm sure it would be useful. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. GUERRERO: A school could take over it, you know, something -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You had roughly, if I'm not mistaken, three months from January to try to do that, and now we're here in June. The sale of the unit has not transpired in basically five months now. I don't know if it's going to transpire in the next six months. If the efforts that you've done, from what you told us, are going to be successful, they haven't been in the past five months. MR. GUERRERO: True. True. And the problem is this economic wall that I've run into. It seems like every course of action I take doesn't lead to any success. So I was -- I was also trying to make it a residential building to live in. But our income is so low we don't -- we have to declare some sort of deferral of impact fees, but I understand the impact fee funds have run out. So I'm just in a Catch-22. And -- but I have to do something. MR. KELLY: I have a question of the county. Cristina, is there anything at the county that you know of at CDES that would allow for temporary storage of a mobile home or structure such as this? MS. PEREZ: I couldn't say. I know that Mr. Guerrero did attempt to submit for a permit, and he -- it was denied because of the commercial plans. But I wouldn't know. MR. KELLY: Because it sounds like it's more of a temporary use construction trailer than a mobile home. MS. PEREZ: He was trying to incorporate the mobile home in a Page 8 June 25, 2009 site development plan, which was another step that he was trying to take to try to abate the violation by permitting it through an SDP. But, you know, SDP's are lengthy. MR. KELLY: Right. Thank you, Cristina. I have one more question for our attorney. If we were to grant the extension, that would then change the original order, correct? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. You'd actually be amending two orders: One is your order where you found the violation, because you gave him until April 22nd to abate. So you'd have to extend that 180 days, if that's what you choose. And then we've already entered an order imposing fines, so that would have to abate the fines and reinstitute the fines once he -- ifhe fails to comply. MR. KELLY : Well, here's a point, just a procedural issue. Article 5 of our rules and regs, subsection six states that once we amend fines we can't re-abate or adjust or anything down the road. So what happens if 180 days from now we get into a situation where we're back here again? We'd have no way to impose fines, to abate them, to change them, to do anything. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: What you could do is just enter a stay as to that order and then make your decision in the future. MR. KELLY: Okay, very good. Thank you. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, one further question of the county. Are there any health, safety or welfare issues that are negative upon the community if we do request and enter a stay for this order? MS. PEREZ: It is an isolated property, 20 acres. The nearest occupied home from there is, I would say, at least an additional 20 acres, you know, from his property. And he is correct, it is a secured property. He does have a fence around the entire property. And every time I have gone there, the gate has remained locked. Page 9 June 25, 2009 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. MR. KAUFMAN: I have one question. Are we talking -- are you asking to extend this from April for 180 dates or from today for 180 days? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Today. MR. GUERRERO: Ifit would please the board, I'm asking to extend from today 180 days. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. KELLY: I'll make a motion that we grant an extension of 180 days from the date of today. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KAUFMAN: I second. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, should we grant the motion to extend, or do we stay as our attorney recommended to us? Is there a difference? MR. KELLY: Would that be a second motion then to stay the other order to impose the lien, the fines? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That would be appropriate. MR. KELLY: Yeah, that would be a separate motion. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, I heard a second. Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? Page 10 June 25, 2009 (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. KELLY: I'll make a second motion to stay the imposition of fines on the case dated and ordered June 3rd, 2009. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So procedurally, the way that would operate is that there'd be a stay, but ifhe fails to meet the 180 days, then the whole entire thing is due. Nothing's been relieved at that point. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So we would go back to the April date, correct? The fines -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No, no -- yeah, it would go back to the April 23rd date. So all the fines -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The clock would start ticking at that point. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you understand that? MR. GUERRERO: I understand. MR. HEMES: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. GUERRERO: Thank you, gentlemen. Page 11 June 25, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You have 180 days from today to either remove it or sell it, which would be removing it. MR. GUERRERO: I understand. Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. MS. PEREZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're going to move on to the next case which would be a motion for extension of time. Sara Barrera. (Speakers were duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please? MS. BARRERA: Sara Barrera. MS. VALLADARES: Elmara Valladares. V-A-L-L-A-D-A-R-E-S. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, and you're looking for an extension of time? MS. VALLADARES: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you explain why you're looking for an extension of time? MS. VALLADARES: Well, I guess because we haven't gotten a response from the -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The variance? MS. VALLADARES: -- when we submitted the variance. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: When did you submit that? MS. VALLADARES: May Istof'09. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: When was -- when did we hear this case? MS. WALDRON: February 26th. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And when was the violation supposed to be corrected? MS. RODRIGUEZ: By June 29th. MS. WALDRON: June 27th. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: June 27th, okay. How long do you think it will take to get the variance, to receive Page 12 June 25, 2009 the variance? MS. VALLADARES: I don't know. It's up to, you know, the county. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions of the board? MR. L'ESPERANCE: What does the county feel the timeline might be? MS. RODRIGUEZ: She has a form or letter from the zoning department that states that they're not going to review it until November. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. RODRIGUEZ: I have a copy -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is that when the board -- I think I did see a letter. That's when the board is actually going to -- MS. RODRIGUEZ: Look at her. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- bring it to vote, I guess. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, I'm looking at a letter here. The hearing date will be October 1st, and then on the 24th of November it will be going in front of the county commissioners. Now, did she submit the variance in the time frame that she was supposed to? I'm just trying to think what our order said and to see if she's been following through in a timely manner. Because it obviously could -- MS. RODRIGUEZ: She filed the variance in March. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: She said May. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yeah, but it went in in March, I believe. I didn't make a copy of it, but she filed it in March. I don't know if she took all the paperwork in and if she was actually supposed to take more back. Because that's through the zoning department. But when I -- when she asked for the extension, I told her go ahead and get the letter from the zoning department to find out how long it's going to take, because I don't have an idea. She didn't have an Page 13 June 25, 2009 idea. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But the question I'm asking is, we gave her a time frame to go ahead and get the -- to rectify the situation. And I'm wondering, did she -- has she been diligent in trying to correct? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Go ahead. MR. KELLY: A quick question about the actual situation, just to refresh our memories to see where we stand. This was a master bedroom that was converted from non-living space to living space; is that correct? MS. VALLADARES: Uh-huh, it was a garage. MR. KELLY: Okay. In the original order it stated that we'd like you to cease use of that garage as a living area. And we'd like -- since there hasn't been any inspections, we'd like to see power cut and so forth. Has that been followed through with? Is there anybody living in there and have you turned off the breaker to the garage? MS. VALLADARES: Yes. MS. BARRERA: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions of the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What time period are you looking for, for an extension of time? To our December -- do we have a meeting? We might not have a meeting in December. So when is our November meeting? Is it before the 24th? MS. WALDRON: It's before the Thanksgiving holiday, I believe. MR. KELLY: If I may, I'd like to give them -- if the board decides to grant a little extension, I'd rather give them a little more time so they can get their inspections in after the variance -- Page 14 June 25, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So it would be January, probably. MR. KELLY: Right. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Because I don't think we have a December -- usually we don't have a December meeting, so it would be January. Would the county be opposed to putting this off until January, extending the time? MS. RODRIGUEZ: We have no objection. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: I have one point. Should the County Commissioners deny the variance, are you going to be able to live up to what is then required, which is to convert the space probably back to its original use? MS. VALLADARES: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: Because the county can go either way obviously on the variance. Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So we have to take into consideration that January -- it's basically two months that they would have to have to pull a demo permit and so forth. Go ahead, Mr. Kelly. MR. KELLY: I was going to -- I didn't want to cut you off, I just wanted to see if I could take a stab at a motion. I make a motion that we extend the original order time frame from 120 days to 365 days. That would place their new order on February 26th, 2010, which gives them about two months in the new year to take care of whatever permits or changes necessary. MS. VALLADARES: We appreciate it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So that's a motion. Do I hear a second? MR. HEMES: February the 25th. Because the fourth Thursday in the month. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're just giving them 360 (sic) Page 15 June 25, 2009 days, not up to the next meeting -- or to the January or February meeting. MR. ORTEGA: I have a question. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sure. MR. ORTEGA: Is this a single-family residence? MS. VALLADARES: Uh-huh. MR. ORTEGA: Why was a variance petitioned? MR. KELLY: Is it a setback issue or are you too close to a property line? A garage? MR. ORTEGA: Did the garage exist? MS. VALLADARES: I think so. That's what they said. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I have a first, do I have a second? MR. KAUFMAN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. VALLADARES: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So you have 360 (sic) days to rectify the situation, either through a variance process or-- MR. KELLY: 365. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: 365, is that what you're saying? MR. KELLY: One year is basically what I said. Page 16 June 25, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sorry, one year, 365 days. And if you do not get a variance, then you will have to get a demo permit and return it to its original state. MR. KELLY: Also, if I might comment, thank you very much for coming to us prior to the order coming upon date. MS. VALLADARES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. Good luck. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Is that one year from today? For clarification. MR. KELLY: Yes, ma'am -- one year from the original order, I'm sorry. From the original order. MR. KAUFMAN: 25th of February. MR. KELLY: The date of the meeting was -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: From the date of the original order, from February 26th? MR. KELLY: Correct. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Just make sure the respondents know, okay? Jen? Make sure that the respondents know that it's one year from the previous hearing, which I think I was clear on, but just make sure. MR. KELLY: I didn't want it to be confusing. That's why I stated the date that it would actually come up. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next will be, if I'm not mistaken, a motion for continuance. Will be Carlos Perez. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. GODDY: Good morning. Craig Gaddy, on behalf of the Respondent Carlos Perez. We had sent in a motion for continuance. We were recently retained, last week actually, to come in and help rectify the situation. I don't have a ton of factual issues on the case. What I can tell you is we do have the architect scheduled to go out to the property, Page 1 7 June 25, 2009 take a look at the property, recommend different -- basically whatever's going to be the cheapest financial way to take care of the problem. As a result, we've requested -- my original motion to the board, I had requested 30 to 60 days. Ninety may be more appropriate, just based on the architect's schedule and the construction schedule, whatever's going to need to be done. And that's the motion I'd like to make is just request a 90-day continuance of the hearing for the imposition of the fines. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: This case is back from 2007 is when it was originally opened. When did we hear this case? MR. SNOW: August 22nd, sir. CHA~RMAN LEFEBVRE: Of -- last year? MR. SNOW: Of '08, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And how much time -- if you refresh my memory, or our memory on what the case was and what time frames we gave to correct. MR. SNOW: Sir, initially it was given a 30-day time frame because of the length of the case. Shortly after the board gave this time frame, the economy went exactly where it is right now. And Mr. Perez has been diligent in trying to get things accomplished. He just hasn't been fiscally able. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What's the violation? MR. SNOW: It was work done in adjoining suites in an industrial condo. So he removed some walls and added some things. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions of the board? MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to ask what the county feels towards that motion. MR. SNOW: I think the motion is acceptable, as long as we have some guidelines and that the board -- that we're going to see progress. If we don't see progress, then we're going to end up back here again. And we just need to see progress. And I think hiring the Page 18 June 25, 2009 attorney to take care of this and hiring an architect to take care of this I think shows progress and a willingness to comply. MR. KAUFMAN: The fines continue to accrue even with the continuance? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. They can come back and ask to abate them at a later date, but the violation's not abated so we can't do anything about that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you feel 90 days -- I guess this is to the respondent -- 90 days is the time necessary, you can get it done in that time to get the architectural -- I guess renderings have to be done, is that correct, and then submit -- MR. GODDY: Well, just also as a little background, the units themselves are the subject of a lawsuit that's a year old now that essentially -- not essentially, it has to do with the ability of Mr. Perez to conduct a business out of there. And frankly, if Mr. Perez loses, the association -- one of the claims was for indemnity and rescission of the building contract. If Mr. Perez loses that lawsuit, the ownership will revert back to the condominium association. However, it's his intention to have this -- he doesn't intend to lose, obviously, and I don't believe he will, I believe a settlement will be worked out. It's also possible that correcting this problem will be part of the settlement. That's one of the things we've been working towards. I believe 90 days is enough to get it taken care of. And I think he's working towards that, irrespective of what's going on with the lawsuit. And I think business-wise he's going to be able to do that. That's what my client's -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is there a date for you to go in front of a judge for this case? Are you in mediation with the parties now? I mean, it sounds like this is an issue that you have to work in conjunction with the courts, and obviously we know the speed of the Page 19 June 25, 2009 courts. MR. GODDY: We have had mediation already. The notice for trial is probably coming as soon as I get back to the office. So it's going to be resolved probably one way or the other within the next three months. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions? MR. KELLY: I just have a comment to the board, if you're closing public discussion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sure. MR. KELLY: My personal feeling is, looking at this case under imposition of fines, I wouldn't see this any different as if the respondent showed up today, the day that he was about to be fined, and saying hey, can you give me more time. Ifhe's not in compliance, we typically don't grant time, we'll go ahead and continue to impose the fines. And then if it's rectified and we see diligence, then we may reduce or abate at that time. But since there's already been a continuance granted in this case and it is so old, I'm not really inclined to grant any further time or a continuance on the imposition of fines. MR. SNOW: Just for some information, I know we're closed to public hearing, but once you impose fines they can't come back and ask to abate. Once you impose those fines, then the next thing after that is 30 days or 90 days after that it goes into foreclosure. So I would rather see compliance first and then we can impose or abate or do whatever the board decides to do. But once you impose those fines -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, what we could do is we could withdraw this from imposition of fines and then they can come back to us. We can put it back on the agenda in 90 days, correct? MS. WALDRON: (Nods head affirmatively.) MR. KAUFMAN: During such time the fines will continue to accrue. Page 20 June 25, 2009 MR. KELLY: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. Do you want to make a motion? MR. KELLY: I believe county would have to withdraw it, right? MS. WALDRON: Yeah, we can do that. We can withdraw. MR. KELLY: It sounds -- you make perfect sense, Supervisor Snow, in your comments. That you're right, it would limit them to 30 days thereafter to file motions. I agree with you there. I would really like to see county just withdraw it, if that's your position. MR. SNOW: We have no objection what the board wants to do. MS. WALDRON: Yeah, the county will withdraw this case and bring it back at a future date. MR. KELLY: Great. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you understand that the fines still are running on it? MR. GODDY: Understood. MR. SNOW: Thank the board for its patience. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. We now are going to move on to stipulations. First one is BCC versus Daniel Herrera, CEB number CESD20080002499. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Investigator Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20080002499, dealing with violations of an unpermitted dwelling unit located at 1307 Orange Street, Immokalee, Florida, 34142. Folio No. 30732360004. Service was given on February 26th of 2008. The undersigned, Daniel Herrera, on behalf of himself, enters into the stipulation and agreement with Collier County as to the resolution of notice of violation in reference to Case No. CESD20080002499, dated the 26th day of February, 2008. Page 21 June 25, 2009 It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $87 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing, abate all violations by applying for and obtaining a Collier County building permit or demolition permit, and request required inspections to be performed and passed through a certificate of completion within 90 days of this hearing or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed. The respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator to perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provision of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you understand? MR. HERRERA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And if you can state your name for the record, please. MR. HERRERA: Daniel Herrera. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. Any questions from the board? MR. KELLY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sure. MR. KELLY: Mr. Herrera, in this agreement that you signed, you have two options: One, to get a building permit, to get the structure as it is, C.O.'d, or a certificate of occupancy, as a guesthouse, or to demolish it. Do you have any personal feelings of which way you want to go? MR. HERRERA: I want to get it for demolition. MR. KELLY: Just going to demolish it. MR. HERRERA: I already got -- today I'm supposed to pick up Page 22 June 25, 2009 the permit, but I just need an extension to finish the job. MR. KELLY: And you think 90 days would be enough for you to handle it? MR. HERRERA: Yeah, I think so. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further questions from the board? (No response.) MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that we accept the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. LA VINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Thank you. The next stipulation will be BCC versus Catalina Calderon Estate, Dimas Ofelia and Jorge Calderon, CEB No. 20071l0455. (Speakers were duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your names, please. MS. DIMAS: Ofelia Dimas. MR. CALDERON: Jorge Calderon. MR. SNOW: This is a stipulation agreement that has been reached between the respondents and the county. The violations are noted in the referenced notice of violation is accurate and I stipulate to their existence. Page 23 June 25, 2009 It is therefore agreed between the parties that the respondents shall pay operational costs in the amount of $87.71 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of the hearing and abate all violations by: Respondent must obtain a Collier County building permit, inspections for his or her property located at 305 Wells Street, Immokalee, Florida, 34142, and a certificate of completion within 90 days of the hearing, or pay a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; or obtain a Collier County demolition permit, inspections and a certificate of completion within 90 days of the hearing or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed until the violation is abated. If the respondents fail to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator to perform a site inspection of compliance. And four is the same as the statement we just read. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: In number two, the third to last line, if the respondent, and then there's a typo there, but I just wanted to make sure it's clear, fails to abate. MR. SNOW: Yes, sir, fails. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes, I just want to make sure that that's very clear, that it's "fails". MR. SNOW: And just for the record for the board, since this case is so old, I have talked to the respondents, and I want this on the record, that if they reach 60 days and sufficient progress hasn't been made for them that they request in writing to come before the board again and ask for an extension of time, rather than expiring and then coming and asking for extension after your time frame has expired. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you want to put that in the order? Page 24 June 25, 2009 MR. SNOW: No, sir, I just want that on the record. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I don't know how the board feels about that. Anything that we're going to have them require to do, I'd like to see as an order or in the order, so they're very clear on what they need to do. That's my-- MR. SNOW: Mr. Chair, I've discussed it with them. I just wanted to make the board aware of that comment. It doesn't -- I don't think it needs to be in there. I think they know. MR. KELLY: If it's just a suggestion -- MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. MR. KELLY: -- yeah, then that's fine. We'll note it for the record. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any discussion of the board or questions? (N 0 response.) MR. KELLY: Just the same as the last case, do you feel as though 90 days is enough time to take care of this issue? MS. DIMAS: We don't exactly know, sir, if90 days is going to be enough time. We're going to try to comply with it. Weare thinking of demolishing it. MR. KELLY: Because you know if you go past 90 days without letting us know or getting an extension, it's $200 a day as a fine. MS. DIMAS: Yes, Mr. Snow has explained it to us. And we'll do our very best to do it. MR. KELLY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What's going to be needed to be required? Is there going to be engineering done and so forth? MR. SNOW: I don't believe the structure is permittable, sir. We just had to give them that option. They've already applied for the demo permit. I talked to Mrs. Calderon this morning. I believe that they've already submitted. I talked to her son who does all the work on the properties. And I just want definitive time frames about what we Page 25 June 25, 2009 want accomplished. I don't want it extended farther than that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. So you think 90 days? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. At the beginning. If they need an extension, they can always ask. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Any further questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that we accept the stipulation as written. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. LA VINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. CALDERON: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. Have a good day. Next case will be -- MS. WALDRON: Can we go back? We skipped a couple on the stipulation list. It would be Item C.3, Renaldo Cortez. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Well, yeah, I mean stipulated agreements, yes, that's what I meant. Yeah. BCC versus Reynaldo Cortez, Jr., CEB No. CESD20080008613. Page 26 June 25, 2009 (Speakers were duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your names, please. MR. CORTEZ: Reynaldo Cortez, Jr. MRS. CORTEZ: Francesca Cortez, his mom. MS. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Investigator Maria Rodriguez. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20080008613, dealing with violations of an unpermitted structure being utilized as living space on property that is zoned vacant residential. No permits obtained as required by Collier County Land Development Code. Located at 213 Jefferson Avenue. Folio No. 63861040000. Service was given on May 27th, 2009. The undersigned, Reynaldo Cortez, Jr., on behalf of himself, enters into the stipulation and agreement with Collier County as to the resolution of notices of violation in reference to Case No. CESD20082008613, dated the 27th day of May, 2009. Therefore, it is agreed between parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $86.71 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Must apply for and obtain all required permits for building/structure within 30 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the permit is obtained, and request required inspections to be performed and pass and obtain a certificate of occupancy within 60 days of permit issuance, or a fine of 200 per day will be imposed. Or apply for and obtain a Collier County demolition permit and remove said building/structure from the property and dispose of debris to a site suitable for such disposal, and obtain necessary inspections and certificates of completion within 90 days of the hearing or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed. The respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator to perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Page 27 June 25, 2009 That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provision of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I just have some questions regarding number two. States that permits have to be applied for, let me see, applied for and obtained. Apply for and obtain all permits within 30 days. And then you have 60 days after you get the permit. Now, the demolition permit, you basically have 90 days from the date of this hearing. What happens if we go beyond -- they go beyond the time periods for trying to get the permits, the time period for the demolition starts to kick in? MS. RODRIGUEZ: They've already applied for the permits. And it's been ready for a while. They just haven't got it -- haven't paid for it to get it yet, so -- I mean, it's already ready. All they have to do is pay for it to get the permit. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So you can eliminate apply for and obtain and just put in there must -- we can put in a time period of 60 days, basically. Because there's not a waiting period for permits at this point. So they can agree to 60 days from today to get the permits -- to get the work done. I'd like to try to simplify it. And then if that's not obtainable, which it sounds like it is, I don't know what the -- MR. KELLY: If I may, is it more or less an issue that you're giving them 30 days to get up the funds to pick up those permits? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yeah. MR. KELLY: And my question is, is there a health or safety issue involved? MS. RODRIGUEZ: No, it's -- no one's living in it. MR. KELLY: Okay, good. I'm okay with the language. MR. HEMES: I have a question. What is the cost of these permits? MS. RODRIGUEZ: It's almost $17,000. Page 28 June 25, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Just for the permits? Is that the impact fees and everything? MS. RODRIGUEZ: (Nods head affirmatively.) MR. ORTEGA: I have a question. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sure. MR. ORTEGA: Have they spoken to impact fees (sic) to see if they can reduce the impact fees? MS. RODRIGUEZ: It was reduced. Originally it was 24,000. MRS. CORTEZ: Yeah. MS. RODRIGUEZ: So they reduced it to almost 17,000. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is 30 days realistic for you to -- do you have the funds? MRS. CORTEZ: Well, right now we got a letter from the bank that he was approved for a loan. And I think we're going to get it Monday. MR. CORTEZ: They said they was going to be closed on Monday, so -- I got the letter right here. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, the problem is, if you submit that to us as evidence, then we have to keep it. We have to enter it into record. So -- MR. KAUFMAN: I have one question. Is that a letter that says that you're qualified for the loan or the loan has been granted? MR. CORTEZ: It says that we have been approved. Can I show you? MR. KAUFMAN: There's different language. MS. WALDRON: We can make copies of it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you? MS. WALDRON: Yeah, if you want to admit it into evidence. MRS. CORTEZ: Is there any way that we can get about 90 days to close the whole thing? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, you actually do have 90 days, because you have 30 days to get the permit and then another 60 days Page 29 June 25, 2009 to complete the work. MRS. CORTEZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right? MRS. CORTEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So just hypothetically, if you go to pick up the permit next week, you have 60 days from when you on -- from the way I read this, you have 60 days from when you pick up the permit to complete the work to get the certificate of occupancy, get all inspections done. MRS. CORTEZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I think we're waiting to get some copies so we can submit it into evidence. And let's see what that letter looks like, and then we'll go from there. Any other questions of the board? MR. ORTEGA: I have a question. Is this a manufactured home? Was this a home that's already built? MRS. CORTEZ: It was already built when we bought it. MR. ORTEGA: So this is a permit by affidavit? MRS. CORTEZ: I think so. MR. ORTEGA: So in other words, is the home in compliance as we speak, or are there modifications that need to be made in order to be in compliance with the current code? MRS. CORTEZ: Actually, they told us that we needed an inspector to go and look at it and see -- to see what was wrong with it before we put people in it. MR. ORTEGA: The permit by affidavit, once submitted, basically it's inspected by an engineer, if that's the case. Typically there's going to be modifications that are going to be required. The point is, is 60 days to do the work going to really be enough, depending -- I don't know the scope of the work, so I'm not sure that's going to be enough. Page 30 June 25, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What's the permit for? MS. RODRIGUEZ: It's for a single-family home. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But it doesn't say like if work has to be done, let's say. It just says go and get a C.O., or -- MR. KELLY: If I may, I believe it's every inspection from site all the way up to final, everything. It's a home that was built without permits. MRS. CORTEZ: Actually, it was built there when we bought the property. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right, but at some point it was built and it was never -- do you know if there's any inspections that have been done on this house and it just never got a C.O., a certificate of occupancy? MRS. CORTEZ: I don't know. MS. RODRIGUEZ: There's no permits for that construction. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: There's no permits whatsoever. Okay. MR. ORTEGA: What's going to happen is that regardless, the structure is there and it's in compliance. What was submitted to the county doesn't necessarily mean it reflects what's on the field. The first -- my first question would be the elevation. Would the elevation be in according to the LDC 18 inches above the crown of the road, if it's a paved road, 24 if it's an unpaved road. Those are the first questions. Because again, whatever's submitted may not be reflective of what's there, and then all this is redundant. MR. KAUFMAN: Is there electricity in the house right now? MRS. CORTEZ: Yes. MR. CORTEZ: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: There's electricity and there's a septic? MRS. CORTEZ: Yes, it's got the sewer in it. MR. KAUFMAN: Just to follow along your point, because that's another inspection, the elevation of the septic, et cetera, et cetera. It Page 3 1 June 25, 2009 certainly requires quite a bit of time to do that, I agree with you. MR. ORTEGA: But how would you acquire power without a permit? I'm sure FP &L was cognizant of that. MR. KAUFMAN: I'm not so sure. MR. KELLY: LCEC out there. Yeah, my concern is what happens if you get into a situation where -- you said the elevation isn't right. Now the structure isn't -- I mean, they won't allow it unless you get a variance. MR. ORTEGA: Right. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, there's a letter that they would like to submit as evidence. So do I hear a motion to accept that letter? MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make that motion to accept the letter. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. LA VINSKI: Second. MR. HEMES: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. KELLY: I have another question for you. Do you know what year that structure was built, and can you prove it? MRS. CORTEZ: I think the original owner that was the original Page 32 June 25, 2009 owner, he built the house somewhere in the 1965 -- '65 or '69, I'm not sure. MR. LETOURNEAU: Gentlemen, I would like to point out the fact that a permit by affidavit would be permitted for the time the structure was built. So it's not going to be quite up to the stringent codes of 2009. They're going to go all the way back to whenever that structure was built. And if it meets the codes at that time, that's all the engineer has to sign off on. Plus it's not going to get the amount of inspections that a normal permit would be getting. MR. KELLY: Just a follow-up question. Because that's exactly where I was going with that. What year was Collier County -- did they form their permit department to where it was required to have a permit? MR. LETOURNEAU: I can't answer that. I do believe, though, it goes probably back -- I can't really answer that, you know, off the top of my head. MR. KELLY: Because if this structure was built prior to it, maybe no permit was required and there is no violation. MR. LETOURNEAU: I believe it goes back to at least -- I think I've seen permits back to the early Sixties. So if it was built in '60, it would be required. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Everyone had a chance to review the letter here? All right, I guess the question is do we feel that 60 days after the permit is pulled is a sufficient amount of time to get everything done. Have you hired an engineer? MRS. CORTEZ: Yeah, a guy from Immokalee. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's okay if you don't remember the name. But you have hired an engineer. MRS. CORTEZ: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So you have people lined up to -- MRS. CORTEZ: Since we got the -- they gave us the first notice Page 33 June 25, 2009 of the code enforcement, we hired him. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Very good. MR. KAUFMAN: Since the dwelling is unoccupied and since his violation goes back to May of a year ago, does the county have any problem with extending the time, knowing that the building department's now on a four-day workweek and getting things approved is kind of delayed? MS. RODRIGUEZ: No, we have no objection. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, everything's approved, I mean, for the permit, so -- MR. KAUFMAN: But after the permit is pulled-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: -- to get everything done and inspected is going to take probably longer than we have allocated here. So I would like to see us discuss an extension of time to have everything done, if the county has no problem with that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, I'd like to keep the 30 days from the hearing to pick up the permits. And maybe we can work on the other, the 60 days, possibly 90 days? What is the board's thought on that? MR. KAUFMAN: Well, I think 90 days is better than 60 days. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thirty days better. MR. KAUFMAN: Yeah, about 30 days better. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Kelly? MR. KELLY: I don't want to throw a wrench in this whole thing, but I don't think a violation exists. Until -- I mean, I'm not a counselor or anything, and I'm not going to sit here and advise, but I'm not in support of the agreement unless I can be shown in some way that this house was required to have permits when it was built. I mean, they don't know the years. They said early Sixties. Who knows, maybe it doesn't. Maybe there is no violation. Maybe they don't have to get permits. Page 34 June 25, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any comments from the board? MR. ORTEGA: Has a chain of title been conducted on this property at all to trace it back? We've dealt with situations like this. MS. RODRIGUEZ: We did the -- with property appraisal and pulled the property I.D. card. MR. ORTEGA: Dating back to? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Well, property I.D. cards date back till the Fifties. MR. ORTEGA: And that's what you had, till' the Fifties? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yeah. And there's nothing showing that anything was ever permitted. It was a vacant lot. I don't even think they were getting -- there's no taxes on it, paid on it. MR. ORTEGA: Sometimes by recruiting resources within the area, this is Immokalee, original developers as such, they might have some input. Even the lawyers that handled the property sale at that point might still be around and they might have some information towards that particular situation. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, I mean, then that we'd be looking at a continuance. So we have a stipulated agreement, they have agreed. Looking for a motion to either accept the agreement as-is or possibly modify it. What is the board's -- MR. KAUFMAN: I think the county has something to say. MS. RODRIGUEZ: If the permitting department felt that one was not required, then why would they have issued them a permit for the single-family home? MR. ORTEGA: It could have just been an oversight. Just like when we've commenced this discussion regarding the home, I didn't know it was built in the 1960's either. So maybe they didn't take that in consideration as well. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Well, we've looked back. I mean, we've got records from Immokalee dating back to the Fifties that I went back Page 35 June 25, 2009 and I researched and we found nothing. No permits. From the Fifties, Sixties, Seventies, Eighties, Nineties up until now. MR. KAUFMAN: Are you saying that if a house is built, let's say, in 1949 -- MS. RODRIGUEZ: As far back as we could see was the Fifties. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. But if one was built back in 1949 and there were no permits required at that time, that means that house is free from taxes forever? MS. RODRIGUEZ: It shouldn't be. MR. KAUFMAN: I agree. But I'm just trying to go -- so now we're going from '49 forward. There are no taxes being paid on that dwelling right now. That's not C.O.'d. MS. RODRIGUEZ: No. MR. KAUFMAN: So in and the county's eyes it doesn't exist. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Correct. MR. KAUFMAN: So there are no taxes being paid. So regardless of whether they required a permit back in 1965 or not, something needs to be done to bring that property, A, in compliance with basic safety codes, and to put it on the tax rolls. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Correct. MR. LETOURNEAU: I'd like to say once again that I have personally seen permits run back to the early Sixties. They had to hire an engineer or an architect to do that affidavit by -- permit by affidavit, which meant that they felt that they needed a permit at that time, too. So, I mean -- MR. KELLY: Like I say, I didn't want to throw a wrench in the process. It's almost irrelevant, because they did stipulate to the violation. So -- MR. KAUFMAN: So you withdraw your wrench? MR. KELLY: No, I mean, I'm just throwing it out there. I guess I just like drama or something, I don't know. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right, we have a stipulated Page 36 June 25, 2009 agreement. Do we have a motion to either accept or to modify the agreement? MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion to modify it, and I'd like to change the 60 days to 90 days. County has no problem with that. MS. RODRIGUEZ: We have no problem with that. MR. HEMES: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? MR. ORTEGA: I'd like to throw in another wrench. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We have enough wrenches. MR. ORTEGA: I concur with you, if a permit was not required, and I'm not saying it wasn't, I think this needs to be unveiled first, don't you think? Because -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Could we request the county staff to do a little bit more research and determine that, the possibility that he's mentioned? MR. KELLY: I don't think it's the board's position to act as counsel for the respondent and ask them to withdraw their stipulated agreement. However, this could fall to the case section as a normal hearing. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, we have a first, second. Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I have -- all those in favor? MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? MR. KELLY: Nay. Page 37 June 25, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: One nay. Mr. Kelly. Motion passes. Do you understand what we just did? It was -- you have 30 days to pick up the permit. And instead of the of the 60 days, which we'd like them to initial the change, you will have 90 days after you pick up the permit to get the work done and to get the C.O., certificate of occupancy. So we gave you an extra 30 days on that end. MRS. CORTEZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Have a great day. All right, Jen, make sure I'm going in order. BCC versus Gentilhomme and Jean Saurel Louissaint. CEB No. 2 -- I'm sorry, CEB No. CESD20080014978. (Speakers were duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your names, please? MR. LOUISSAINT: Jean S. Louissaint. MR. GENTILHOMME LOUISSAINT: My name is Gentilhomme Louissaint. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you need the spelling of that? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, please. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: G-E-N-T-I-L-H-O-M-M-E. MR. SNOW: This is concerning Case No. CESD20080014978. And for the record, Code Enforcement Kitchell Snow. K-I-T-C-H-E-L-L, S-N-O-W. It is agreed between the parties that there is a violation and they stipulate to their existence. And they agree that they're going to pay operational costs in the amount a of 86.71 incurred in the prosecution of the case within 30 days of the date of the hearing and abate all violations by: Obtain a Collier County building permit with all inspections through a certificate of completion within 90 days of the hearing or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed; or obtain a Collier County demolition permit to remove the shed with improvements and all inspections through a certificate of completion within 90 days of Page 38 June 25, 2009 the date of the hearing or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed. And B, will remove all refuse use from the demolition to a site suitable for such disposal. Three, the respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator to perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. And four, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You understand and agree to this? MR. LOUISSAINT: Yes, sir. MR. GENTILHOMME LOUISSAINT: Yes. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Supervisor Snow? MR. SNOW: Sir? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Paragraph three, last sentence, or a fine of $200 per day? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. We need to -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions of the board, of the respondent or the investigator? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion that we accept the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. LA VINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. Page 39 June 25, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. SNOW: We thank the board. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next stipulation will be BCC versus Alberto E. Franco and Juana Leon. MR. ORTEGA: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MR. ORTEGA: I have a conflict with this case. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And you've indicated to me that you won't be voting or participating in the matter. And would you like to briefly state the nature of your conflict. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, usually that's not done. There's a form that he has to fill out. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes, I've given him the form already. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But usually we don't state on record what the conflict is. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I don't remember that. MR. ORTEGA: It's up to the board. MR. KELLY: We do usually step down, though. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. (Speakers were duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your names, please. MS. LEON: Juana Leon. MR. FRANCO: Alberto Franco. Page 40 June 25, 2009 MR. PAUL: For the record, Renald Paul, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20080012107, dealing with violations of Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Article 2, Florida Building Code, Section 22-26(B). 104.5.1.4.4. Location at hand is 5348 18th Court Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116. Permits were abandoned and canceled for addition, garage conversion and shed. Both owners have agreed to stipulate to paying operational costs in the amount of $87 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate all violations by: Respondents are required to obtain any and all permits as required by Collier County for any and all improvements and alterations to the residence or obtain a demolition permit for removal of all improvements to this property and obtain all required inspections and certificate of completion within 120 days of this hearing or be fined $200 a day until abatement. Respondents must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement. If respondents fail to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement. And all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you can state your names for the record, please. MS. LEON: Juana Leon. MR. FRANCO: Alberto Franco. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. And you agree to the stipulated agreement? MS. LEON: Yes. Page 41 June 25, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good. Any questions of the board? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: When was the permit issued for this -- these improvements? And when did it expire? MR. PAUL: These permits were issued in '05 and '06, due to circumstances. They ended up being canceled because there were no inspections drawn on them. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So they were good for six months and then -- MR. PAUL: Yeah, they expired and they canceled them out. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Would those permits be reissued or would there be new permits issued? MR. PAUL: What they would have to do is get the permits in their name, because a contractor had done the work originally. So they'd have to get them in their names for them to do it by owner, permit by owner, so -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Any further questions? MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion we accept the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. HEMES: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 42 June 25, 2009 MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Thank you. MS. LEON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We'll move on to the next case. Next case will be BCC versus Michael Doty and Marcia Doty. (Speakers were duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your names, please. MR. LLORCA: Carlo, last name, Llorca. L-L-O-R-C-A. MR. FAY: Jon Fay. J-O-N. F-A-Y. MS. DOTY: Marcia Doty. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You have to read the case again, correct? I know, it's been stipulated agreements, so -- MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article 6, Section 22-231, Subsections 1, 2 and 11. Description of violation: Dwelling being occupied without water and electricity. Location/address where violations exists: 4048 Skyway Drive, Naples, Florida, 34112. Folio 82941840004. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Michael and Marcia Doty, 4048 Skyway Drive, Naples, Florida, 34112. Date violation first observed: June 17th, 2009. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: Is not applicable. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: Immediately. Date ofre-inspection: June 23rd, 2009. Results ofre- inspection: The violation remains. At this time I'd like to present Investigator Joe Mucha. Page 43 June 25, 2009 MR. MUCHA: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Joe Mucha, Property Maintenance Specialist, Collier County Code Enforcement. This case initiated as an anonymous complaint to our department, received on June 15th. ' I made a site visit to the property on June 17th, last week, and at that time I actually met with one of the residents of the neighborhood, Mr. Llorca. I'd like to call him up. Just kind of basically explain what you told me before I went to the property. MR. LLORCA: Okay, I don't know exactly who made the anonymous phone call, but on that date that he was coming through, I was actually on my way to go to work and in a marked patrol vehicle. As I was leaving, I actually saw him coming in and I questioned him on the address, this location. He said, that's actually where I'm going to. And I gave him a little brief synopsis of what's going on and what was happening there. It's been going on for actually about two, two and a half months now. But he just came involved into this now. MR. MUCHA: You want to explain? MR. LLORCA: Approximately two, two and a half months ago we had a young lady by the first name of Gretchen and a gentleman move into this location at 4048 Skyway Drive. We observed them there. Some of the other residents were having some kind of issues with them. Gretchen started just walking into homes, grabbing cell phones, using cell phones. We've had several burglaries just in our general area. Never had one there. I've been there for eight, nine years, this is the first one we've had. We've had several items missing from garages, hangars, golf carts, so forth. So I started kind of looking to see what she was -- you know, what was going on in this house. I really can't pinpoint that they're the ones actually doing it, but these occurrences started happening once Page 44 June 25, 2009 she arrived, and her boyfriend. I did some other checking up on the subjects. Multiple pawn shop entries and so forth through our systems. Checked on the house. There was no power. The meter hasn't moved. No water. Then I actually noticed an extension cord coming from the 4048 to one of the neighbors houses only here seasonal. We kind of questioned why it was, what was going on. The meter was never turning. Some of the other residents actually got involved and now she's actually going from door to door basically begging for money at this point. So now it becomes not only so much they don't have the power, it's the welfare. We don't know what's going on with her. She doesn't even look healthy. So I don't know exactly what's going on at this point. But it's just everything's been escalating. And she hasn't left. And, you know, we basically have asked her if she's going to leave and there's no intention of her leaving at all. MR. MUCHA: So on that date, June 17th, I actually met with him before I actually made my way to the property. I went to the property, knocked on the door, nobody answered. I left my business card there. I took a walk around the property, looked at the electrical meter and could see that it was not moving, that there was no electricity coming to the house. I finished my walk around the building and I observed through the windows that there were cats inside and I could see furniture and stuff like that. It looked like it was being occupied. So at that time I did some more research, found out that the water had been actually shut off for almost a year; I believe it was April, 2008 is when the water was shut off to the property. And I also found that the property is in the foreclosure process as well. So that concerned me, that there's a good chance that somebody's staying Page 45 June 25, 2009 there with no water and electricity. So on June 23rd I prepared the case for an emergency hearing. I went out to the property, posted notice of hearing at the property and the courthouse. And I observed at that time that my business card had been removed and there was a bag of trash in front of the door that wasn't there on my last visit, so that just kind of confirmed everything for me at that point. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Did you notice a power cord coming from one unit? MR. MUCHA: I did not notice a power cord at that time, or the first time. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you'd like to respond to-- MS. DOTY: Yeah, I'd like to respond to part of it. Yes, she's there and I know that. The burglaries that were happening that you have now said that happened since she moved in, I have to say that actually it was happening before she got there, because I was in contact with one of the neighbors out there. And at that time I noticed my house was being broken into because the back door locks from the inside and the key was broken off, so it was multiple entry. I tried to call Carlos several times to let him know that I thought my house was being used as like the lookout, because it has a huge window that looks out on people's yards. And I never did get a hold of him. So -- and when my daughter needed a place to go, it was kind of like maybe that would be helpful. So my house wasn't -- I didn't want it being trashed at the same time. So anyway, that's just to negate that one. She's the guilty person, and I'm guilty for letting her be there. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So it's your daughter that's living there currently? MS. DOTY: Yeah. So I'm saying yes to everything. I tried to agree to do this without doing this, but they didn't want it. So whatever Page 46 June 25, 2009 the deal is, the deal is. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions from the board? (No response.) MR. ORTEGA: I don't really have this case in front of me so I really have no knowledge of what is actually going on, other than what I just heard. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It was given to us this morning. MS. DOTY: We were notified yesterday. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to know if the county has any recommendation. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, we really should find that there's a violation first. Well, before that, let me ask: Do you know in fact if the power -- are you aware that the power is turned off? MS. DOTY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And also, the water is not on; is that correct? MS. DOTY: That is correct. MR. KELLY: In that case, I'll make a motion that a violation exists. 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. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. Page 47 June 25, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. And now for your recommendation. MR. MUCHA: Well, I do have one question for her. What is -- because we both kind of agreed that, you know, everybody needs to leave there. When would be a reasonable amount of time for this to happen? MS. DOTY: She's having gallbladder surgery right now, so I would ask for five days so I can get her out of the hospital first to get her stuff. MR. MUCHA: So by June 29th? MS. DOTY: How about on her birthday, July 1st? Can I do July 1st? MR. MUCHA: Okay, well, my recommendation would be that either the water and electricity to the dwelling has to be restored by July 1 st or vacated until such time as the water and electricity can be restored. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you have that -- can you put that up on the scene? Thank you. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Your daughter is currently not at the residence. MS. DOTY: She's in a Fort Myers hospital. MR. L'ESPERANCE: She's in the hospital. MR. HEMES: Do you own this house? MS. DOTY: Yes. MR. HEMES: Do you have a mortgage on it? MS. DOTY: Yes. MR. HEMES: And you're current on your taxes? MS. DOTY: Yes, I think we are right now. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I heard testimony that it was in foreclosure. Page 48 June 25, 2009 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is that correct? MS. DOTY: It's not in foreclosure yet. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is there a possibility of utilities being restored? MS. DOTY: There's a possibility we might get the house back. We're working with the bank right now. MR. L'ESPERANCE: How about utilities? MS. DOTY: No, she'll vacate. And I'm not going to turn them on unless I move back. MR. KELLY: Investigator, is there operational costs? MR. MUCHA: I'm sorry, yes, there is. Operational costs of $86.71 incurred in the prosecution of this case, to be paid within 30 days. MR. KELLY: And do you or anyone does from the county know the provisions on health and welfare cases such as these as far as the shortest time and fine rates and everything as a guideline? MR. MUCHA: Normally with something like this, we would ask for it to be immediately, the violations to be corrected or a $500 a day fine. MR. L'ESPERANCE: This is a health, safety and welfare issue. A person cannot be living in a structure without utilities. It's as simple as that. MR. KELLY: Right. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you want to make a motion and put in dates and a fine amount? MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'd like to make a motion that the respondent must restore the water and electricity to the dwelling or vacate the premise of all occupants by -- what is today's date, the -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: 24th. MR. L'ESPERANCE: By June 24th, 2009 or a fine of $500 per day will be imposed until the violations are abated. What else does the county need? Page 49 June 25, 2009 MR. MUCHA: I'm sorry, did you say today is -- today is actually the 25th. What date did you want? MR. L'ESPERANCE: By today. MR. MUCHA: By today, okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Or a fine of how much? MR. L'ESPERANCE: $500 per day. MR. MUCHA: And I just want to maybe put it in there too that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violations 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 the property owner. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Paragraph two will stand as written, yes. MR. MUCHA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And then also notify -- MR. MUCHA: Yes, the respondents must notify me as soon as they have left the premises. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll accept that. MS. DOTY: Can I ask the question, then? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sure. MS. DOTY: How is she to leave the premises today when she's not there and I can't take -- am I supposed to go take her stuff out? I'm just asking so I know so I don't get it wrong. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Well, the intent of the motion is for a person not to live in the premises anymore as of right now. MS. DOTY: Okay. So she can go back when she gets out of the hospital and get her things and that's okay? MR. MUCHA: Absolutely. MS. DOTY: I'm just making sure, because I don't want to get in trouble again. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Just so nobody's living, sleeping, cooking. MS. DOTY: Got it, okay. MR. L'ESPERANCE: It's just not safe. It's not healthy. Page 50 June 25, 2009 Yes, you may take the items out of the residence, yes. MR. KELLY: And did you also mention in your motion the operational costs? MR. L'ESPERANCE: If I did not, please insert the operational costs of the number you mentioned. MR. MUCHA: Yes, the operational cost of$86.71 to be paid within 30 days. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Please do insert that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Well, before-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, let's have a second, then we can have discussion. MR. KAUFMAN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Any further discussion? MR. KAUFMAN: I have a ques -- from what I understand then, if she was not living there, you could leave her stuff there and then come back in a month from now. As long as she's not living there. So there's no -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Rush. MR. KAUFMAN: There's no rush to do it. And as far as living there without electricity and water, you're her mother, I'm sure that you agree to that as well. MS. DOTY: It was better than the street. MR. HEMES: And if there are cats there, I suggest you pick them up immediately. MR. MUCHA: Yeah, just for the record, I did inform Domestic Animal Services about the cats residing there. So they may be coming by to visit. So if you want to save the cats, I suggest removing them. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? Page 51 June25, 2009 MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Would you like a little few-minutes break? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're going to take a break till 20 of, so 12 minutes. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right, we're going to move on to motion for -- I'm going to call the Code Enforcement Board meeting back to order. And we're going to move on to old business. Motion for imposition of fines. BCC versus Linnette Barrett. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And respondent's not in the room, correct? MR. PAUL: No, she's not. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. Has any work been done on -- MR. PAUL: No, it hasn't. Nothing's been done. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: When is the last time you were there? MR. PAUL: I was there yesterday. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yesterday. MR. KAUFMAN: Have you been in contact with the respondent? Page 52 June 25, 2009 MR. PAUL: No, I haven't. She hasn't called me or anything. She hasn't done anything. I think she's just allowing the bank to take the house. She's really waiting on them to foreclose on it. So she's not going to do anything, I don't think. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Has he been sworn in? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. MR. KELLY: Given the fact that there has not been compliance and the operational costs have not been paid, I make a motion that we impose the fines as per the order of $6,286.71, and fines continue to accrue. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. MR. LA VINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: With none, do I hear a vote? All those in favor? MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. WALDRON: Can I just put on the record too, just since the respondent is not here, that we did send the notice certified mail. And it was also posted. The notice of hearing was posted at the property and the courthouse on 3/11. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good. Page 53 June 25, 2009 Next case, BCC versus Israel and Delma Gallegos. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you can state your names for the record, please. MR. MUSSE: Jonathan Musse, Collier County Code Enforcement. MR. GALLEGOS: Jacob Gallegos. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. Is it correct you have not complied? MR. GALLEGOS: Well, yeah, up to the date that was given, that's correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Have you corrected -- did you get the permits? MR. GALLEGOS: No. That's what I discussed with him earlier. We filed for a permit on the -- I think it's April 2nd. I was delayed a little bit because on -- I want to say in February I was given a letter, my dad was supposed to demolish a home on 2401 Eden Avenue, which we accomplished. It cost him close to $6,000 to do that. And I was given almost eight months to correct these violations. We have -- I have plans. We're on the verge of getting a permit to do the remodeling, do everything that needs to be done to the property. I mean, I think my dad's done -- he's given a valiant effort to try to get this corrected. We're on the verge of finishing it. I mean, we just -- once the permit gets issued he could start the work; Freeman and Freeman Construction could start his job to get this completed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Are you one of the owners on this property, or not? You're representing your -- MR. GALLEGOS: Yeah, I represent -- I've always come with my father. He couldn't come today. He's diabetic. Last time I had to run out and get a check. You guys probably remember, I had to come back, I was kind of late. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right. Page 54 June 25, 2009 Any other questions from the board? MR. ORTEGA: Yes. The remaining work that you have to do, this is additions to a single-family residence? MR. GALLEGOS: Right. MR. ORTEGA: But the permit has not been applied for. MR. GALLEGOS: No, it's been applied. We have a permit number and everything. The floor plan is the only thing holding up with the engineer since almost, I want to say, 13 days ago down to planning. MR. ORTEGA: You're speaking about a rejection? MR. GALLEGOS: Yeah, speaking about one rejection that's left. It has been rejected several times. There's one rejection left that we're waiting on. As soon as the permits issued, we will go forward on completing what needs to be completed. MR. ORTEGA: And who's we? MR. GALLEGOS: Well, I say Freeman and Freeman, or my father. MR. ORTEGA: The contractor for-- MR. GALLEGOS: The contractor, right. MR. ORTEGA: Understand. Okay. MR. GALLEGOS: So we have a contractor, I have plans, I have everything. Everything. We're waiting on one rej ection to be reviewed so they can issue the permit and we can go forward and he can finish this up so we wouldn't have to come back here no more. I've been here several times. MR. L'ESPERANCE: How much -- Mr. Gallegos, what are you requesting this board to do? MR. GALLEGOS: Well, it's just about imposing the fine. I mean, the job is valued at 22,000. Freeman and Freeman has offered to do it for $16,000. Which he's given us a break. I know him from Immokalee for a while. He was my football coach when I was at Pop Warner. Page 55 June 25, 2009 I just need a few more months or I don't know what you guys would say is a nice time table or a decent time table to finish the job. He's come this far, he's gotten the plans. I mean, we're on the verge of finishing it so we won't have to -- I wouldn't have to come back up here. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Ifwe impose the fines, they would have then 30 days, and then you start the foreclosure process; is that correct? MS. WALDRON: No, it's 90 days. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Ninety days. MR. KELLY: However, they'd have 30 days to submit for a reduction or abatement. MS. WALDRON: Well, they can really submit in any of that time frame and we will consider it. They have 30 days to appeal your decision. MR. KELLY: I see. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So we could either have it withdrawn to a period of what, say 60 days out or 90 days out, impose the fines. So I guess it would be up to the board to make that decision. MS. WALDRON: One of the options for the board too is if you'd like to give him an extension of time, we can do an order for extension of time, if that's what you want to do as well. Then the fines would stop running and he would have more time to finish. MR. KELLY: That's what I'd be inclined to recommend. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is it changing the original order? MR. KELLY: There's been due diligence on this case and on the others. This is the kind of response that we want from our respondents. MR. KAUFMAN: What does the county want? You have an opinion on it? MR. MUSSE: I have no objection to the continuance of the case. The only thing I'd like to put on record, because the permit is for a 951 square foot attached storage shed. All those additions he's going to Page 56 June 25, 2009 convert it to a storage shed. I'd just like to put on record that it would not be converted back to living space. MR. ORTEGA: I have a quick question. Have you connected with your contractor how long the work's going to take? MR. GALLEGOS: He figured anywhere between -- I mean, and it's pushing it, 90 days to 120 days. And that's hoping everything comes out right, the rej ection is okay. And we're already in July. I know it's June, but we're going into July, so -- I mean, that was his -- you know, he's saying that's as fast as I can go. That's working on it. I mean, that's not including we're in rainy season now, so -- MR. KELLY: Is the dwelling occupied? MR. GALLEGOS: Yeah, a portion of it is. The storage, the one that's being converted to storage is -- the plumbing's going to be ripped out, the electrical's going to be -- that kind of stuff is going to be done. MR. KELLY: So that part's not-- MR. GALLEGOS: No, that's not going to be occupied. So I'm just asking for a little more time. I mean, my dad's come this far. I mean, we demolished the home, I think you guys remember a few months ago. That was an issue. We were getting $500 fine a day. And he had to come up with that money. See, that money that was going to be used for this kind of set us back a little bit. And we were going to file for the permit then, but when that issue came up, we had to deal with that. And then it set us back a little bit. Other than -- I mean, I think he's given a good effort to try to finish this up and we're just waiting on one rejection. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good. Do I hear amotion? MR. KELLY: I make a motion that we extend the time frame on the original order to where completion would be done by October 1st, 2009. Page 57 June 25, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So that's three months. Well, a few days more. He's saying that might not be enough. MR. KELLY: We could make it November. MR. ORTEGA: At least four months. MR. KELLY: December, then. MR. GALLEGOS: Because I have to get a C.O. and all that. MR. KELLY: If it pleases everyone, then, we'll just make it December. Extending the original order to December 1st, 2009. MR. GALLEGOS: I appreciate it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. GALLEGOS: Thank you so very much. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You're very welcome. Next case will be BCC versus Robert Toski. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. BALDWIN: For the record, Investigator Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. MS. WALDRON: Just for the record, too, since the respondent is not here, the notice of hearing was sent certified mail and was also Page 58 June 25, 2009 posted at that property and the courthouse on 6/3/09. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Any work been done on this to correct the violation? MR. BALDWIN: Yes. The screen enclosure is up. As per our last meeting it was up. He just needed to get it C.O.'d. And he has not got it C.O.'d. About a month and a half ago the final building got rej ected. I've had several -- I've made several attempts to contact the contractor to let him know that the final building got rej ected. And he is aware of that, he's called me back, but still it has not been C.O.'d. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions? MR. ORTEGA: In the spirit of assessing time, what was the nature of the rej ection, by the way? MR. BALD WIN: It just -- per the notes in the computer system, it was just rejected. I don't know why, I didn't speak to the inspector. MR. ORTEGA: The point to that question was whether it was just a negligible rejection, or was it one of setbacks? Because once you do a screen enclosure, you're going to be required to have a spot survey, and that will determine whether it's in compliance or not. So if that's the case and he's not in compliance, then you're looking at vanances. MR. BALDWIN: I don't believe that would be an issue, sir. It was the final that was rejected. I don't know what for, but I believe everything would have been all right with the survey per setbacks. MR. ORTEGA: Okay. MR. HEMES: Is this property occupied? MR. BALDWIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions of the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. KELLY: I'll make a motion that we impose the fines of $6,687.57, including the operational costs, which have not been paid. Page 59 June 25, 2009 The fines continue to accrue. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. HEMES: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. BALDWIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next motion will be for BCC versus M&M Developers, LLC. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: For the record, since the respondent is not here, the notice of hearing was sent certified mail, and we have return receipt signed on 6/19/09. And the property and the courthouse were also posted on June 11 tho CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Has the work been completed? Anything been done? MR. SNOW: Sir, the -- I talked to the property owner, Mr. Austin, on several occasions. And the problem has arisen with the tenant. And the tenant had got a notice of commencement, but they had done all the work previously on this property, if you remember, it was on the second story. And apparently this is such an older building, there were no Page 60 June 25, 2009 drawings of what originally was supposed to be there, so he was at a quandary. He didn't know what he was going to do. We set up a meeting with Bob Dunn to discuss what his options were. And he had to get an architect, and engineer and try to get plans on what he wanted to do. But as you know, the way the economy was, I guess he decided not to do that, he was going to demo it. As of the 11 th, when -- my last conversation with Mr. Austin, he had not accomplished that yet. I'm very sorry that he's not here today. He told me he was going to be here. So I don't know what else we could possibly do. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions of the board? MR. ORTEGA: Yes, is Mr. Austin and M&M Developers the same? MR. SNOW: He's the property owner, yes, sir. MR. ORTEGA: Mr. Austin is? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. MR. ORTEGA: And why is M&M the respondent? They were doing the work? MR. SNOW: M&M Developers is the property owner. Mr. Austin represents the property, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: He's one of the members of the LLC? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that we impose the fine of$41,888.43, plus the operational costs of$88.43. MR. KELLY: If I may, the operational costs are already included in the amount that you read. MR. KAUFMAN: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And they haven't been paid? MR. KAUFMAN: They have not been paid. MR. HEMES: I'll second the motion. Page 61 June 25, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor? MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Thank you. Next case will be BCC versus Hamo Gutic. (Speakers were duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your names, please? MS. RAMDEDOVIC: Azemina Romdedovic. A-Z-E-M-I-N-A. Last name is R-A-M-D-E-D-O-V-I-C. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And your relationship to Hamo Gutic? MS. RAMDEDOVIC: I'm his daughter. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you have authority to be here and -- MS. RAMDEDOVIC: Correct, yes, I do. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is it correct that the additions to office space have not been completed or C.O.' s or anything? MS. RAMDEDOVIC: Well, what happened with this is the tenants that are currently there, the V.F.W. Post 7369, they were responsible to actually have fixed everything, get the permits, have the electrician in. And my father is a very good man, he actually trusts people a little bit too much. So, you know, they made him believe that Page 62 June 25, 2009 everything was done, he was all set. And some time went by, so no response, no letters from the code. And Tom Campbell left it at the end that, you know, we're okay for now. So we never received a response. We actually thought that everything was completed until Friday when my father received a notice for the hearing today. And I contacted code enforcement and I spoke to Kitchell. We met up at the property. We didn't even know that this was still going. We thought everything was completed. We did not know that they did not pull out any permits. But what I'm here to ask for is for an extension for 180 days, if that's possible. Because I know this time I will be responsible taking care of everything for dad, pulling out the permits. I already spoke to an electrician, Wright Electrical, which they actually said they will do all the work. And this here (phonetic) air conditioning, which will handle all the AC parts. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm looking at the stipulated agreement that your father signed back in May of last year. And it spells out what he's supposed to do. And obviously we're here now 13 months later and it's not been done, not been followed through. With this agreement being signed, he took responsibility that that work would be done and the permits and everything would be done, pulled, and he would get a C.O. That hasn't happened. I'm going to be hard pressed to go along with another 180 days, knowing that he knew what had to be done and how to get it done, and it hasn't been done. But that's just my opinion. MR. SNOW: Mr. Chair, if I may, I have been on a lot of properties, and this is one case when I feel the property owner was really abused. The violations were abated but there were no permits pulled for any of those. And when you go in the interior, the property -- or the tenant was -- definitely didn't do what they were supposed to do. And Page 63 June 25, 2009 I know the property owner is responsible. However, in this case, I know Mr. Gutic, and I know his credibility and his honor, and I think he probably did comply. And not only that, from talking to them, there was some extenuating mitigating family circumstances were involved, and they are not local. She is, but Mr. Gutic is not. She was not aware of this. And as soon as we got on the phone, we have a plan. My thinking on this was if the board would grant a 30-day extension that would be a monitoring period for them to find -- we could find out some definite progress. If there's no progress, there would be no problem with imposing those fines. But if we give the opportunity for abatement, which is what we want, the opportunity for abatement. Because if we impose the fines and then it's foreclosed on, the prop -- another property owner is just going to inherit it anyway. It's going to have to be done. But if we give them time to comply, the board gives 30 days time frame, if you're not satisfied with what they're doing, I think that would be the time to impose. But if we could see progress, I think we would be okay with that, the county would. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Either that or, again, withdraw until next month and see what progress we make. MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. MS. WALDRON: The County agrees to withdraw this case and bring it back at a later date. MR. ORTEGA: I have a quick comment. Based on the scope of the work, you mentioned electrical, mechanical. And you said -- you stated that you're going to acquire the building permits. Are you aware you're going to need a general contractor to do this? MS. RAMDEDOVIC: Yes, yes. MR. SNOW: We thank the board for its time. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. Page 64 June 25, 2009 We have the last case, BCC versus Marek Okenka and Lenka Okenkova. I'm sure I said that incorrectly. MS. WALDRON: The county's actually requesting that we withdraw this case at this time and bring it back at a later date, since we've got some issues that we would like to work out first. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right. N ow I'm going to have to say that name again, those two names again. I know the respondent's here, correct? MS. WALDRON: Marek Okenka and Lenka Okenkova. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. All right. Any reports, comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next meeting will be July 23rd, 2009. And that should be it. MR. KELLY: Motion to adjourn. MR. HEMES: Oh, I was going to offer congratulations to our chairman on the impending nuptials this weekend. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. MR. KAUFMAN: I think we may need to extend the doors so at the next meeting the ball and chain will fit through. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. HEMES: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Page 65 June 25, 2009 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :02 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD GERALD LEFEBVRE, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on presented or as corrected as Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 66