CEB Minutes 08/27/2009 R
August 27,2009
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
Naples, Florida
August 27, 2009
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code
Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Gerald Lefebvre
Larry Dean
Nicolas Hemes (Alternate)
Kenneth Kelly
Edward Larsen
Lionel L'Esperance
Robert Kaufman
James Lavinski
Heriminio Ortega (Alternate)
ALSO PRESENT:
Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attorney
Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director
J en Waldron, Code Enforcement Specialist.
Page 1
August 27, 2009
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Everyone ready?
I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board of Collier County
meeting to order for August 27th, 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 on which the appeal
is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement
Board shall be responsible for providing this record.
Roll call, please.
MS. WALDRON: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Here.
MS. WALDRON: Mr. Kenneth Kelly?
MR. KELLY: Here.
MS. WALDRON: Mr. Robert Kaufman?
MR. KAUFMAN: Here.
MS. WALDRON: Mr. James Lavinski?
MR. LA VINSKI: Here.
MS. WALDRON: Mr. Heriminio Ortega?
MR. ORTEGA: Here.
MS. WALDRON: Mr. Larry Dean?
MR. DEAN: Here.
MS. WALDRON: Mr. Ed Larsen?
MR. LARSEN: Present.
MS. WALDRON: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance?
Page 2
August 27,2009
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here.
MS. WALDRON: Mr. Nicolas Hemes?
MR. HEMES: Here.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Changes to the agenda, please.
MS. WALDRON: We do have one hearing that will be moved
under stipulations, and that will be Item C.4, BCC versus Gabino
Medina, CEB No. CESD20080016167.
Item C, hearings, number two, BCC versus Bruce G . Wood as
trust ( sic) of Bruce G . Wood Revocable Trust, Case
CESD20080003740, is being withdrawn by the county.
Number five under hearings, BCC versus Fabian Hernandez,
Case CESD20090004113, is being withdrawn by the county.
Under old business, Item B, motion for reduction of fines/liens,
number one, James C. and Sherry Marshall, CEB No. 2004-72, is
being withdrawn by the county.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other changes?
MS. WALDRON: (Shakes head negatively.)
MR. KELLY: Make it a motion we accept the agenda.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
Page 3
August 27, 2009
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
And since we do have a full board, the alternate members will
not be voting today, for the record.
Approval of the minutes for the July 23rd, 2009 hearing.
MR. DEAN: I'll make a motion to approve the minutes.
MR. KELLY: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
And we'll move down to stipulations. BCC versus Gabino
Medina, CEB No. CESD20080016167.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier
County Code Enforcement.
Both parties have agreed into a stipulation.
Pay operational costs in the amount of $86.71 incurred in the
prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing.
Abate all violations by: Must apply for and obtain a Collier
County building permit or a demolition permit and request required
inspections to be performed and passed with a certificate of
completion/occupancy within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of
$250 per day will be imposed.
Page 4
August 27, 2009
Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of
abatement of the violation and request the investigator 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 provisions of the agreement and
all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Good morning.
MR. MEDINA: I'm okay with that, sir.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, can you state your name,
please, for the record.
MR. MEDINA: Yes, Gabino Medina, Jr.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Have you done any work or
applied for permits since the signing of this order?
MR. MEDINA: No, sir. It was signed about two weeks ago.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right, on the 4th of -- well, actually
-- yeah, the 4th of August.
MR. MEDINA: Right. But we are going to proceed to do so.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay.
Any questions of the board?
(No response.)
MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion that we accept the stipulation
as written.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. KELLY: Second.
MR. LA VINSKI: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.r
Page 5
August 27,2009
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MR. MEDINA: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much.
We're going to move on to hearings. And the first one will be
BCC versus Platinum Coast Financial Corp., CEB No.
CESD20080005688.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please?
MS. PASS: Pamela Pass. P-A-S-S.
MS. SORRELS: Good morning, gentlemen. For the record,
Azure Sorrels, Collier County Code Enforcement.
This is in reference to Case No. CESD20080005688, with the
violations of electrical conduit, wiring and outlets have been added
to/installed/replaced/removed throughout structure. Plumbing has been
added to for the addition of sinks and toilets. Partition walls have been
demolished and rebuilt. A bar and stage have been built, and a loft has
been demolished.
All the above-mentioned construction has been started and/or
completed without first obtaining all required Collier County building
permits.
Service -- proof of service was given on the 6th of March, 2009.
And I would like to present -- if you remember, gentlemen, we spoke
about this last month.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Does Jennifer have to read in the
statement of violation, the case?
MS. WALDRON: (Nods head affirmatively.)
Page 6
August 27,2009
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, if you can do that, please.
MS. WALDRON: It's in reference to violation of ordinance
Collier County Laws, Chapter 22, Article 2, Section 22 to 26.B,
104.1.3.5, Florida Building Code, 2004 Edition, Chapter 1, Section
105.1, Collier County Land Development Code, 2004-41, as amended,
Section 1 0.02.06(B)( 1)( e), 1 0.02.06(B)( 1)( e )(i), and
1 0.02.06(B)(1 )(a).
Description of violation: Electrical conduit, wiring and outlets
have been added to, installed, replaced and removed through structure.
Plumbing has been added to for the addition of sinks and toilets.
Partition walls have been demolished and rebuilt. A bar and stage
have been built and a loft has been demolished. All the
above-mentioned construction has been started and/or completed
without first obtaining all required Collier County building permits.
Location/address where violation exists: 11150 Tamiami Trail
East, Naples, Florida, 34113. Folio 439000008.
Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation
location: Platinum Coast Financial Corp., 961 Trail Terrace Drive,
Naples, Florida, 34103.
Date violation first observed: April 24th, 2008.
Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: March
6th, 2009.
Date on/by which violation to be corrected: April 7th, 2009.
Date of reinspection: April 8th, 2009.
Results of reinspection: The violation remains.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Apologize for interrupting.
MS. SORRELS: No, I jumped the gun. Sorry about that.
As you remember, last month we discussed this and I presented
some pictures. I printed up some other pictures, just to refresh your
memory what we were looking at, so I'd like to enter Exhibit B. And
there's a total of six pictures.
MR. KELLY: I make a motion we accept the evidence.
Page 7
August 27,2009
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear --
MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MS. SORRELS: The pictures are just pretty much what was
described as work being done without permits; basically electrical,
plumbing and structural construction done without permits.
This would be the partition wall to the entrance to the women's
restroom.
Some plumbing that was added to add sinks into the bar area and
to the men's restroom.
A partition wall that has been built in the men's restroom.
An AC unit that had been installed.
And some electrical that had been added as well.
Does that refresh your memory a little bit of what we saw last
month? Okay.
You guys had asked -- excuse me, the board had asked us to
basically ask the County Attorney for an interpretation.
Susan Istenes, the Director of Zoning, is one of the few people
that can do an interpretation of the Land Development Code. So we
first went to her and we asked her to do a interpretation of the code,
Page 8
August 27, 2009
and particularly the word development.
And I'll put on the screen her e-mail correspondence to us with
the answer.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I'd just like to correct for the record that
we had recommend that they work with the zoning staff to see if a
resolution could be accomplished.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: This is the property that is zoned
commercial-- or was zoned commercial, went through a PUD. The
PUD is no longer sunsetted?
MS. SORRELS: That is correct, sir.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Right. I wasn't suggesting the County
Attorney's Office would issue an interpretation. I just wanted to clarify
that for the record.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Would you like to admit that into --
MS. SORRELS: Yes. The correspondence, yes.
MR. KELLY: I make a motion we accept that.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
Page 9
August 27,2009
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
I jumped the gun that time.
MS. SORRELS: I will just -- if you guys can read that, it's
probably better than listening to me stumble through it, so --
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Can it be focused a little better?
MR. DEAN: Yeah, I can't read it.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It's a little small.
MS. WALDRON: I'm trying to get it all in there for you guys.
MR. DEAN: Better.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Prior to -- did everyone finish
reading?
MR. LARSEN: I don't know if there's anything after number two
on the bottom of that?
MS. SORRELS: No.
MR. LARSEN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Prior to this being tended uses as a
bar/nightclub, I'm not sure exactly what, what was it before that?
MS. SORRELS: I would not have an answer for you. Mrs. Pass
would probably have one.
MS. PASS: It's -- for 15 years it's been a bar/restaurant.
And I would just like to remind you that this was a tenant that
hired -- had a contract, supposedly got permits. I mean, he didn't
purposely illegally do this work, he had a contract with a contractor
that turned out not to be legit.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right.
MR. KAUFMAN: Have you seen this--
MS. PASS: I have.
MR. KAUFMAN: -- interpretation?
MS. PASS: I have. And I went on the Collier County website
last night and looked at the Municipal code and the Florida Statutes,
and it differs to what they class development versus the way they're
interpreting. I really think an attorney needs to look at this.
Page 10
August 27,2009
The way it states, development is -- when the PUD sunset it said
no further development can take place, so therefore they wouldn't
issue me permits.
Development is a reconstruction/alteration of a size or material
change to the external appearance of a structure on land. And I don't
think -- I'm not reconstruction, I'm not changing, so I don't think I'd
fall in that development category.
MR. KAUFMAN: Would the county agree to back Ms. Pass as
far as getting the permits to do it, based on the e-mail?
MS. SORRELS: The way I have understood it and it's been
explained to me is the county would be willing to issue permits as a
demo permit. They would issue a partial demo permit which would
allow her to remove all the work that has been done without permits.
As for anything -- anything other would only allow to be
maintenance of a building. So if she was doing something to maintain
the safety of the building, that would be allowable and they would
issue a permit for that as well, if the permit was required.
But as remodeling/alterations, they're considering that as
development and would not issue a permit for that.
MR. KAUFMAN: And this is different from the last meeting
that we had where they wouldn't issue any permits at all, as I recall.
MS. SORRELS: That is correct.
MS. PASS: That's correct.
MR. KAUFMAN: And does that meet with your satisfaction if
they would do that?
MS. PASS: If they would -- they've granted me the ability to get
demolition permits, but I still would like permits to be able to --
because when I pull that out, there's going to be work that needs to be
done if I'm going to be able to rent the building.
And all I'm asking is for just general, you know, to have the air
conditioner in there. They have a stage that they had taken down that
they had reconstructed. That's, you know, nothing major, but I don't
Page 11
August 27, 2009
see how you can selectively allow me a permit for one thing and not
another if it's development.
MR. KAUFMAN: Sort of a restoration --
MS. PASS: Right.
MR. KAUFMAN: -- permit rather than a demolition permit. I
understand.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I think there's two issues here. And
the question is, if it was operating as a business already, a restaurant
already, and there was modifications made to it, I think -- I feel that
that should be allowed under the current use. Now, we can't tell the
county -- we can only make a decision on if there is a violation that
she did not pull permits or that permits were not pulled. We can't
make a determination if the county should go ahead and issue new
permits. I think that's where we have to draw the line.
But I certainly think that the use -- intended use as a restaurant
was intended prior to -- the building was there prior to a PUD put in
place. So I think it should still be able to operate as a restaurant.
MR. KELLY: Mr. Chairman, I agree with you. I would say
replacing an air conditioning unit would very much fall under the lines
of maintenance. Updating a bathroom again the same.
But I agree, it's not our place unfortunately in this venue to tell
the county what permits it can and can't issue. We have to determine
whether a violation exists. And under this -- what we've been cited,
what the respondent's been cited, I would have to say yes, work has
been completed without permits.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Correct. So I think we have to
distinguish between if work was done without permits, and I think that
has been proven.
I don't know what the feeling of the board is.
MR. KELLY: It's unfortunate, but that's what we're presented
and that's what we have to vote on.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right.
Page 12
August 27, 2009
MR. ORTEGA: I'm a little bit confused here. There's a PUD in
existence right now?
MS. PASS: It has sunset. So therefore the county took the stance
that it had no zoning and therefore couldn't issue a building permit.
MR. ORTEGA: Well, unless you're altering -- or you're adding
additional square footage or you're altering. For example, you might
have a room that was an office and maybe that requires 300 square
feet for people and all of a sudden you're opening that up to more
seating area, I can see how that can be impacted. But where you have
a PUD --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Let's not confuse the two issues
here. The issue that we have to deal with is was there a permit pulled
for the work that was done. That's all we really -- that's our venue. We
cannot look at anything else.
MR. KAUFMAN: I think it's sort ofa Catch-22, however, that if
you go to pull a permit and they won't give you one, for us to find that
you're guilty of not pulling a permit is a little bit on the disingenuous
side. There's got to be some way that Solomon can come in here and
reconstruct the baby.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But work was already done, that's
the thing. It wasn't like she -- that a permit was tried to be pulled and
wasn't able. The work had already been done.
MS. PASS: Under the pretense that we had permits. I mean, it
was the tenants naivety to not realize that he didn't have permits, but
he had a contract that said the contractor was responsible for pulling
the permits.
MR. LARSEN: Isn't the owner ultimately responsible to ensure
that any work done on the premises is properly permitted?
MS. PASS: That I don't know.
MR. KELLY: I believe I speak for everyone on the board when I
say that we genuinely feel sorry for the situation that you're in. The
fact that you hired a contractor and he didn't live up to his obligation
Page 13
August 27, 2009
puts everybody in a bad situation here.
But the fact is we can only determine right or wrong on what
we're presented and what our venue allows us to. And in this case the
simple question is did work -- was work performed without a permit.
And that's as far as we can go. We can't go outside the scope of that.
MS. PASS: So where do I go next?
MR. LARSEN: We can't give advice.
MR. KELLY: It's our only hope that maybe county would allow
you to continue with those -- under the maintenance pretense. But
that's not for us to decide.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you have any more that you
would like to --
MS. PASS: Well, I just feel that, you know, now this -- when he
tries -- if we can ever get a tenant in there, you're going to have to
meet new -- you know, you're no longer going to be grandfathered in.
So I'm sure this building isn't going to -- without permits is going to be
untenable. I mean, I've been almost a year and a half now unable to
rent this. It's just -- it doesn't seem fair.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I don't know if this is a question that
can be answered. I guess if the property's brought back to the original
state, then at that point it could be rentable again in its original state.
MS. SORRELS: Correct. For the violation to be abated it would
have to be returned to its original state before this case had been
opened and addressed.
MR. LARSEN: Right, but let's be careful here. I mean, can you
get a demolition permit, return it to its original state and not be
required to bring it up to current codes? So that's an issue that she was
correctly addressing there, and we've got to be careful, because
basically we don't want to make a pronouncement here that, you
know, further permits would not be required.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right.
MR. KAUFMAN: What would happen if this was -- and I hate
Page 14
August 27,2009
to do it again -- postponed for, let's say, I'm just trying to come up
with some sort of a solution. If it was postponed for two months, three
months, whatever it is, and permits were pulled and you did get the
work resolved as far as the violation is concerned, when it would
come back to the board we'd be in a better position to handle that
situation at that time.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, that's just like we could make
an order that she has 90 days to pull the demo permits and -- I mean,
that would be in an order, we can do that.
MR. LARSEN: The first order of business, of course, is to find
out -- determine whether or not a violation exists. Then we can go into
what the remedies would be.
MR. KELLY: I'll make a motion, unfortunately, that a violation
exists.
MR. LARSEN: I second that motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MR. KELLY: And then I agree with my colleague, I think we
should give ample time. Perhaps working with the building
department would allow the respondent to figure a way to get some of
these conditions approved as maintenance.
Page 15
August 27, 2009
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you have a -- I think we should
give ample time. I would be inclined to give 120 to 180 days as a --
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: If I could interject. The County
Attorney has requested this item be continued to the next meeting.
MR. LARSEN: Well, we've already had a vote, so I think that
that should have been brought to our attention before we had the vote.
MS. PASS: Now you understand my frustration.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, can we stay the vote?
MR. LARSEN: It's already a matter of public record.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right.
MS. FLAGG: If I could interject--
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, the issue here -- okay, I've not
been involved in this matter, somebody else in our office is. And the
question is whether you've got to remodel. And the question is
whether the requirements that staff is requesting is appropriate. And
that's why we're asking for some time to continue this for 30 days.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's why we were here last month
and --
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, I understand.
MS. FLAGG: Could I just offer, if you look towards the middle
of the paragraph, it says so for example if a demolition permit was
required to remove an existing building or a portion of an existing
building for life/safety or similar purposes, it would be okay to issue a
demo permit or other permits for structures in a preventative or
maintenance situation.
So I think that you're concerned about the maintenance aspect.
They're acknowledging for -- permits can be issued for that situation.
MR. LARSEN: Right. So if we give them 180 days to explore
that opportunity, that's more than adequate enough time to determine
whether or not the county would actually issue a permit to this
landowner. And, you know, we can determine what to do if it comes
back on our calendar at that time.
Page 16
August 27, 2009
MR. KELLY: I agree. I think this e-mail actually helps the
situation. As long as the respondent doesn't want to remodel and
change the interior of the structure. I think a lot of what we have seen
in photographs would probably be allowed.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: County attorney?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think if you gave a period of time to
give them sufficient time for corrective action, you can proceed
forward and she can request an extension, if she needs to, for time.
MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion that we grant the 180 days in
order to pull the necessary demo permit to restore or get the building
back into the non-violation state.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And after six months or 180 days,
what is the fine?
MR. KAUFMAN: After that period of time, $100 a day fine for
each day the violation exists.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Let's hold off, because county
attorney stepped out for a minute. If that's okay.
MS. WALDRON: Would the board like to see the formalized
recommendation sheet, just for -- you can have it in your head.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, we already came up with a
recommendation, so --
MR. LARSEN: That's fine. If you -- thank you very much.
MR. KAUFMAN: Well, if you just fill in the blanks, Code
Enforcement Board orders the respondent to abate all operational costs
in the amount of -- and what are the --
MS. WALDRON: It's $88.14.
MR. KAUFMAN: The prosecution of the case within 30 days.
Obtain all building permits, inspections, certificate of completion for
electrical, plumbing and structural additions/alterations mentioned
above -- this is the demo permit.
The fine will be $100, to fill in the blank there.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: One hundred dollars --
Page 1 7
August 27, 2009
MR. KAUFMAN: Per day.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- for each day.
MR. KAUFMAN: Imposed for each day the violation remains.
Must notify code enforcement investigator when the violation
has been abated, et cetera.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I think the county attorney needs to
be in here, because she --
MR. KAUFMAN: Before we vote on it, yeah.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: She types everything in too, so --
correct?
Or I should say our board attorney, not of the county.
What would you like? We're waiting for you.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. Like we spoke, if you give him
180 days, I think that's sufficient time for the issue to be worked out.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Just to bring you up to speed,
since you have to write the order, Mr. Kaufman is pretty much
following this format here that was put up on the screen. And it will be
180 days of this hearing; a fine of $100 a day will be imposed for each
day the violation remains; and the fees for --
MS. WALDRON: $88.14.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much, $88.14.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Great, okay.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you understand what we --
MS. PASS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, we have to have a second
from Mr. Kelly.
MR. KELLY: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
Page 18
August 27, 2009
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MS. SORRELS: Thank you, gentlemen.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next hearing will be BCC
versus David E. Horton. And it's CEB No. CESD20080011966.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of ordinance
Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section
1 0.02.06(B)(1 )(a).
Description of violation: Addition to the rear of the home with
no permits.
Location/address where violation exists: 2128 55th Street
Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116. Folio 36379480008.
Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation
location: David E. Horton, 2128 55th Street Southwest, Naples,
Florida, 34116.
Date violation first observed: September 8th, 2008.
Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: October
9th, 2008.
Date on/by which violation to be corrected: November 8th,
2008.
Date of reinspection: July 15th, 2009.
Results of the reinspection is that the violation remains.
The notice of hearing was sent out certified mail and it was
signed for on April 14th. And property and courthouse were also
posted.
Page 19
August 27, 2009
MR. KELLY: I have an administrative question real quick.
The request for hearing that you just read and the original NOV
have different items on them. The one that we're getting for today has
just the violation of an addition to the rear of the home with no
permits.
However, the Notice of Violation that Investigator Paul served
says the permits for a garage conversion and a reapp. for a permit for
replacing a shingle roof. Are all of those included in this today?
MS. WALDRON: It's only the violation that I read. The other
things have been corrected.
MR. KELLY: Okay, great, thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And the respondent's not here; is
that correct?
MR. PAUL: No, he's not.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead, sir.
MR. PAUL: For the record, Renald Paul, Collier County Code
Enforcement Investigator.
This is in reference to Case No. CESD20080011966.
This is addition of a lanai to the rear of the property at 2128 55th
Street Southwest.
I'd like to present evidence in the following exhibits. B-1 and
C-l.
MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion that we accept the exhibits.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. LA VINSKI: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
Page 20
August 27,2009
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MR. PAUL: And as you'll see, the first picture is a picture of the
lanai in the rear of the home.
MR. KAUFMAN: May I ask a question on that picture?
MR. PAUL: Yes.
MR. KAUFMAN: I can't really see it well. Is it just the portion
that is dirt and sand, or is it all the way to the other end of the house?
MR. PAUL: It's all the way to the other end of the house.
MR. KAUFMAN: Okay.
MR. PAUL: And this is the photograph of the survey that was
done in 1990. As you can see by the survey, there is no lanai in the
back of the house.
All right, this case began on 9/8 of 2008. I originally had gotten
a complaint in regards to a garage conversion. Someone had actually
made a complaint to our office in regards to that.
I was out on the property, I spoke to Mr. David Horton and I
explained to him that I was on-site doing research in regards to his
garage. I told him I would research the records and I'd pull all the files
and get back to him.
On 10/9, after researching, I had found there was numerous
violations at the property, which I had attempted to cite him for. But
he had refused to sign the Notice of Violation. But I did hand it to him
and I completed an affidavit of service.
On 11/18 of 2008, after research I found that he had not obtained
any permits for the numerous violations that I had cited him for.
On 12/7, same thing. Nothing -- there was no change; he still
hadn't obtained any permits.
Page 21
August 27,2009
I had several phone conversations with him. And eventually we
had set up a meeting with our permitting department to see if we could
resolve most of these issues.
On 1/27 of2009, he came into the office and we were able to
resolve the garage -- the garage conversion issue. But with the reroof
and the other permits, he was going to have to come in and get permits
for those.
Eventually he did get permits for the other violations and he did
get those COs; COs for those. The only thing he had left over was the
lanai. After -- time after time I spoke with him, and he never obtained
the permits.
Last conversation I had with the owner, on 6/22 of2009, I
explained to him that he had to have the permits by the end of that
week or I would prep the case for CEB. Owner had till July 3rd.
On July 15th, after research, found that the violation remained,
so I prepped the case for CEB.
On 7/31 of 2009 I posted the notice of hearing at the property
and the courthouse.
Soon after he did apply for permits, but they're still in applied
status. And he still doesn't have permits till today.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Do you know the status of a lanai, if it's
been progressed any further than what we've seen in the pictures?
MR. PAUL: I believe it's the same. I haven't been out to the site.
He did say he had a screening company come out and do some
adjustments to the lanai so that he was able to get permits. Because I
know at one point it wasn't up to code and that's why they wouldn't
give him a permit for it. But even with the changes, he never went
down and got a permit.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: No more concrete -- or no concrete has
been poured in the floor?
MR. PAUL: Not that I know of.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you.
Page 22
August 27, 2009
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further questions?
MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that we find a
violation exists.
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. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MR. PAUL: The county asks that the owner pay the operational
cost in the amount of $87 incurred in the prosecution of this case;
abate all violations by: Respondent's required to obtain any and all
permits as required by Collier County for any and all additions and
alterations to the residence; or obtain a demolition permit for removal
of all unpermitted additions to this property and obtain all required
inspections/certificates of completion within "X" amount of days of
this hearing or be fined "X" amount of dollars for each day the
violation remains unabated.
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.
And respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours
of abatement.
Page 23
August 27, 2009
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Anyone like to make a motion?
MR. HEMES: Can I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sure.
MR. HEMES: Do we have any idea what the status of the CO
is?
MR. PAUL: On the lanai?
MR. HEMES: Yes.
MR. PAUL: He doesn't have a CO. He doesn't even have the
permit issued yet.
MR. HEMES: Okay, when did he apply for the permit?
MR. PAUL: He applied for the permit on 7/20 of '09. And it was
finally approved yesterday. It had been rejected sometime in between
there.
MR. LARSEN: All right, so let's give the gentleman 60 days.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Kelly, you have a question?
MR. KELLY: Yeah, Investigator Paul, do you know if the
additions and renovations were actually performed by Mr. Horton, or
were they there when he bought it in 2005?
MR. PAUL: He said they was there when he purchased it.
MR. KELLY: I'd say 90 days. Just because he is working. He
took care of the other two violations. The permit was finally approved
for pickup just yesterday.
MR. LARSEN: Ninety days is fine with me.
Well, then I give him $100 a day for every day the violation
remains unabated thereafter.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. KAUFMAN: Second, Kaufman.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
Page 24
August 27,2009
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MR. PAUL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you.
We'll be moving on to motion for imposition of fines. And the
first one would be BCC versus Ivan and Marjorie Bloom and Charles
T. Kennedy.
And you'll see there was a package that was put on our -- in front
of us this morning. And the only change is where it says the
respondent has complied with CEB orders as of July 29th, 2009.
The original one said the respondent has complied with CEB
orders as of I think it was April 23rd, 2009, which was our last
meeting which -- or not our last meeting, our meeting in April when
this case came in front of us, and that was incorrect. So that's why the
package is in front of us.
Could we have the parties sworn in, please.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
THE COURT REPORTER: May have I your name, please.
MR. BLOOM: Ivan Bloom. B-L-O-O-M.
MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation Collier
County Ordinance 04-41, the Land Development Code, as amended,
Sections 10.02.06(B)(I)(a), 10.02.06(B)(I)(e), and
1 0.02.06(B)(I)( e )(i).
Location of violation: 660 94th Avenue North, Naples, Florida.
Folio 62707640002.
Description of violation: Permit No. 86-2172 for a room addition
Page 25
August 27,2009
was expired without obtaining all the inspections and certificate of
completion.
On April 23rd, 2009 the Code Enforcement Board issued a
finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was
found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct
the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4449, Page
2449 for more information.
The respondent has complied with the Code Enforcement Board
orders as of July 29th, 2009.
The county's recommendation is to issue an order imposing a
lien for fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period between June
23rd, 2009 to July 29th, 2009,37 days, for the total of $7,400.
Operational costs of 87.29 have been paid. The total recommended
lien amount is $7,400.
MR. LARSEN: Just a clarification. Order item number seven,
the operational costs have been paid?
MS. WALDRON: They were paid today.
MR. LARSEN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Why would you like a reduction?
MR. BLOOM: Yes, I would like a reduction. It's already cost me
over $4,300 to get everything in shape the way it was supposed to be.
And it's not as if we were trying to avoid anything. We bought
the house and all those code violations existed since sometime in
1990. And we had no -- we had no idea. And believe me, if it had
existed earlier, we would have taken care of it earlier.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Have they been diligent in trying to
get this issue taken care of?
MR. MUSSE: For the record, Jonathan Musse, Collier County
Code Enforcement.
They have been excellent. Because it took a little longer than
expected.
MR. LARSEN: Make a motion to abate the fine.
Page 26
,v .,.._,".' ',~",""",~,,,,,,_"'^_'_' ...~'"_.",..;~,....__"~..,_,.,'~~.."",.,.,."'><._.,",....~~_,~"""",,,____,,~,"",,_,,;,''''''_. ,_ _._ ~""~,,,~~____,","="'" ,,,..,.,~, '_~H.~_,~"^-'_"_"" -. '-" _..,"~,"..,-"--
August 27,2009
MR. KAUFMAN: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MR. BLOOM: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next case will be BCC versus AMG
Properties, Inc., CEB No. 2007090454.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of Collier
County Ordinance 04-41, the Land Development Code, as amended,
Section 1 0.02.06(B)(1 )(a), and 1 0.02.06(B)(I)( e )(i).
Location of violation: 3831 Arnold Avenue, Naples, Florida.
Folio 00278360006.
Description of violation: Construction/additions/remodeling
done without proper permits.
On June 26th, 2008 the Code Enforcement Board issued a
finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was
found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct
the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4376, Page
0285 for more information.
The respondent has not complied with the Code Enforcement
Board orders as of August 27th, 2009.
Page 27
August 27,2009
The county's recommendation is to issue an order imposing a
lien for fines at a rate of $200 per day for the period between October
25th, 2008 to August 27th, 2009, 307 days, for the total of$61,400.
Fines continue to accrue.
Operational --
MR. KAUFMAN: Can you repeat that number again, please.
MS. WALDRON: 61,400.
MR. KAUFMAN: Okay, thank you.
MS. WALDRON: Operational costs of $502.49 have not been
paid.
The county's recommendation is to issue an order imposing a
lien in the amount of$61,902.49.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Please state your name for the
record.
MR. SNOW: For the record, Kitchell Snow, Collier County
Code Enforcement.
Today here we have before you their engineer. And
unfortunately I don't know if you remember this property or not, it
was a property that had an addition in the back and they didn't know if
the setbacks were -- they could have the addition of what they needed.
And this has been just a very long process for them trying to get
through the permitting process with rejections, additions.
They have been diligent in trying to get permits and trying to get
things issued. I'll let their engineer speak for them and let you know,
but they have been very diligent in trying to abate this violation. It just
has been very, very time consuming.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you can please state your name
for the record.
MR. GRILL: My name is Ken Grill. G-R-I-L-L.
And we have prepared a set of signed and sealed drawings to
take care of the issues on the property. And we've had a couple --
several conversations with the building department and some meetings
Page 28
August 27, 2009
to make sure what we've submitted already is good.
And currently the -- I believe the zoning is looking at a couple of
things on the property. And -- but we filed our notice of
commencement and it's been recorded and the applications are turned
in. So we're -- we feel confident we're pretty much there. You know,
just trying to get the permitting part stuff started, so --
MR. LARSEN: How come the operational costs weren't paid?
MR. GRILL: Pardon me?
MR. LARSEN: How come the operational costs weren't paid?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: He's the engineer, so --
MR. LARSEN: Well, he's here as a representative of the owner.
MR. SNOW: Yes, you have to get up.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And if you can -- we're going to
need to have you sworn in and speak into the mic, please.
(Mr. Garcia was duly sworn.)
MR. GARCIA: Jose Garcia. And I'm the owner of AMG
Properties.
I haven't got a bill for the 500 some dollars. At least that's what
my office says.
MR. SNOW: Mr. Garcia, would you be willing to pay that
today?
MS. GARCIA: Sure.
MR. LARSEN: All right, is the county going to ask for a
continuance of this matter?
MR. SNOW: We would prefer that the violation is abated before
anything is imposed and decided. The engineer, I was discussing with
him a time frame. And if he would like to relay that to the board, we
would like to give them. Because it doesn't make any sense to impose
anything, the violation is not abated. I understand about the health and
safety issue.
MR. LARSEN: That's why I was asking about the operational
cost. Because we're reluctant to give the continuances for an
Page 29
August 27,2009
abatement if the operational costs aren't paid. If they're willing to pay
it today and they've got a timeline, we'd like to entertain that.
MS. WALDRON: If I could make a comment too. I know that
the board has previously in the past at this point granted them an
extension of time in order to complete what they need to complete
without fines running at all.
MR. KELLY: Well, procedurally we're not presented with an
extension of time, we're presented with imposition of fines. So if the
county wants to withdraw this and then enter a continuance later,
maybe we'll entertain that.
MR. LARSEN: I think that procedurally that's the more correct
way to go about it.
MR. KELLY: We can't -- I mean, we have to decide on this.
And I'm saying impose them, because the violation's not been abated
yet.
MR. LARSEN: What's your time line, sir?
MR. GRILL: We feel as if the permitting will wrap up in about
90 days. And our construction is going to last us about 90 days. So
probably worst case about six months for CO, for completion.
MR. LARSEN: That's a long time in light of what's happened.
I mean, how does the county feel about that?
MR. SNOW: The county wishes the violation to be abated, sir.
We can always bring him back to impose.
MR. KELLY: The county would have to withdraw it--
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right.
MR. KELLY: -- or we're going to vote on it.
MR. SNOW: We'd like to withdraw right now and bring them
back at a time -- once they have abated the violation, we'll bring them
back before you.
MR. LARSEN: Predicated on their payment of the operational
cost?
MR. SNOW: Today, yes, sir.
Page 30
August 27, 2009
MR. KELLY: I make a motion we amend the agenda to have
this removed from the --
MR. LARSEN: I second that.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
MR. SNOW: We thank the board.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
Next case will be BCC versus Mark Goodman. CEB No.
CESD20080006858.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please and
spelling?
MR. BOYNTON: Albert Boynton. B-O-Y-N-T-O-N.
MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation Collier
County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Buildings and Building
Regulations, Article 2, Florida Building Code, adoption and
amendment of the Florida Building Code, Sections 22 to 26.B,
104.1.3.5; Florida Building Code 2004 edition, Chapter 1, Sections
105.1,22 to 26.B. 104.1.3.5.
Location of violation: 1348 Highlands Drive, Naples, Florida.
Folio 29782200002.
Description of violation: Prohibited activities prior to permit
Page 3 1
August 27,2009
issuance; permit application when required; improvement of property
prior to issuance of building permit.
On February 26th, 2009, the Code Enforcement Board issued a
finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was
found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct
the violation. See the attached Order of the Board, OR 4434, Page
1379 for more information.
The respondent has complied with the Code Enforcement Board
orders as of August 25th, 2009.
The county's recommendation is to issue an order imposing lien
for fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period between June 28th,
2009 to August 25th, 2009, 59 days, for the total of $11,800.
Operational costs of $88.14 have not been paid.
The county's recommendation is to issue an order imposing a
lien for the total of $11,888.14.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Your relationship to Mr. Goodman?
MR. BOYNTON: I'm the next door neighbor.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay.
MR. BOYNTON: He's out of state.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Has he given you the ability to be
his representative today?
MR. BOYNTON: He told me to come here and bring this. That's
all I know. Which is the CO.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Could you state in your microphone?
MR. KELLY: Sorry, I was just talking to the Chair.
I believe it's in our rules that a representative has to have a sworn
statement that the respondent gives a person authority to speak on
their behalf. And I was just suggesting that perhaps the gentleman
could speak as perhaps just a witness to the case so we could still hear
testimony and ask questions.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think based on the testimony you've
had today, that that would be an appropriate way to handle it.
Page 32
. ......._.,.,.._,...,"."_"".,....._"..."'..__._..,...,,.""""''''''''''''___,_,.,_,"'"''''','','_''',.''''''''_~......,"''''''''',..,_,'_,....".....'''.'''"ft''''....-.'''''.''''''.0..'..'.... .."".,",.<.",~.,..._,.~,__."""'.,_...__"_~"';"_.. ,_"..",...".,"~~................~...,...-"-, "T'''''_'_''~_'_"''_
August 27,2009
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right.
MR. LARSEN: Code enforcement official, what's the status of
the case?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It's been complied with.
MR. MARTINDALE: It's -- I'm sorry, Investigator Ron
Martindale, Collier County Code Enforcement Director.
The case is -- the permit was COld the 25th, day before
yesterday. So our case is done with.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: How diligent has he been in getting
the permit and so forth?
MR. MARTINDALE: Pretty good. He's been in and out of state
quite often, sometimes country.
This gentleman here advised me that they've had some financial
difficulties.
He initially applied for the permit on 4/20 of this year. It wasn't
approved until 6/29. And as I just said, it was COld on the 25th, after
the fact, permits.
MR. LARSEN: I'm sorry, it was -- the permit was granted,
issued on what date?
MR. MARTINDALE: It was actually approved on 6/29.
MR. LARSEN: 6/29.
MR. MARTINDALE: Correct.
MR. KELLY: Given the fact that the permit wasn't even
approved until after the time frame we granted, I suggest we abate the
fines.
MR. LARSEN: I second that motion.
MR. KELLY: Well, we're going to have to impose the op. costs,
though.
MR. KAUFMAN: Before you do it, are you prepared to pay the
$88.14 for the respondent today?
MR. BOYNTON: Would you accept cash?
MS. WALDRON: (Shakes head negatively.)
Page 33
August 27, 2009
MR. DEAN: That's not American.
MR. BOYNTON: You're kidding me.
MR. LARSEN: All right. Well, we can make it predicated upon
payment of the operational cost within the next 10 days. We'll abate
the fines conditionally.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. KELLY: I'll second that. That sounds good.
MR. DEAN: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MR. LARSEN: You understand, sir, he's got to pay the $88.14
within the next 10 days to the county; otherwise the fines are in effect.
If they pay, then the fines are abated, means they're waived, and go
away.
MR. BOYNTON: Where do I go to pay it?
MR. LARSEN: Mr. Martindale will help you out with it.
MR. DEAN: Is it true you can't take cash?
MR. MARTINDALE: I can't take anything, sir.
MR. DEAN: I didn't mean it that way, but--
MR. MARTINDALE: I understand.
MS. FLAGG: He can go down to CDES and they'll assist him --
Page 34
_"~_,~,.~",_,"_<__"~"""",_~"_"~,,.,,.~,,,_,,,,'__"_""_'."'_"'___....."",..,""~.,__,,,._,,....___"''''..~'''_,,~_.....'''"_"...'''~~".._>.'''..,"",,,,,,~",,,,,,~,,,,,,_~_,~,,,,__",~____,,,""'_"M.'"'_''~_~~''_''''',_"w..._",.,~~__._.,__
August 27, 2009
MR. MARTINDALE: Yes.
MS. FLAGG: -- at the cashier's office.
MR. MARTINDALE: I'll explain it to the gentleman.
MR. DEAN: Okay, good. Thank you.
MR. MARTINDALE: Thank you, gentlemen.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next case will be BCC versus
Joseph Ferio Francois. CEB No. 2006-52.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your names, please?
MR. BRUGGER: My name is John Brugger. I'm an attorney
who's been representing Dr. Francois through this.
THE COURT REPORTER: Would you spell your last name.
MR. BRUGGER: B-R-U-G-G-E-R.
DR. FRANCOIS: Joseph Francois.
MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to Collier County
Ordinance 2004-58, the Housing Code, Section 11.
Location of violation: 125 Boston Avenue, Immokalee, Florida.
Folio 2558032007.
Description of violation: A structure that has been severely
damaged by fire and now has been designated as a hazardous building
by the fire inspector.
On October 26th, 2006, the Code Enforcement Board issued a
finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was
found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct
the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4325, Page
2991 for more information.
The respondent has complied with the Code Enforcement Board
orders as of December 8th, 2008.
The county's recommendation is to issue an order imposing a
lien for fines at a rate of $250 per day for the period between May
30th, 2008 to December 8th, 2008, 192 days, for the total of $48,000.
Operational costs of $319.79 have not been paid. The total
Page 35
August 27,2009
recommended lien amount it is $48,319.79.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead.
MR. BRUGGER: Gentlemen, Dr. Francois submitted an
application for a building permit with Collier County in -- was it
actually applied in 2006 or in 2007? When was the original permit?
DR. FRANCOIS: 2006.
MR. BRUGGER: In 2006.
He received an approval, as to the best of my knowledge, on
every one of the reviewers except when it got to an SDP.
This property was located at the corner of First Street and
Boston in Immokalee. The roof had been severely damaged by fire,
but the rest of the structure appeared to be sound.
He had gone and retained an engineer from Labelle who did a
review of the property and felt that structurally the walls and slab were
sound and the building could be restored. So Dr. Francois submitted
for the building permit.
And as I said, all the boxes for the reviewers were approved
except they found that the property had never had an SDP on it. It had
been built many years before. I don't -- do you know when it was
originally built -- in the Fifties or Sixties -- without an SDP. So the
county required an SDP application as part of the building permit
approval process.
He retained and attorney -- or not an attorney -- an engineer at
the cost of $26,000 to prepare the SDP. And there were multiple
delays in submitting.
We had a hearing in October of 2007, I believe, requesting an
extension of time to bring the building into compliance. The Code
Enforcement Board granted us an extension through May 29th, 2008.
And we stayed on top of our engineer. He submitted the SDP
application on February 11 th, 2008, about three months before we
were due on the May 29th date.
The county was reviewing it. It was working through the
Page 36
August 27,2009
process. We had multiple meetings with the county to get the SDP
approval. And then about April of 2008 we were informed that
because the building was located in a newly established Immokalee
overlay district, we had to provide drawings showing what the exterior
of the building was going to look like and the color of the building.
Those had to be submitted as part of the SDP process.
He retained an architect who took 45, 60 days to get the
drawings done. Those were submitted to the county. And at about this
time we began working with Joe Schmitt and Ross Gochenaur at the
county on approval of the building plan with the modification.
I was concerned about the timing of what was happening
because I was aware of the May 29th date.
I submitted a letter to Marlene Stewart at the Code Enforcement
Board in July. In talking to county staff, I was assured you're working
on this diligently, don't be concerned.
I became concerned in July and submitted a request for a
hearing, just to grant an extension, because we continued to work on
this. I was actually granted an extension -'- or granted a hearing for
August 22nd.
During the process, with multiple meetings with Mr. Schmitt and
Mr. Gochenaur, we received information that the original building
permit application had been lost at the county. Again, we thought we
were in the approval process where all we had to do was get our SD P
approved and our building application would then be approved, he
could reconstruct the building and continue to use it where it was
located.
They ultimately -- they asked us if we had copies of the
application. We provided copies. And in August 14th, I've got an
e-mail here from Mr. Schmitt informing me that they located the file.
Only they now determined that the permit had -- the application had
expired. It had been sitting there too long while the SDP process was
being reviewed.
Page 37
August 27,2009
We had multiple meetings in which it was determined because
the existing permit had expired, we now had to -- the original permit
was made under a 2001 building code. Because of the hurricanes the
building code was updated and we were now informed we had to
make an application under the 2004 building code for remodeling the
building and be brought into compliance with the new structural
requirements.
We met with engineers and determined -- Dr. Francois had
determined that the value of the existing building with the concrete
and everything in place was worth about $80,000 with the concrete
walls. And again, we had the Labelle engineer's certification that the
existing structure was sound.
But now to bring it into the new building code requirements
would have required new structural steel being inserted within the
walls, that -- and things that didn't exist.
Again, we continued meeting with the county. It was finally
determined in about September or October that the only way that the
building could be remodeled as it existed would be to come before the
board of commissioners and seek some type of variance, and it was
unlikely that that would be granted.
Ultimately Dr. Francois finally just threw up his hands and had
the building demolished and torn down. He was trying to save the cost
of it.
And again, I've got multiple communications where we were
meeting with Mr. Schmitt.
I was advised by county staff to just cancel the hearing, the new
hearing I had scheduled in August 22nd of 2009 ( sic) requesting
another extension, because they knew we were working on the process
and there would be no problems. So I ultimately canceled that.
I've got a copy of my notice here of the August 22nd, 2008
hearing where I was going to request an additional extension, and I
was assured I didn't need that.
Page 38
August 27, 2009
So again, I think it was just facts and circumstances that did him
in. He was trying to save the building, found out the permit expired,
found out the old SDP was no good and ultimately he's had to retain
the engineer to create a new SDP.
The reason for the delay between the September realization that
it had to be torn down and whether we sought a variation from the
county commission was because this property happens to have three
front -- they determined it has three front streets, which means he's got
three different setbacks to deal with. There's a major thoroughfare on
three sides of it. So it was whether or not he tore it down or tried to get
the commissioners to allow him to save it. And ultimately it was torn
down and I think it was COld in December of2008.
MR. LARSEN: Counsel, has he paid his operational costs?
DR. FRANCOIS: There was a fee that I paid. I don't remember,
probably two or three years ago. I don't know if this is what you're
talking about.
MS. WALDRON: Operational costs have not been paid on this
case.
MR. LARSEN: There's operational cost of$318.79.
DR. FRANCOIS: I'm not aware of that.
MR. LARSEN: Are you in position to pay that today?
DR. FRANCOIS: Yeah, I can write a check.
MR. LARSEN: All right. Mr. Letourneau, what's your position?
MR. LETOURNEAU: Everything he said was pretty much true,
that's my position.
MR. LARSEN: So the building no longer exists?
MR. LETOURNEAU: Building no longer exists. And he had a
lot of hurdles to overcome in this whole process.
MR. LARSEN: I make a motion to abate the fine.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
Page 39
August 27, 2009
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MR. LARSEN: Got to pay the operational cost today.
DR. FRANCOIS: Thank you.
MS. WALDRON: Mr. Chair, for the next three cases on our
imposition of fines, there is a representative from the bank on their
way, so I don't know if you'd like to take a break to --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Let's take a break.
MS. WALDRON: -- give them a little additional time to get
here.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes.
MR. LARSEN: And that would be Klemco, Klemco and
Empire?
MS. WALDRON: Correct.
MR. DEAN: Is it all one?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes, it's all in one.
(Recess. )
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I call the Code Enforcement Board
meeting back to order. And next case -- are we going to put all these
cases together?
MS. WALDRON: Yeah, we can lump them together and I'll just
give the details of each one, if you'd like --
Page 40
_"",~"""~_,,",_,"~""M"',,,,,-,,,,,,~,^,,,,,,,,__,,,,_,,;,,,,,_,,"_,, ... __ ." .. ...__.'"'""""".,____.....__,._."",.____...._._",.^'__"_~,____~,,_,,__
August 27, 2009
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right. And then we'll vote
individually.
MS. WALDRON: Right.
In reference to BCC versus Klemco, LLC, Case
CESD20090002071, the abatement costs, the county abatement costs
have been paid in this case and the operational costs have been paid in
this case as well. So the county is not recommending that we issue a
lien. We just want to get on the record that those costs have been paid.
And then also for BCC versus Klemco, LLC,
CESD20090002075 is the same situation. Abatement costs have been
paid, operational costs have been paid. The county is not asking to
impose a lien on this case either.
MR. LARSEN: So they paid the $44,528?
MS. WALDRON: Correct.
MR. KAUFMAN: They paid once or twice?
MS. WALDRON: It was a total abatement cost that was split in
half for each case.
MR. LARSEN: Okay.
MS. WALDRON: So it was 80 some thousand dollars.
MR. KAUFMAN: So they did pay it twice, 44 on each one.
MS. WALDRON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And moving on to Empire
Developers.
MS. WALDRON: Okay, I'll read the -- I will read the statement
for this one. Abbreviated.
The fines at the rate of $10 per day per acre, 28.6, for the period
between November 27th, 2008 and July 7th, 2009, for the total of
$63,778. And fines at the rate of$10 per day per acre, 18 acres, for the
period between November 27th, 2008 to July 7th, 2009, 223 days, for
the total of$40,140. For a total amount of$103,918.
This case follows with the other two cases as well. And they had
paid the abatement costs, so the county is recommending that the lien
Page 41
August 27, 2009
also not be imposed on this case.
MR. LARSEN: All right. So --
MS. WALDRON: Yeah, waive the remaining fines on this case.
There was a companion case to this one as well that has been
brought to the BCC. The BCC has waived those fines as well.
MR. LARSEN: All right. So what we want to do is make a
motion that the Board of County Commissioners versus Klemco -- I
would withdraw my motion.
MR. LETOURNEAU: This is the representative for Fifth Third.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you could be on the mic, please.
MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes, sir.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name for the
record.
MS. ZAYAS: Cilia. C-I-L-I-A. Last name Zayas. Z-A-Y-A-S.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you're representative for?
MS. ZAYAS: For Fifth Third Bank.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead.
MR. LARSEN: Perhaps we should hear from the young lady, if
she has any comments.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: She doesn't know what's already
transpired.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right.
MR. LETOURNEAU: I was under -- for the record, Jeff
Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement Supervisor.
I was on the phone with Cilia this morning, advising her to come
down here as a representative of Fifth Third. They're actually the
people that paid for the abatement because they have interest in this
property. They're probably going to be taking it over, because it is in
the foreclosure status still. And that's basically why I told her to come
down here this morning, just to verify that information with the board.
MR. LARSEN: All right, young lady, you're in time for my
Page 42
"<...".,..~"".~...,,,;,.~_.,..._'6"""~""""~',,""';",,,,__"_"_'""""_'___' ".'" "'~. _" .~_.._"--",_."'_.~_................-~'*..-.',...,_."-,,---""'~-_...,=-~-----"'~"~""""---'-~'--
August 27, 2009
motion.
Board of County Commissioners versus Klemco, LLC,
Department No. CESD2009000 --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It's regarding Empire.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Empire.
MR. LARSEN: I'm starting with Klemco.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We already took care of those.
MR. LARSEN: Well, there wasn't a motion to --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do we need a motion?
MS. WALDRON: We don't need a motion because the county
isn't recommending the lien be imposed.
MR. LARSEN: Okay. Because I was just going to make a
motion to dismiss.
MS. WALDRON: Just the last one we do need a motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So Mr. Larsen, you could go ahead
and do that one.
MR. LARSEN: Board of County Commissioners versus Empire
Development Group, Department No. CESD20080014496. Request
for imposition of fines.
Now, the operational costs have been paid on that?
MS. WALDRON: (Nods head affirmatively.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And so has the abate amount?
MS. WALDRON: Yeah, the abate amount was applied to the
other cases, but this case is a companion case as well.
MR. LARSEN: Okay. So there's no need for an imposition.
MS. WALDRON: Correct.
MR. LARSEN: So we're just doing the same with the other two
then, making a motion that basically the request for an imposition of
fine be denied.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, I don't know if it's denied, but
MS. WALDRON: You just have to -- we have to state on the
Page 43
August 27,2009
record the fines will not be imposed.
MR. LARSEN: Fines will not be imposed. The request by the
county is denied.
MR. KELLY: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: You win.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Just to let you know, we did recess
for about 20 minutes, 25 minutes to see that you're here. So we did
wait, but we went forward anyway.
MS. ZAYAS: I apologize for not being here earlier.
But I appreciate our relationship with the county, so thank you.
MR. KAUFMAN: You did well.
MR. LARSEN: I still don't see the difference between what we
did on Empire and what we did on Klemco.
MS. WALDRON: I can give you some light on that.
There were actually daily fines accruing for the Empire
Developers and there were not for the other two cases.
MR. LARSEN: Why not?
MS. WALDRON: Because it wasn't in your order. You gave the
county the authority to abate and not impose fines.
Page 44
August 27, 2009
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Oh, that's right.
MR. LARSEN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Because Empire was prior to --
MS. WALDRON: Right.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- Klemco. And then Klemco took
possession, or actually --
MR. LARSEN: Right, it's the successor in interest.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I understand.
The next thing is reports. Do we have any reports?
MR. LARSEN: Well, I have a new business. Do you want to
report on it?
I won't be able to make the September meeting because I have to
try a case in New York.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I will not be here either. Anyone
else that's not going to be able to attend next month?
MR. HEMES: I won't be here. I'll be in jolly old England.
MR. DEAN: So is Ken going to sit by himself?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We have enough board members.
We have currently six members. So if that changes or if we need a
member, I can adjust my schedule, but I do have an important meeting
that I would like to attend.
MR. DEAN: It's your honeymoon, we don't want to mess with
that.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No, no, honeymoon is a few days
later.
MR. LARSEN: Sorry, dear.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right, let's get back to the
meeting.
Wow. All right, reports, please?
MS. FLAGG: Reports. Diane Flagg, Director of Code
Enforcement.
I just wanted to update you all that as of August 23rd, we've
Page 45
___'_..~.~,..""...'_."L'_,"."~-""""""~'''''''''''''""'''_'''_.''''''''',.._.,__""""_,_,.;;~__..,..,,...-..._,,",""""'''''''''''''''''''_'''''''_'''~"",..""..",_~".u,..~._.., 0" .""__M~~""_'"
August 27,2009
received 951 code cases that involved foreclosed properties that are
vacant in Collier County. Of those 951, the banks have abated 418 of
those cases at no cost to the county, and the banks have spent
$431,200 to abate the violations, the code violations.
This goes into the Blight Prevention Program that we've been
working with the community on. One arm of that Blight Prevention
Program is seeking voluntary compliance by the banks in the lis
pendens status. So long before the bank ever takes title to the property,
they're taking interest in the property and making sure that blight
doesn't occur in Collier County.
Another arm of the Blight Prevention Program is the community
task force meetings. There are, as you know, five community task
forces throughout Collier County. They continue to meet monthly.
And through the community task forces, comprised of multiple
agencies, the sheriffs office, utilities, civic associations, homeowners
associations and code enforcement, code enforcement continues to
have events where they go out and meet and greet the community
members, they provide them information about how to abate code
violations, they assist them in abating code violations if there is a case
brought forward.
And they're doing quite a few what we call community cleanups.
The community task force teams are going out, setting up a location.
In one case they filled five dumpsters with discarded tires. So the
community members are able to get rid of all the trash and debris and
discarded items in their community at no cost.
We have the dumpsters out there in conjunction with the utilities
division. They bring the dumpsters out, we fill -- we had a cleanup in
East Naples. They filled 10 dumpsters full of debris. And then all that
debris was dumped at no cost to the community members. So these
community cleanups have become very popular with our community.
And your code enforcement investigators are out there slinging tires
and refrigerators and microwaves and whatever else to get the
Page 46
.,._.,_" ",__>~.,,"".__.,,"._..,_..,._,,.....,.,,,,.....~,,..._._.._...,_,,,_,....,_''''''''',.,_,,,._._''''''''..,___,_'"'''....,._~c.,'_.;.;;'''''-".,,.'u,,''''''''"'''',.._"..."~.,_,,_"""'..,.,,.._"...._..,.,._,.____,~~,_'_,_.__--~~"'"""-"--
August 27,2009
community cleaned up to make sure we don't have blight.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further comments or questions?
MR. LA VINSKI: I have one question for Diane.
Did you say a while back that you have some effort underway to
help prevent these people from buying homes that have violations that
they don't supposedly know about?
MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir, and I appreciate you bringing that up.
We've been working -- the Board of County Commissioners
passed a motion of direction to -- for NABOR and CBIA to develop
an ordinance requiring mandatory inspection of vacant and foreclosed
homes. That ordinance is scheduled to come back to the BCC for
review of the proposed draft. It will still need to be advertised
following that.
But it's scheduled to come back to the BCC on September 29th
at the regularly scheduled BCC meeting.
MR. LA VINSKI: Excellent.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other comments from the
board?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next meeting will be September
24th, 2009.
Do I have a motion to adjourn --
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair, I do have a quick comment.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I'd just like to say that I am sensing a
little bit of frustration by the board. And I just want you all to know
that if there are items that are going forward that I'm uncomfortable
with, that there might be some clarification or something that's
needed, it's necessary that we do follow up on that, because I want to
make sure that we don't expose the county to -- or the board to
litigation.
As you know, I represent you all and Mr. Wright represents the
Page 47
August 27,2009
Code Enforcement Board. And we've established a Chinese wall. So
the information that's shared with the code board and Jeff doesn't
come to me until the meeting, just like it does to all of you.
So there will from time to time, because the way this is
structured, be some areas that might need some clarification. And just
ask that you bear with us as we proceed forward. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You know, maybe if we do come up
with a similar case that we had today, maybe we can recess that case
or put it in hold and then come back when you have an answer so we
don't make a decision without you.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That's one option. And I don't think it's
going to occur that frequent. But from time to time there will be a
matter and I just wanted to explain so you understood the setup.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, any other comments? Any
comments from the board or thoughts?
MR. DEAN: Motion to adjourn.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. KAUFMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much.
Page 48
,__,___.~~_..___,.~_"".,,_~.._",_",,_.,,...,",......,,".=.,....,.,,~.~."_."..,......_.""",<"~~,_"""",",,,,,_.___,,,_,,,,'....~,,_.;.,.,.,___....._,...__,_c__,,_"".w."._'_..'.'.'."."....._..."'_..._."~___,__""'__..-__.~_'~_~,,__'''_'~'w.,..,..__,..,_
August 27, 2009
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:39 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 49