Loading...
CEB Minutes 09/24/2009 R September 24, 2009 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida September 24, 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: Vice-Chair: Kenneth Kelly Gerald Lefebvre (Absent) Larry Dean Nicolas Hemes (Absent) Edward Larsen (Absent) Lionel L'Esperance Robert Kaufman James Lavinski Heriminio Ortega (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director Jen Waldron, Code Enforcement Specialist Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA AGENDA Date: September 24, 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, WillCH 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 TillS RECORD. 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - A. August 27, 2009 Hearing 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. MOTIONS Motion for Extension of Time 1. Catalina Calderon Est., Ofelia Dimas & Jorge Calderon CEB NO. 2007110455 B. STIPULATIONS C. HEARINGS 1. BCC VS. Manuel F. & Ana L. Moran 2. BCC vs. Mr. 99 Cents, Inc. 3. BCC vs. Elvis Barrera 4. BCC vs. Petitoles Saint Jean 5. BCC vs. Anthony Dinorcia Sr. 6. BCC vs. Meghan H. Soloff 7. BCC vs. Marie L. Gilot 8. BCC vs. Georges & Etheres E. Alcee 9. BCC vs Roxana Sorokoty Tr., Walter G. Sorokoty Jr. Est. CEB NO. CESD20080007126 CEB NO. 200705898 CEB NO. CESD20090010623 CEB NO. CESD20090010557 CEB NO. CEVR20080013185 CEB NO. CEVR20090004297 CEB NO. CESD20080015112 CEB NO. CESD20090011384 CEB NO. CESD20090005007 5. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. BCC vs. Jose Rodriguez 2. BCC vs. Genel Bricius & Dieumila Faugue 3. BCC vs. Southern Development Co. Inc. 4. BCC vs. Jaime & Damarys Oliva 5. BCC vs. Jaime & Damarys Oliva CEB NO. CESD20080003864 CEB NO. CEPM20080004430 CEB NO. CEVR20080014785 CEB NO. 2006090513 CEB NO. 2007080436 B. Motion for Reduction of Fines/Liens 1. James C & Sherry Marshall CEB NO. 2004-72 6. NEW BUSINESS 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens B. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office 1. Reinhard Marton CEB NO. CESD20080010163 8. REPORTS 9. COMMENTS 10. NEXT MEETING DATE - October 22, 2009 11. ADJOURN September 24, 2009 VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning, everyone. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board meeting to order. Notice: The respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation, unless additional time is granted by the board. Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes, unless the time is adjusted by the chair. 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 the 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 roll call, please. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Ken Kelly? VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Robert Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LA VINSKI: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Larry Dean? MR. DEAN: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre has an excused absence, Mr. Nicolas Hemes has an excused absence, Mr. Ed Larsen has an excused absence, and Mr. Heriminio Ortego is not present. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Next we'll go to approval of agenda. Staff, is there any changes? Page 2 September 24, 2009 MS. WALDRON: Yes, there are changes. We have an addition under motion for extension of time. This will be number two. It's D.C. KirkhoffCompany, Case 2007090683. We have two items that have been moved under stipulations. The first will be Item C.8 under hearings, BCC versus Georges and Etheres E. Alcee, CESD200900 11384. And Item C.4 under hearings, BCC versus Petitoles Saint Jean. Case CESD20090010557. Item C under hearings, number five, BCC versus Anthony Dinorcia, Sr., Case CEVR200800 13185 has been withdrawn. Number seven under hearings, BCC versus Marie L. Gilot, Case CESD200800 15112 has been withdrawn. And number nine under hearings, BCC versus Roxana Sorokoty Trust, Walter G. Sorokoty, Jr. Estate, Case CESD2009005007 has been withdrawn. And we have an additional stipulation that just came in, which we will move under stipulations as Item C.1 under hearings, BCC versus Manuel F. and Ana L. Moran, CESD20080007126. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right, thank you. Does anybody want a minute to reorganize their packet? MR. KAUFMAN: Uh-huh. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just take a quick minute. (Recess. ) VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, is that all of the changes? MS. WALDRON: (Nods head affirmatively.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: With that, I'll entertain a motion to approve the agenda. MR. DEAN: Motion to approve the agenda. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY : We have a motion. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: And a second. All those in favor? Page 3 September 24, 2009 MR. DEAN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. On to approval of the minutes. Any changes, questions about the minutes? (No response.) MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion to approve the minutes. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Second. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Public hearings. Motion for extension of time. Catalina Calderon Estate, or Mrs. Dimas and Calderon. (Speakers were duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please? MR. DIMAS: My name is Raul Dimas, Jr. THE COURT REPORTER: Could you spell your first name. MR. DIMAS: Raul, R-A-U-L. Dimas, D-I-M-A-S. Page 4 September 24, 2009 THE COURT REPORTER: And your name, please. MR. CALDERON: George Calderon. MR. WALKER: Weldon Walker. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. If you would, speak slowly so that the court reporter could record everything word for word, please. Also, we have here a letter stating that you'd like a motion to extend time. Could you explain the circumstances behind that, please. MR. DIMAS: Unfortunately it's taken us a little bit more time than needed to demolish the residence. And being that our time is going to be up by the end of this month, we've asked for a continuance of time because of the planning process, trying to get everything to fall into place so we can go ahead and continue with the demolish. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: And Investigator, any objection from county? MR. WALKER: Not at all, sir. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: How much time do you think you'll need? MR. DIMAS: Well, we were kind of hoping that, you know, we'd have it done as soon as possible. We've asked for a three-month extension in hopes that that would be sufficient to try to get a date scheduled and everything taken care of. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Gotcha. Any comments or questions from the board? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: To the board members, does 90 days seem sufficient? Are you okay with that? MR. DEAN: I'm fine with that. MR. L'ESPERANCE: No problem. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Entertain a motion. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to extend three months. MR. DEAN: I'll second. Page 5 September 24, 2009 MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chairman, I have some clarification. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Please. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I'm sorry to interrupt. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Ninety days from the date of today or from the deadline, which was yesterday? VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good point. MR. KAUFMAN: From the deadline. From yesterday. MR. L'ESPERANCE: The deadline is the end of the month. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, according to the order, he had until September 23rd. MR. L'ESPERANCE: So it starts on the 23rd, Robert, is what you're saying? MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. Do you have any problem with that? MR. DIMAS: No, sir. That's what we had put into the paperwork, by the end of the deadline to start another three months after. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we need to reinstate the motion? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and we have a second by Mr. Dean. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Opposed? (No response.) Page 6 September 24, 2009 VICE-CHAIRMAN KELL Y: You have an additional 90 days time from yesterday. Thank you. MR. DIMAS: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: And thanks for coming to us ahead of time. Appreciate that. Next case is DC Kirkhoff and Company for a motion for extension of time. (Speakers were duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please? MR. KIRKHOFF: I'm Daniel C. Kirkhoff. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good, morning, sir. MR. KIRKHOFF: Good morning. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Snow. Sir, we do have the letter and a copy of the original motion for extension. Would you like to just briefly explain the reason behind this one. MR. KIRKHOFF: The reason by this one is I request a -- I have to meet with the county and tell them what the real circumstances are. D.C. KirkhoffCompany, which I founded 35 years ago, we've been at this location for well over, oh, probably 30 years plus. Work on architectural precast concrete. We're certified with the Architectural Association. And we've been operating here in compliance, to my knowledge, for this amount of time. We had been -- we had been leasing property in the back. I own the front two lots and we've been leasing property in the back to store our material. We had purchased this material -- or purchased the property in the back and had found out that we were in noncompliance with code -- or that we needed a site development permit, of which I didn't have knowledge of it. I thought because it was an industrial park, heavy industrial zoned park, that we could use it for storing material. I found out differently. Weare -- I don't have a problem bringing that property up to Page 7 September 24, 2009 code. But because I own the front property and I then told ( sic) that by -- I thought that it had been up to code and properly permitted, but they want me to move my aggregate bins. If I move my aggregate bins then I have to move my plant, or at least I have to do a site study to see the traffic flow. So I need time to meet with the county, which I believe my engineer has said that we can do, or that they agreed to. And so I need an extension of time for that. And I don't know if that will be a year or what. It depends on how much -- you know, what the county says that we can do and if I have to move my plant, which I don't want to do. I've been here for 30 plus years. MR. SNOW: Mr. Kelly -- Mr. Chair, if I can refresh your memory on this. This was a case where there was property use in the back with no -- it was vacant land and he was utilizing it. When he started his site improvement plan to try to bring the back property into compliance, the county has some problems with the front property also. Remember, these were two separate properties. He purchased the rear property and was utilizing it, and he's always been in the front. So now to come into county compliance he has to bring the front property into compliance. And that's where the issue is. Before he can do anything in the back, now he's got to work with the front. So I don't -- it's going to be a very, very extensive project for him to try to do that. Because it was preexisting and, you know, the regulations 30 years ago aren't what they were (sic) today. So the county has no objection to any amount of time that the board would like to give. MR. KAUFMAN: Would 12 months be adequate time for you to get your meeting with the county and at least line up what you need to do? MR. KIRKHOFF: I have a note here. I hope so. You know, to answer your question, I hope so. It's up to the county. I've not met Page 8 September 24, 2009 with the county. I have a note from my engineer saying that the county wishes to meet with us about the aggregate bins in the front. Which I had permitted. So -- and then, you know, if we move the aggregate bins and they want to put trees there and the trees will put leafy things into my aggregate and if I sell product to the county, I'm going to have problems. So-- MR. SNOW: Mr. Chair, what -- excuse me, Mr. Kirkhoff. What we could do is have him contact with code enforcement written via e-mail every 30 to 60 days to give us an update so we're going to have a chronological order. So if we come back and ask for more time we could present that evidence to the board and say this is where we're at. That's what -- especially when you're giving 12 months, there's really no time frame for them to come into compliance. So if you give them some deadlines, usually -- or give them some stipulations to meet this, every 30, 60 days contact code, then I'm sure that that will work out fine. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: I appreciate that as a suggestion. Thank you. MR. KAUFMAN: How about if we entertain a motion that we extend the time 12 months, with quarterly reviews with code enforcement. And then at such time after 12 months if new time is needed we have the record to take care of that. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: And that is a motion? MR. KAUFMAN: That's a motion. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Dean. Any comments? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Could you clarify, is that 12 months from today? MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. Page 9 September 24, 2009 MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any additional comments or questions? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good. Anything just to let us know and establish a time line that there's progress being made would be great. And you can submit that directly to Investigator Snow -- or Supervisor Snow. Thank you. MR. SNOW: Thank you, so, I appreciate that. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, sir. MR. KIRKHOFF: Thank you, gentlemen. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Chairman, we do have an addition -- or Vice-Chairman, we do have an additional stipulation agreement as well. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We can amend the agenda. And this will be stipulation item number four? MS. WALDRON: Yeah. And it's Item C.3 under hearings, BCC versus Elvis Barrera. Case CESD200900 1 0623. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Moving on to stipulations, the first case is Elcee. Do you want to read it into the record, please. MS. WALDRON: BCC versus Georges and Etheres E. Elcee, Case CESD20090011384. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: And is the respondent present? Page 10 September 24,2009 MR. MUCHA: No. (Speaker was duly sworn.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. MR. MUCHA: Good morning. This is -- for the record, Investigator Joe Mucha, Property Maintenance Specialist, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is Case No. CESD20090011384, Georges and Etheres Elcee. I met with Mr. Elcee yesterday and he represented himself and was there on behalf of his wife as well. And he entered into the stipulation in agreement with Collier County, and he agrees that he was in violation of Collier County Land Development Code 2004-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and described as a permitted duplex that had been converted to four rental units without permits. I actually met with Mr. Elcee last Friday, September 18th, and the duplex had been converted back to -- I mean, he basically had people living in garages. And it's been converted back to two separate units. So it's back to its original permitted state. So he agrees to pay the operational cost in the amount of $85.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of the hearing. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: So this is more or less a finding of fact and to have the operational costs put on record. MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: So the violations have been abated? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board? MR. DEAN: I have one question. Is there any reinspection required? MR. MUCHA: No, sir. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion that we accept the stipulation Page 11 September 24, 2009 as written. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LA VINSKI: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. MUCHA: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Moving on to the next one, Saint John. MS. WALDRON: This is BCC versus Petitoles Saint John, Case CESD200900 1 0557. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. SYKORA: For the record, my name is Carol Sykora, S-Y-K-O-R-A, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This morning we reached a stipulation agreement. This is reference to Case No. CESD20090010557. Violation is Permit No. 2007061296 for a screen pool enclosure expired without obtaining all inspections and certificate of completion at 105 Doral Circle, Naples, Florida, 34113. Folio 54901800009. The agreement was to pay operational costs in the amount of $86.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing and abate all violations by: Applying for and obtaining a valid Collier County permit for the pool screen enclosure and obtain all inspections and certificate of completion without 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation is Page 12 September 24, 2009 abated. The respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you agree to and understand the stipulation agreement? MS. PETITOLES: Yes. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Only one question. Do you think the 120 days is sufficient time to get the permit and have the construction completed? MS. PETITOLES: Yes, I'm going to do it. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion to accept the stipulation as written. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LA VINSKI: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion passes. MS. PETITOLES: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. If you run into any problems, please let us know ahead of time. MS. PETITOLES: Okay, thank you. Page 13 September 24, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. SYKORA: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Carol. Next under stipulation is Moran. MS. WALDRON: This is case BCC versus Manuel F. and Ana L. Moran, CESD20080007126. (Speakers were duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please? MR. MORAN: Manuel F. Moran. And my wife Ana L. Moran. MR. ORTIZ: My name is Jose Ortiz. O-R-T-I-Z. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Ortiz, will you be translating? MR. ORTIZ: He pretty much understand everything. Just in case he require that, I will do that. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there a separate way swear in for translators? (J ose Ortiz was duly sworn to interpret Spanish to English.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, sir. Good morning. MS. SCAVONE: Good morning. For the record, Michelle Scavone, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20080007126, dealing with the violation of Permit No. 2002023338 for a steel building expiring without a certificate of completion. The location is at 865 Everglades Boulevard South, Naples, Florida, 34117. Folio No. 40987721006. The county and the respondent had a pre-conference hearing and agreed that the violation does exist. We agreed between the two parties of a stipulation agreement, that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $87.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of the hearing; abate all violations by applying for and obtaining a Collier County Page 14 September 24,2009 building permit or demolition permit for all unpermitted construction improvements to the garage, steel building; all related inspections through a certificate of completion within 120 days of the date of this hearing or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed until the violation is abate. The respondent must notify code enforcement investigator within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of the agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner (sic). VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you understand and agree to everything that's been put in the stipulated agreement? MR. MORAN: Yes, sir. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just out of curiosity, is the steel building complete and ready for inspections, or do you have work to do? MR. MORAN: Sir, no. When I buy the house, the building was finished. I writing down the contract the building could be finished before the closing. And physical the building was finish, but they never called an inspector to do the CO. And when she let me know in 2008 this happened, I contact the title company and they told me they're going to pass a case to the lawyer to take care of the case. And I call several times, then they told me give me more time, next week, and you know. And right now I need more time to take care of myself. Now the problem is the money, you know. The job is so slow and -- I will take care of myself. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Cherie', did you get all that? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. Page 15 September 24, 2009 VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Is there any questions from anyone on the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Do you have enough time with 120 days to-- MR. MORAN: I hope sir, I hope. MR. KAUFMAN: And if you don't have enough time, come back before the time elapses. MR. MORAN: Right. Thank you very much. MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion that we accept the stipulation as written. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Dean. Did you have a comment? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes, I'd just like to confirm that the location of the violation is 865 Everglades, and that for purposes of mailing the order to you, it goes to 885 Everglades; is that correct? MR. MORAN: No, 865 Everglades Boulevard. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. So the mailing address is that as well. MR. MORAN: Southeast. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: All right, thank you. MR. MORAN: You're welcome. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELL Y: We have a motion and a second. Any other comments? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 16 September 24, 2009 VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the stipulation's passed. Thank you very much. MR. MORAN: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good luck. And if there's any problems, please come back to us ahead of time. MR. MORAN: Thank you, sir. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the last stipulation that we have is Mr . Barrera? MS. WALDRON: BCC versus Elvis Barrera, Case CESD200900 1 0623. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is the respondent here? MS. SYKORA: Yes. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: One second. Procedurally we never voted to change and accept the agenda change after the original motion. Before we could hear this case we should probably vote the change in the agenda now. I need a motion to accept this case because it's been moved different from when we originally -- MR. KAUFMAN: I make the motion that we move this case. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: I second. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) Page 1 7 September 24, 2009 VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just a formality. Sorry about that. Did you get a chance to swear everyone in? (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. SYKORA: My name is Carol Sykora, S-Y-K-O-R-A, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20090010623, violation of no Collier County permits for conversion of a garage to living space. Located at 208 Benson Street, Naples, Florida, 34113. Folio 77310080002. This morning the respondent Mr. Barrera and I agreed to a stipulation agreement to pay operational costs in the amount of $86.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing, and abate all violations by: Applying for and obtaining all permits required for conversion of a garage to living space. Must request or cause required inspections through to and including certificate of occupancy completion, or must obtain a Collier County demolition permit to restore to a permitted state and remove improvements to a site intended for final disposal and obtain inspections through and including a certificate of completion within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. 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. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Barrera, do you understand and agree to everything that we put in this stipulated agreement? MR. BARRERA: Yes. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you feel as though 120 days is going to give you enough time to either convert the garage or -- MR. BARRERA: Yes. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- get it approved as is? MR. BARRERA: Yes, that's okay. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there any other questions from Page 18 September 24, 2009 the board? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: With that, I'll entertain an motion. MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion we accept the stipulation as written. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY : We have a motion, do we have a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Dean. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the stipulated agreement has been passed. Thank you, sir. And if you have any problems, please let us know ahead of time. MR. BARRERA: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. MS. SYKORA: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Moving on to hearings. MS. WALDRON: The next case will be item number two under hearings, BCC versus Mr. 99 Cents, Inc. Case 2007050898. MR. MAST: Good morning, gentlemen. My name is Christopher Mast, I represent Mr. 99 Cents, Inc. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: If I could just get you a second, let's have the investigator sworn in. (Speakers were duly sworn.) Page 19 September 24,2009 THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your spelling, please? MR. MAST: My name is Christopher. Last name is Mast, M-A-S-T. Like the ship. MS. HASSAM: Janet Hassam. H-A-S-S-A-M. MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Ordinance 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06(B)(1)(e), 1 0.02.06(B)(1)( e )(i). Description of violation: A 50-foot by 12- foot room addition without first obtaining proper Collier County permits. Location/address where violation exists: 1811 Lake Trafford Road, Immokalee, Florida, 34142. Folio No. 000745600000. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Registered agent, Nivian (phonetic) Hassam, 280 Northwest 129th Avenue, Miami, Florida, 33182. Date violation first observed: May 25th, 2007. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: December 22nd, 2008. Date on/by which violation to be corrected. January 12th, 2009. Date of reinspection: May 29th, 2009. At this time I'd like to present Investigator Maria Rodriguez and Investigator Jonathan Musse. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning. For the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. 2007050898, dealing with violations of an addition built onto the side of a structure without first obtaining proper Collier County permits. Located at 1813 Lake Trafford, Immokalee, Florida, 34142. Folio No. 000745600000. Service was given on December 22nd, 2008. This case was initiated as an anonymous complaint on May 25th of 2007. Case notes reveal the meeting took on May 25th of 2007 with property owner, Mr. Hassam. The violation was discussed and Page 20 September 24,2009 time was given for voluntary compliance. The case was turned over to me after June of'09. A Notice of Violation was given to Mr. Hassam on December 22nd, 2008. We discussed the violation and time given for abatement. The compliance date expired for no permits applied for the illegal addition. I would like now to submit the photos as evidence, and I certify that these photographs are true and accurate representation of the property. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Has the respondent had a chance to review the photos? MR. MAST: We're not disputing that there's a code violation there. I mean, I don't know why she's going through all that, she don't need to. Our only issue here is how much time we can get to remedy the problem. We did not cause the violation, the violation was caused by a prior tenant. It sat there for two years while be built a 50-foot addition, poured concrete. Where was code enforcement then to stop the problem? And now we're stuck, after I evicted him in 2007, correcting all the issues that he caused. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: You're not alone. Your case is quite frequent in this county. MR. MAST: I know, I understand that. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it's unfortunate. The typical procedure is we let county present the case so that we as the -- MR. MAST: I understand. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- board can get an idea of the magnitude of the situation, which helps us determine how much time you mayor may not need. MR. MAST: We've done a -- we've gotten a site plan done. Unfortunately to remodel the place it would cost too much. Collier Page 21 September 24, 2009 County wants too many improvements to the property. So that's pretty much out of the picture. So we have obtained -- and I have already shown Maria, we have obtained the demo drawings that we need for it. And we would basically just like a year's time to get this property taken care of. The other problem for my clients is the economy is bad now. The first initial estimate we got was around $10,000, approximately. So we're -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Mast, we do have procedures to go through, as the Chairman was explaining to you. We have to go through these procedures. MR. MAST: Oh, I understand. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Additionally, helping to see the photos might give us a better idea -- MR. MAST: I have no objection to the photos. If you want, I can also present you with the drawings. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: When we get to that we will admit that into evidence as well. Thank you. You do understand that when they are admitted, they will be kept by the court reporter. MR. MAST: That's fine. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is-- MR. DEAN: Motion to approve the photos. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 22 September 24, 2009 MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. Are threes different years from the appraiser's office. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yeah, 2004. And you see no addition. 2005 is when it came up. MR. KAUFMAN: Is there any difference between 2005 and 2006? MS. RODRIGUEZ: No, it's the same. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good. Do you have additional photos? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, we do. This is the outside of the structure. And this is the inside. It's a storage room. And then there's also electrical that was added on, as you can tell. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is this an air conditioned and cooled space, or simply vented? MS. RODRIGUEZ: To me it seemed like it's a fan that blows out, not in. MR. DEAN: Just a fan. MS. RODRIGUEZ: It's not a walk-in cooler, it's just a storage area. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Any questions for the county and the board? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Very good. MR. MAST: It is what it is, sir. If I may approach. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Actually, we need to just quickly pass a motion to accept that. Motion? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the -- what is it, the demo-- Page 23 September 24, 2009 MR. MAST: Yeah, demo drawings, Your Honor -- not Your Honor. MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion -- MR. MAST: From my times in court. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion, second. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, sir. MR. MAST: I have no way to project them on the screen so I will just approach and hand them to you. And it does match what Maria has shown you. It's an extensive building over there, it's over 10,000 square feet. The addition that was put on by the former tenant is quite extensive as well. We're going to have to demo the concrete. I don't know how he managed to put that much of a structure onto the existing building without somebody seeing it. Of course you can see it's painted yellow. But somehow it just went over everybody's head for two years. And like I said, after we evicted him, you know, we were aware of this. It's just something that haven't been able to get to yet. There's been too many other issues that have had to be addressed first. And at this point we have the drawings, we're getting ready to apply for the permit, and then we have to find somebody that will to do it for a reasonable fee. Because my clients do not have the kind of cash right now to just spend $10,000 to remove the structure. Page 24 September 24, 2009 VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board as to whether or not a violation exists? MR. KAUFMAN: I think that you've already said a violation exists. MR. MAST: We're not disputing that the violation exists. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: In that case, I'll entertain a motion. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that the violation exists. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, does county have a recommendation? We have one from the respondent's side. MS. RODRIGUEZ: The county recommends the respondent to pay operational costs in the amount of $86.71 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of the hearing; to abate all violations by obtaining a Collier County building permit for any construction additions or remodeling and obtain all inspections and certificate of completion within "X" amount of days of this hearing or a fine of "X" amount per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Or obtaining a Collier County demolition permit to remove any said illegal construction additions. Remodeling to include inspections and certificate of completion within "X" amount of days of this hearing or a fine of "X" amount per Page 25 September 24, 2009 day will be imposed until violation is abated. The 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 provision of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Sir, the one issue that I have, and perhaps someone else on the board might share this, is the electric that's going to this storage room. Typically if electric has not been permitted and/or inspected, it creates a health and safety issue. MR. MAST: That's going to be removed as part of the demolition. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the problem I have is waiting 365 days, perhaps, until that's done. Is there any way that we could turn that off? Is there a main breaker that separates the electric running to that room? MS. HASSAM: I'm sure -- I'm not sure -- MR. MAST: Sir, we have no problem with turning it off, if that's going to be an issue, sir. You know, it's going to be taken out as part of the demo. That's all we can do. I don't know whether it's up to code. From the pictures it looks like it might be up to code. They did run it with conduit and that kind of thing. So it looks like whoever put it in at least attempted to do it the right way. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Right. Although I'm a contractor, I'm not an electrical contractor and it's hard to tell by pictures -- MR. MAST: Yeah, it is. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- I personally would feel more comfortable if perhaps we added something into the order that gave some time just to turn that off in the meantime. Page 26 September 24, 2009 MR. MAST: No problem with that, sir. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Does anybody else have any questions? MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question. Why is it that this can't be permitted and not demoed? Is there some particular reason? MR. MAST: We have no -- I have no idea whether the slab's up to code, I have no idea if anything's up to code. I don't know how you'd even prove that it was without demoing it to show that it was the proper thickness. MR. KAUFMAN: Is it possible to go to the county to find out whether that might be a way of -- instead of tearing it down, to -- MR. MAST: I suspect that it's not up to code, and there's no way to remedy it. We've had architects take a look at it. MR. KAUFMAN: Oh, okay. MR. MAST: And as I recall from my discussions with them, they didn't think it was up to code in any way, shape or form. It was one of those, you know, fly-by-night additions that the tenant put on there. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'm in favor of the county's recommendation the way that it was worded, giving you the option. If in the process of maybe sending a contractor out there to demo it he says hey, if I throw a couple of studs in we can get this up to code, I'd like to leave you that option. MR. MAST: That would be fine with me. MS. RODRIGUEZ: He might want to suggest that he permit by affidavit. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: This is true. If you do get an engineer to approve it as-is, a permit by affidavit will basically take all of the liability and put it back on either the engineer or the building official who signs that. MR. MAST: Nobody's going to sign it. Page 27 September 24,2009 VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good suggestion, though. MR. MAST: But I appreciate the suggestion. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sure. I'll go ahead and -- unless there's anything else, I'll go ahead and close the public portion and we can discuss here on the board time frames and dollar amounts and entertain a motion. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question for the county. Do you think 365 days would be amenable to the county? MS. RODRIGUEZ: If they turn off the electric from the section -- that section of the building, we don't have a problem. The only thing we'd like to add is if he could just let us know on a monthly basis as to what's going on. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MAST: I have no problem with that. MR. KAUFMAN: And how many days do you think it would be right to approve for the removal of the electric? Would 30 days for the removal of the electric service be sufficient as far as the county's concerned? MS. RODRIGUEZ: We have no objection. Whatever the board decides is fine with us. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Now, when you say removal of the electrical service, do you mean shutting off of the breaker leading -- MR. KAUFMAN: Pull the breaker out. MR. L'ESPERANCE: -- to the addition? MR. KAUFMAN: Pull the breaker out of the box. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Well, let's have that done sooner than 30 days. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. DEAN: Fifteen is good. MR. MAST: I don't know enough about the electrical out there to say either way whether we can remove a breaker or not, sir. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, we have -- Page 28 September 24,2009 MR. MAST: If there's no breaker, we can simply disconnect it. That wouldn't be any great issue, I wouldn't think. There's only the fan in there? MS. HASSAM: Um-hum. MR. MAST: So it's only one item. MR. KAUFMAN: I think it's a fan and I think there are a few outlets around the -- MR. MAST: I'm assuming they've all been illegally run off the same line, though. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have some suggestions for a motion. Does somebody want to form that? MR. KAUFMAN: I'll try. On the time frames, 15 days to have the electrical service terminated in the area in question. Monthly -- the extension of time would be 365 days, with a $200 a day fine after 365 days. And monthly updates to code enforcement during the 365 days. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is everyone clear on the motion? MR. DEAN: I understand. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: The attorney is the one I'm worried about. She's the one that has to write it. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I got it. I'll just need Mr. Mast's business card to send you a copy. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion, do we have a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a second by Mr. Dean. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 29 September 24, 2009 MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. RODRIGUEZ: Question. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes. Sorry. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Ifhe doesn't disconnect the electrical within the 15 days, does the $200 a day start after the 15 days? MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the 365 days and the $200 per day fine was for all three sections then. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Okay. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Correct? MR. KAUFMAN: That's correct. MR. L'ESPERANCE: And those are calendar, not business days, obviously. MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, do you understand, sir? MR. MAST: Yes, I do. Thank you very much. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. If you have any issues with adhering to this, let us know, please. MR. MAST: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Okay, moving on to our next case, does that go all the way down to Soloff? MS. WALDRON: Yes. Next case is item six under hearings, BCC versus Meghan H. Soloff. Case CEBR20090004297. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is the respondent present? MS. O'FARRELL: No. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: For the record, for proof of service, notice of hearing was sent out on September 11 th, 2009 by certified mail. Page 30 September 24,2009 Notice was left on September 15th, 2009. Property and courthouse were both posted on September 9th, 2009. This is in reference to violation of Ordinance 04-41, as amended, Collier County Land Development Code, Section 3.05.08(C), requirement for removal of exotic vegetation. Description of violation: Observed exotic vegetation on developed property built after 1992. Location/address where violation exists: 2328 Broadwing Court, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 49460006100. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Meghan H. Soloff, 2328 Broadwing Court, Naples, Florida, 34105. Date violation first observed: April 22nd, 2009. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: April 28th, 2009. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: May 26th, 2009. Date of reinspection: August 24th, 2009. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. And just for the record, I would also like to say that Mrs. Soloff did call me this week and leave a message. We did attempt to call her back and she never returned our phone call. At this time I'd like to present Environmental Specialist Susan O'Farrell. MS. O'FARRELL: Good morning. For the record, Susan O'Farrell, Collier County Code Enforcement Environmental Investigator. This is in reference to Case No. CEVR20090004297, dealing with the violation of prohibited exotics on approved property. It's located at 2328 Broadwing Court, Naples, Florida. Service was given personally on April 28th, 2009. I would like to now present the case with the following exhibits: Exhibits B, which is the photo of the cultivated landscape with the Page 31 September 24, 2009 prohibited exotics, and Exhibit C with the current condition. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'll entertain a motion to accept the photos. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LA VINSKI: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY : We have a second. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. O'FARRELL: This is cultivated landscape that's been infested with Brazilian pepper. This was observed on the first date when I went out to the house. I served the Notice of Violation on 4/28 and actually gave her more time than we normally would for removing exotics. On 7/15, July 15th, I spoke with the owner and gave her two more weeks. I've been out to her house several times and looked and sort of in between checks to other properties to see if anything was happening. Nothing was happening. On 8/24 I tried to speak to the owner for another chance before we went to the CEB hearing. She was in the house, wouldn't answer the door, so I left a note on the door with my phone number and the reason that I had stopped by. Still no response to that letter. And yesterday I visited the site and the inspection is still current. That would be Exhibit C. Page 32 September 24,2009 The investigation of the property showed that it was built after 1992 when the ordinance was a little more restrictive and showed the houses need to have their exotics removed in perpetuity. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Susan, do you feel as though the resident understands the violation? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes, I do. I've explained the violation to the resident and to another resident of the house, I've explained the CEB process to the resident, and I've also shown her the exotics on the property . VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: What was the response of the resident to your MS. O'FARRELL: I'll get it taken care of as soon as possible. That's been the response every time I've talked to her. Which is why I kept driving by every time I was in the neighborhood. MR. L'ESPERANCE: They never disputed the information you gave them? MS. O'FARRELL: No. It's kind of hard to dispute when your house is completely surrounded by Brazilian pepper. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that a violation exists. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY : We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LA VINSKI: Second. MR. DEAN: I'll second. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Your pick. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 33 September 24,2009 MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: A violation exists. And do we have a recommendation? MS. O'FARRELL: The recommendation would be that the Code Enforcement Board order the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$86.14 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days, and abate all violations by removing the prohibited exotic vegetation as identified in Ordinance 04-41, as amended, Section 3.05.08 within "X" days of this hearing or a daily fine of "X" days will be assessed as long as the violation persists. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County's Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement will be assessed to the property owner. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Susan, do you feel as though this is a job that can be handled relatively inexpensively and quickly by a local landscape company? MS. O'FARRELL: I believe this is ajob that can be handled by a local landscape company, but the amount of vegetation that needs to be removed would not be able to be done quickly. MR. KAUFMAN: Would 90 days do you think give them enough time to separate what has to go out and they could probably put it to the curb and -- you know, given that many weeks. MS. O'FARRELL: It's not a curb issue, it's more ofa chipper issue. That's how far bad it's -- how far it's gotten. But I think 90 days would be fair. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion then. I make a Page 34 September 24, 2009 motion that we grant 90 days for filling in the blanks for your suggestion -- MS. O'FARRELL: Thank you. MR. KAUFMAN: -- and a fine of $50 a day after that if it is not abated by that time. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a second by Mr. Dean. Any comments or questions? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it passes. MS. O'FARRELL: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Are you going to have any problems getting her notice of this? MS. O'FARRELL: I'm going to get the phone number from Jen Waldron and see if I can't give her a call, or leave another note on her front door. MR. L'ESPERANCE: What's the condition of the adjacent properties? MS. O'FARRELL: Beautiful. It's a really nice neighborhood, and she's just let hers go. MR. L'ESPERANCE: So it's specific to a particular lot. MS. O'FARRELL: It's specific to a particular lot. Page 35 September 24,2009 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELL Y: We'll move into new business -- old business. Correct, we're moving into imposition of fines? MS. WALDRON: Yes. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: First case, BCC versus Jose Rodriguez. Is the respondent here? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is Investigator Walker here? (No response.) MS. WALDRON: Can we ask the board to continue this to the next hearing, please? VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'll entertain a motion for continuance at the staffs request. MR. DEAN: Motion to-- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it's been pushed off to next agenda. Moving on to Bricius and Faugue. MS. WALDRON: We have received notice that this case, the operational costs have been paid, so we would like to dismiss this case. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, it's been withdrawn. Page 36 September 24, 2009 Okay, moving on to the next case, Southern Development. And if you remember, there was an additional letter that was put in your packet, or placed here when we first arrived today. Is the respondent here? MR. CURIALE: Yes. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please? MR. CURIALE: Mario C-U-R-I-A-L-E. (Speakers were duly sworn.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Question to the county. The recommendations are to impose the fine because it has not complied. Is it in compliance? MS. O'FARRELL: He's in partial compliance. I was there yesterday and the -- do I need to refresh you on the case, that it was a site development plan that had -- VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: The wall. MS. O'FARRELL: Yeah, there was the wall involved where he hadn't put the vegetation on the outside of the wall. He has put the trees outside of the wall, he's put the irrigation outside of the wall. He's missing 75 cordgrass that go in between the wall, and he still needs to replace one dead palm tree on the site. So he's working hard towards it. And I believe he has a request. MR. DEAN: And it says here also 80 percent of the job is completed. MS. O'FARRELL: Eighty percent of the job? MR. DEAN: That's what I'm reading. MS. O'FARRELL: I would say that 80 percent of the job has been completed. MR. DEAN: Okay, thank you. MR. CURIALE: Good morning. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. Page 37 September 24, 2009 Go ahead, sir. MR. CURIALE: Since last time we were here, I was awarded like a 90 days time frame to do the work. Unfortunately you know how the weather is? You have the rainy season. And we did a lot of work. It really was -- it kind of made a lot of mess out there. You know, the work -- the rain we've been having all day and all night long. It seems to be one spot that seems rains all the time. The majority of the work we have already accomplished. All the trees we have planted. We cleared all of the main trees, which all have overgrown, weeds the way it was before in the pictures. And we did plant all the trees all alongside the wall. It was a nightmare to get it done but we did it. Okay. We got all the sprinkler line, it's already all in. The only thing we look right now is for a dry time; that way the dirt can be raked up and we put the smaller shrubs in between the trees. But right now we cannot really pursue that because it's so wet out there. I have some pictures here with me that it may show you what kind of a weather we're talking about without making any -- I'll present to the board. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: What I'd like to do first is to make sure that Mrs. O'Farrell agrees that they're the same location. And then we'll go ahead and see if -- MR. CURIALE: Sure. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- we can't get a motion to approve them. MR. CURIALE: Yeah. MS. O'FARRELL: Yes, I have seen them. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oh, you have seen them. Okay, great. In that case, I'll entertain a motion. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to approve. Page 38 September 24, 2009 VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY : We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LA VINSKI: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Wow. MS. O'FARRELL: They had a little water. MR. CURIALE: It's very -- the whole area is like a trap. The water has no place to go. And when we actually did the work in there, I got my machine, I almost got stuck in between a power line and everything else in there. I'm really fortunate, I happen to be a developer myself, I have the equipments that I need. We did do whatever we possibly could not to disrupt as much as we can and try to accommodate. What we need is -- my main thing was to remove all the heavy grown of trees and shrubs were there before, we clean them all up. And we tried to put some kind of a Roundup to kill some of the weeds, but you put it on one and then it rains in the afternoon and washes all out. It just keep wasting time and money for that. The money factor is a major issue right now because the way-- everybody knows how the economy is. We try to do everything in our own. We did spend a tremendous amount of money to put all the trees and the sprinkler system in. I will say toward the end of the year we Page 39 September 24, 2009 should be able to get in there, put that back in place. But you know, when I spoken last time I was here, and I was somewhat disappointed the fact that I was not prepared for the meeting. I had some aerial view photo before that the maintenance people from Falling Water, they did maintain as they agreed with the board after I finished all the plantings. The new board they have now at Falling Water, they fire the original manager, they fire the maintenance guys. They haven't done anything whatsoever. They reneged on what was the agreement that we have made, struck with the commission, everybody else. So they left me hanging. I don't have any pictures of the back, my conversation I had here last time. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: No, that's okay, but I do remember you saying that, and you did convey that point -- MR. CURIALE: Right. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: And we took that into consideration. MR. CURIALE: What I'm going to try to do now, I'm try to work with you guys to do the best you can, to try to give me as much extension as you possible can, diligently the way I know to make these people happy . You're never going to make these people happy. I swear, no matter what I do it not going to happen. But I'm try to do my best. And during work, what we're doing, you would not believe. We're planting trees, somebody stole all our tools over there. You cannot believe, you know, the stuff even that taken place. But the people maintain Falling Water right now, they get caught the debris from the trees and they throw right in in the swale. And that really annoyed the heck out of me. I says, you know, we tried to fix it, you guys just don't want to maintain it, so -- MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Questions. Go ahead. Page 40 September 24, 2009 MR. KAUFMAN: Number one, do you think that you'd be able to finish this up probably by January 1st? MR. CURIALE: I would like to get it done before all the people coming in. Yeah, maybe by January or February I should be able to get it wrapped up. And I'm going to have guys maintain my property on the front. I'm getting corage (phonetic) to see if we can go on the back. Right now I feel like guy drives over with the lawnmower, he's going to get stuck and he never going to get out. MR. KAUFMAN: And second point. The operational costs, have they been paid? MR. CURIALE: For who? MR. KAUFMAN: For this -- MS. O'FARRELL: No. MR. CURIALE: I was never request to pay an operation cost. MS. WALDRON: Yeah, in your original order it states that you must pay operational costs of 87.29 within 30 days. MR. CURIALE: All right, I'll give you 87.29. As long as I have money left over for coffee, it's okay. MR. KAUFMAN: And finally, I'd like to ask you, what are you asking for? MR. CURIALE: I ask the -- I put down on the letter, I put 16 months. That was kind of a not -- I need a little more than that. I find maybe January, February, I'll be get this things wrapped up. And from then on we're going to make sure that we do it diligently to make sure these things will be taken care of. MR. KAUFMAN: Let me go a little further. So I understand the time frame. Are you asking for something else as far as the fine is concerned? MR. CURIALE: Well, I would like to see the fine to be abated, because I have not had any kind of a negligence on my part. You know, you can't fight against Mother Nature. Mother Nature rains and you have a limited amount to get it -- I know we past the due date of Page 41 September 24, 2009 the deadline the fine was going to be imposed. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: As of right now there are no fines assessed against you. That's what we have to determine at this point. Typically until a violation is completely abated, we normally don't give any type of passes or denials, because we only get one shot at this as a board. In other words, if we were to go ahead and say no, we're not going to impose these fines today, you could not continue to finish the other 20 percent of the work and we'd have no further action. We would have no more procedures to follow to enforce that. So I have a quick question for the county. Do you have any objection to let's say for instance an extension to the first of the year, as Mr. Kaufman has suggested? MS. O'FARRELL: I have no objection to an extension of 120 days. I would also like to add to that that in that 120 days he do the best he can to maintain the weeds that are on the property behind the wall. MR. CURIALE: Yeah, I had the people, if you notice when you were there -- when were you there, yesterday? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. MR. CURIALE: So I had all landscaping, tried to get all the weeds stored around, all the tractor supply alongside the wall. They have not got back in there to give -- I will do very diligent. And I've been here for so many years it's not like I'm going anywhere tomorrow, pack my lunch box and go. I'm planning to be around for much longer. I don't know how long the economy will last to be around, but we'll try to do whatever we can to accommodate the deficiencies. And we try -- I try to keep everything to par, that way we-- maybe we don't have to have these kind of meetings down the road for the same procedure. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, I'd like to say, I appreciate Page 42 September 24, 2009 you working diligently to this point to get done what you could. The pictures obviously show it a difficult condition. MS. O'FARRELL: I would like to say -- VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Ms. O'Farrell? MS. O'FARRELL: -- if I could just refine that within the 120 days that that back part of the wall be something that's finished and able to be maintained. So the weeds are down and all it takes is for someone to walk back there with their Roundup and spray it and keep it clean. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Larry? MR. DEAN: Can I ask one question? All those photos that you showed us, are they on the southern property? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. They're on the other side of the wall. MR. DEAN: That's all his property? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. MR. DEAN: How far back does that go? MS. O'FARRELL: I believe it goes back to the swale. MR. CURIALE: Well, the question, Mr. Dean, the water is actually displaced in between the berm and the Falling Water property and the easement of the Florida power line, okay? So it's not -- it just stays on my property. Actually, my property doesn't retain any water at all, because it's a berm, and so the water, when it rains, swoosh, keeps wash everything off, you know. But there is no drainage to put in place, because that's not required to be at that time, because they going to use the area as part of some kind of preserve, you know, the grass area, whatever, that's what it is. And during rainy season is always wet over there. MR. DEAN: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right, I have a procedural conflict to resolve. Typically when a motion or a request for a motion, extension of time is presented, it's usually put up in the front part of Page 43 September 24, 2009 the agenda as such, before we get all the way to the back and now are presented with the simple fact of whether or not we need to impose these fines. So I'm going to leave it up to county to either withdraw this and put it off for a real motion or we amend the agenda to see this as a motion, if that's what the board wants. Because right now it's a thumbs up/thumbs down as to whether or not we start imposing fines. MS. WALDRON: Well, it's up to the board if they want to move it to a motion for extension. The county would rather not bring this back again, we would rather take care of it today. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I move that we amend the agenda as suggested to move this to a motion for extension of time. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So now it becomes a motion for extension of time on the original case. And if the extension of time is granted, it would then render the request to impose fines null, because he would then be in compliance is what procedurally we're trying to do here. So with that being said, I'll entertain a motion for the extension of time. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that we extend the Page 44 September 24, 2009 time 120 days. And after such, the fines would accrue at the rate of $200 per day. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And that starts as of today's meeting? MR. KAUFMAN: As of today. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: As of today. MR. CURIALE: I don't understand the motion. MR. DEAN: End of January you have to comply. MR. CURIALE: If I don't get done by January, then you start impose at $200 a day? MR. DEAN: Yes. MR. CURIALE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a second. All those -- or is there any questions? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. What we've done is we've now extended your time; therefore, there's no need to rule on whether or not we should impose them. I would, however, suggest that you do get the operational costs paid. MR. CURIALE: Yeah, but I was not aware of that. I'll take care Page 45 September 24, 2009 of that by the end of the week. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That doesn't abate the fines. I mean, it will still come back later for them to rule on the fines going back to __ VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Basically the way it works is now that you have -- we've extended the original order now, so you were never in violation. However, the costs that it takes to present this case are nothing that we have anything to do with. Those are imposed through the county. We can't waive those. So that $86 -- $87.29 will still be due by you. MR. CURIALE: No, I'll take care of that. As long as the fine would -- anything else will not be established until the end of the term will stop. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: As of right now there won't be any fines unless your failure to abate all of these violations by the new extended time frame. MR. CURIALE: Okay. Appreciate it. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Kelly, just for clarification too, there are two sections of this order that I just want to clarify that both of these sections are being given the 120 days and the $200 a day fine. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Correct. And Mr. Dean, you understood that as well? MR. DEAN: Yes, sir. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good. MR. CURIALE: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. MS. O'FARRELL: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thanks, Susan. Okay, moving on to the next imposition of fines. Olivias. And we have two cases in a row with the same respondent. Is the respondent here? (Speakers were duly sworn.) Page 46 September 24, 2009 THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please? MS. OLIVA: Damarys Oliva. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. MS. OLIVA: Good morning. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: If it pleases everybody, we can discuss both cases, but we do need two separate rulings on them. So we can talk about them together. They're the same property, correct? MS. WALDRON: They're two different folios. MS. O'FARRELL: Two different folio numbers. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Two different folios, but the same case and everything. What we're doing here today is to determine whether or not we should impose fines, because the original order and time frame was exceeded. If you want to read it in? MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to CEB Case No. 2006090513, Board of County Commissioners versus Jaime and Damarys Oliva. Violation of Collier County Ordinance 04-41, the Land Development Code, as amended, Sections 3.05.01(B). Location of violation: 1340 Wild Turkey Drive, Naples, Florida. Folio 00108120002. Description of violation: Vegetation removed on an undeveloped property without obtaining the proper required Collier County 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 031 7 for more information. Extension of time was granted on February 26th, 2009. COR4434, Page 1350. The respondent has complied with the Code Enforcement Board Page 47 September 24, 2009 orders as of August 12th, 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 27th, 2009 to August 12th, 2009, 47 days, for the total of $9,400. Operational costs of $460.20 have been paid. The total recommended lien amount is $9,400. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. The original agreement was a stipulated agreement, which was basically agreed upon before we had the chance to hear the hearing. And then you ran into some problems, came back and we granted an extension of time. Yet it still took another 47 days. And we understand circumstances may have occurred. Could you briefly explain to us what circumstances occurred and why it took longer than you thought? MS. OLIVA: Well, I remember we were waiting for the rainy season to start to plant the trees. And by May we got the plant. By this time we don't know if we could keep the property or not. We're waiting for the bank to see if, you know, they could do something about the payment. And I talk to Susan and I told her the same, we don't know if we could keep the property or not. So I don't know if make any sense to plant the trees. That was in May. I do remember by May almost we don't have any rains back there. The rain start in June. The first week of June we got an accident in the family. My son was in the hospital. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's okay, take your time. It's no big deal. Cherie', 10 minutes? We'll go ahead and recess for 10 minutes and re-adjourn then. (Recess. ) VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, I'd like to reconvene the Code Enforcement Board. This is in reference to the case. And picking up where we left Page 48 September 24, 2009 off, there is -- we have the respondent who is in compliance, has complied with both orders, and has paid the operational costs on both cases. With that being said, I will entertain a motion to either impose or abate or some form thereof these fines. MR. DEAN: I make a motion we abate the fines. MR. KAUFMAN: I second it. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any nays? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. That means everything that you have done we are appreciative of. You do not owe anything further. Thank you very much for working with us to take care of the problem. MS. OLIVA: Thank you so much. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, are we going to look into that item we talked about earlier? VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: We will. I spoke with staff. The item in question is looking at the opportunity to possibly reduce the operational costs, which are outside of our jurisdiction. Staff feels that there might be a little bit of an issue, since those costs have already been paid. It might be a different scenario if they were not. It was a very good suggestion. MR. L'ESPERANCE: And we can follow up on that perhaps at the next meeting? Page 49 September 24, 2009 MR. DEAN: What are you talking about? This last-- MR. L'ESPERANCE: The $920.40. Operational costs that she's paid. MR. DEAN: That's normally (sic) higher than operational. Why was it? VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: There's been a change in procedures with staff. MR. DEAN: Right. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the new procedure has I guess a much more efficient pay scale than what they had in the past. MR. DEAN: That's what I remember. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, moving on to motions for reductions of fine. James and Sherry Marshall. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: Board, if I could just get a second of your time. If you could please refer to your rules and regulations, Article 10. If there's anyone who does not have a copy, please let me know and we will get you one. Article 10, Section 6. I believe it's on Page 9. And we've also included a packet of previous orders and evidence to you this morning. MR. L'ESPERANCE: This is in reference to which case? MS. WALDRON: To the Marshall case. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, and you've sworn both of them in? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning, Mr. Marshall. MR. MARSHALL: Good morning. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: The county has just asked us to refer to our rules and regulations about the motion that you have presented to us. And for everyone's benefit, I'll quickly read into record the article that was requested by county staff to look into. Page 50 September 24,2009 It is Article 10 of our rules and regulations, Section 6. And it says verbatim: The board will not rehear a motion for reduction of fines once a decision has been reached on a previous motion for reduction of fines. With that being said, sir, I'd be happy to hear what you'd like -- MR. MARSHALL: I believe I filed with the county a motion to reduce the fine, which is our first motion. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Correct. MR. MARSHALL: And in that, I made a reference to when the fine was imposed the board, on April 27th, 2006 did not discuss the criteria that was set out in Chapter 162 of the Code Enforcement Board statute. I included in that motion to reduce the fine and request for a hearing a transcript of the hearing to verify that those -- that criteria was not discussed. I think a few of you gentlemen sat on the board the day the fine was imposed. I've also brought with me as supplement to my motion to reduce the fine, I have five copies that I'd like to submit to the board, and I have one for the county. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is this an additional motion? MR. MARSHALL: No, it's a supplement to my motion. It's not an additional motion, it's just some criteria. I believe, if I might refer to -- I think it's Article 10. I don't have a recent Article 11. Just bear with me, please. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: While Mr. Marshall is looking for that, in order to entertain his supplement, I will need a motion and an approval and then also a comment from our attorney as to the validity of it. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think generally they have to provide the motion a certain number of days before the hearing. But in the spirit of due process, I'm going to suggest that you take a look at it. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good. Page 51 September 24,2009 I'll entertain a motion to accept the supplement. MR. DEAN: I'll make a motion to accept the supplement. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELL Y: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Marshall, just to clarify, so your position is when we originally imposed the fines you did not request to reduce or abate them, is that -- MR. MARSHALL: There was a motion to abate the fine. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. MARSHALL: But my understanding -- and I think I've included in the original motion that you folks had received prior to today's hearing --let me see here -- you know, from the August 21st, 2003 Code Enforcement Board, I believe it was the hearing, it could have been a workshop, I'd have to check real quick, that the abatement of a fine and the reduction of a fine are two separate animals. So rather than run myself into the quagmire where I was doing something I wasn't permitted to do, that's why I clarified that this is our first motion to reduce the fine. I don't know if we ever got to the merits actually of my motion to abate. And I can't recall offhand if any of you gentlemen sat on the board for that. But that being said -- let's see, where did I put that? Bear with me, please. I'm sorry. Page 52 September 24, 2009 My Article 11, a reduction of fine and imposition of fines, I believe under Section I permits the county to consider any factors that make the abatement or the reduction of the fine appropriate. MR. KAUFMAN: I've got a question for county. Has this violation been abated? MS. WALDRON: No, it has not. MR. KAUFMAN: If it has not been abated, we generally do not even hear reductions if the fine has not been abated; is that correct? MR. L'ESPERANCE: The violation still exists is what you're saYIng. MR. KAUFMAN: Right. MR. MARSHALL: Well, that's something we're going to get into in my supplement here. MR. KAUFMAN: I'm asking the county this. MS. WALDRON: That is correct. And if you please refer to your packet as well, there is an order. It is OR40813366. And this is an order on motion for reduction/abatement of fines and lien. MR. KAUFMAN: Is this the -- on the top, the number that's up on the top 3650241 ? MS. WALDRON: It's actually OR40813366. There are numerous orders in your packet. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. I was just looking at the one that said that the -- that it was denied on -- I'm trying to find the date on this. MR. MARSHALL: Maybe July 29th, 2006? MR. KAUFMAN: The rehearing was on June 23rd, 2005. Motion for rehearing was denied. MS. WALDRON: That's a different order. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. WALDRON: It's the order on motion for reduction/abatement of fines and liens. Came before the board on July 27th, 2006. Page 53 September 24, 2009 MR. MARSHALL: If I might interject, if there's a copy of my motion, I believe it only says motion to abate the fine. I don't believe it says anything about reducing the fine. So the order may reflect __ may use that language, but I don't believe the motion did. And I have a bunch of stuff here from the county. I don't know that I have a copy of the motion to abate in there. But my recollection is that we only filed a motion to abate the fine. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: The point that was just brought up by both Mr. Kaufman and Mr. L'Esperance is that we don't as a board rule to reduce or abate any fines until compliance has been secured, until the actual violations have been abated. In that case, that's why we actually denied the original notice to abate and/or reduce whatever the original motion was. So in this case in my mind it becomes less of an issue as to procedurally, you know, did you ask for an abatement versus a reduction, and it's more to do with the fact that there's still a violation that exists that basically disallows this board to suggest or think of __ about or rule on any further reductions of any kind. MR. MARSHALL: I understand that. But you are misapprehending the facts of the case which you are -- which I'm trying to bring you up to speed by the supplement to the motion. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: I can appreciate that. I also would like to refer to the original motion to rehear, which was denied, which was timely. However, now we are -- not only have we been asked to rehear the case and denied that, we are now past yet another time frame to rehear, and that's a completely separate issue altogether. We can't rehear the original case. MR. MARSHALL: I understand that. But I'm just saying that in the criteria for reducing a fine is any factor under your rules that make an abatement appropriate. And the factor, the definition of factor is any element that brings a particular result. So I have factors here that I would like you to consider. Whether Page 54 September 24,2009 or not at the end of considering them you think you have jurisdiction or not is another question. But, you know, this notion that there's a violation on the property is incorrect and I'd like to, you know, just indulge the board for five minutes. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: If I may, I'd like to poll the board and see if we can't get some kind of acceptance to allow you to make that presentation to us, with the understanding that the board may set a specific time constraint as to how long we'd like to hear details about what you have to say. MR. MARSHALL: Fine, that's the board's pleasure. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would the board entertain listening to the supplement and perhaps some kind of extenuating factor that may exist that may change our mind? MR. DEAN: Five minutes. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Five minutes. MR. KAUFMAN: Five minutes. MR. LA VINSKI: I agree. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Marshall, it's unanimous. We'd like to hear what you have to say for five minutes. MR. MARSHALL: Okay. The original fine on the property, I'm sure you probably have an order in your packet, is that there were no permits for the sheds on our property. Exhibit No.1 to my supplement is the Collier County permit that we were issued in 1986. As a general condition states up in the right-hand corner, only the work as shown on the approved construction plan will be allowed under this permit. The next page is my construction site plan that was stamped by Collier County and signed off on on September 22nd, 1986. You'll see on the site plan there's my residence, a 20 by 20 pole barn and a three by eight rectangular structure that we intended at one point in time to put our water softener in. Page 55 September 24, 2009 So we had plans and we had permits. The county never had the permit at the original hearing, the county never had the blueprints. There was some discussion about the blueprints, and I argued you have to look at the blueprints. You just can't look at the permit application to determine what we were legally allowed to build out there. So we've been being chased for seven years for unpermitted structures that we have permits for. I have the original permit with me and the original plan that I can submit into evidence. So rather than getting involved in any more litigation, and I don't -- I mean, I could get into the legality with the building, the main structure, and it involves the old code that the permit was issued under, that we were never given before the original hearing, the difference in those codes is spelled out with crystal clarity in the motion. What I'm asking the board to do is to consider -- I know there's some question about the board's authority to fool with the lien, you know. I know that the statute says that the lien runs in favor of the county, but the county cannot enforce the lien. That's solely the duty and the authorization of the Code Enforcement Board. So the lien can sit there in perpetuity. The Board of County Commissioners can't authorize anybody to do it. It's your business. So I think it's still within the purview of the board to reduce the fine. If the county doesn't like it, then the county can take it up with the courts. The alternative would be, and I mention it in my closing paragraph, is if it's in the county's -- in the board's opinion that there is no violation, certainly with the sheds. I mean, I think that's -- there's no argument there, those structures are legal. If you would look on I think it's Exhibit No.3, which was entered into evidence at the Code Enforcement Board hearing, this was put out by the property appraiser, you'll see in the first vertical column up at the top, building, APC, APC, GPC, three buildings. Down at the bottom, three Page 56 September 24, 2009 buildings. They've been there since 1989. There's no illegal construction going on out there. So as I was just getting around to, what I asked the board to consider doing is that we would request the board to enter an order or at least to consider it, take it up at another hearing if you need to or whatever, removing the fines from our property and if necessary to petition the board to reduce the fine to remove the lien, if you don't feel you have the authorization to do that. We've already appeared in this commission room once before in front of the board and said Mr. Letourneau's been on our property without inspection warrants, dah, dah, dah, dah, dah, dah, dah, dah, dah, and they said well, let's go to court. So we're in court. And I just felt that it was at least worth the effort to try to appear before the board. I thought there was -- in the broadest application of the rules in your discretion that we could have a little more than five minutes to address the board. So that's basically the thing in a nutshell. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Can I ask just quickly if you happen to have a copy of the original permit that shows signatures that a final building was approved or a certificate of occupancy? MR. MARSHALL: Oh, I don't have that. I don't have that. You know, that's a different issue. I'm talking about first of all my sheds, we've been fined, and there's a lien on our property for unpermitted sheds. They're on our plans and the permit says what's ever on the approved plans can be constructed. So we built our sheds, and they're not unpermitted. Now, you still may think they are. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, if I may explain, what permitting means to us is not just to go down and to apply for a permit or maybe even receive one, it's also to make sure that that permit has been approved all the way through to a final and a certificate of occupancy. At that point then the permit would be completely legal. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Kelly? Page 57 September 24, 2009 VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Please. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: We have received testimony from Mr. Marshall that a lien has been placed against his property, so I'd just like you to take note of Section 162.09, subsection three of the Florida Statutes. And I'm going to start in the middle of the paragraph that starts with, a fine imposed pursuant to this part shall continue to accrue until the violator comes into compliance or until judgment is rendered and a suit filed pursuant to this section, whichever occurs first. A lien arising from a fine imposed pursuant to this section runs in favor of the local governing body and the local governing body may execute a satisfaction or release of lien entered pursuant to this section. The local governing body is the Board of County Commissioners. There's another section that does say it accrues in favor of Collier County. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question of the county. The building permit that was issued in 1986, do I understand that to be canceled or expired, or what? VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: If I may, I caution the board to get into the details of the case, unless there was some kind of ruling that allowed us to rehear it. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay, then let me make the motion. I'd like to make a motion to deny the request by the respondent, due to the language in Article 10. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: There is a motion. Is there a second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second. And we have to call for a vote, but I'd like a little discussion on this. Can we even make a motion on something that mayor may not be within our jurisdiction to hear in the first place? Is it something Page 58 September 24, 2009 that -- do you understand what I'm saying? I mean, if we're not allowed to even receive this motion and determine whether or not, you know, to approve or deny, can we even hear the motion? Or -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, I think you've already heard the motion. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: But if we decide that the motion is without -- outside of our rules, by denying it-- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think you can deny it on the basis that you don't have jurisdiction. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Would you like to amend your-- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, there are two basis, so you already ruled on it and you don't have jurisdiction. You don't have further jurisdiction. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to add that to my motion. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, so moved. And do we amend the second as well? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second amended. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, is there any further discussion? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. I apologize, Mr. Marshall, but we have denied the motion to reduce the fines, or at least to hear that case. MR. MARSHALL: Which was it? Page 59 September 24, 2009 VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: All the above. Thank you. Moving on to new business. The consent agenda was approved at the time we approved the original agenda. Is there any reports, comments? MS. FLAGG: Yes. Good morning. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. MS. FLAGG: Diane Flagg, for the record, Director of Code Enforcement. I just wanted to brief you on a couple of things that the department is doing. This past Saturday, as part of the Blight Prevention Program for the Code Enforcement Board Department, the five district teams joined up with the sheriffs office and utilities division and filled numerous dumpsters in five locations throughout the county. Collected over 200 discarded tires, appliances, discarded furniture. And they've deemed it a tremendous success, not just by their perspective but from the community members' perspective. What a cleanup does, it allows the community members to bring all those things that they wanted to get rid of to a location, and all those things are dumped at no cost to the community member. So that is one of the components of the Blight Prevention Program are the cleanups. In addition, as we've talked before, there's been over 10,000 foreclosures/lis pendens filed in Collier County. The numbers continue to increase. When we compare the lis pendens filed last month to the lis pendens filed this -- or last year and this year, the numbers are continuing to increase. There's been over a thousand cases, code cases that the code foreclosure teams are working through with the banks, and we're approaching a half a million dollars that the banks have spent to abate the violations that exist in our community. In addition, we've implemented a new program in the Immokalee district. One of the things that the community members expressed was Page 60 September 24, 2009 that driving 40 miles to submit a permit application from Immokalee and then 40 miles back was a hardship. In order to assist the community members and to increase sufficiency, we've identified days at the code office in Immokalee for community members in Immokalee or in the area to bring their permits to that location. And then working with the fax machine, we're checking the permit applications to make sure that they're complete, then we fax it to the permitting office, they review it and they're faxing back a permit. So we're saving the community members in the Immokalee and the surrounding areas an 80-mile round trip drive to Naples, potentially having to do it two or three times if they had an application that wasn't complete. And the final thing that we're working on is NABOR and CBIA have worked together and developed a proposed ordinance. That will be going to the board September 29th for their review. It's an ordinance to require mandatory inspection of vacant and foreclosed homes prior to the sale of that home, so that the buyer that's coming in of a vacant and a foreclosed home will have the opportunity to see if there are any code violations. Those code inspections will be done by the private market. Code enforcement will not be doing those inspections. We're trying to encourage the private market to get involved in that to provide folks an opportunity to transition into doing these code inspections. The advantage, obviously we're hoping to reduce you alls caseload so we don't have -- we had one case today where it was a significant case in terms of cost to the buyer. They bought the property not knowing that there were code violations on the property, and now as you heard during the hearing, that they're having to spend quite a bit of money to abate those violations. So there's a two-part process to this. There's a mandatory that the board will be considering for vacant and foreclosed homes. And then in addition, we're working with NABOR to implement a voluntary Page 61 September 24, 2009 inspection of all homes prior to the sale. So that a buyer, when they come in and put a contract in on a home that they do get a code inspection, voluntarily, their choice, but at least they'll know what they're facing prior to closing on that home. And that concludes the report. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. I'd like to ask our attorney if it's okay, if the board was to agree to send a letter of support to the Board of County Commissioners of the new ordinance. If that would be permittable under our jurisdiction. Just a letter of recommendation either for or against, depending on what the board decides. We're the ones who are faced with these cases; it very much affects us. And we see what it does to the community when someone buys a home with these code violations and then they are now responsible to abate them. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I think we have to be careful not to perhaps upset our quasi judicial role in this whole process by entering into an opinion process. I don't know what our attorney might feel, but that's my position. MR. KAUFMAN: I agree with you. It's -- first of all we don't have the ordinance in front of us to say whether it's a good ordinance or a bad ordinance. By the way, the language that you used to say vacant and foreclosed needs to be changed to foreclosed and vacant, because to me it sounds like vacant homes, just about every home that's sold is vacant and foreclosed. So it's a little English trick there that I think needs to be looked at. MS. FLAGG: They're tied together. Those two components have to exist before mandatory -- under the current proposal, that they have to be foreclosed and vacant and ties the two together. Those two components have to exist before mandatory inspection is required. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I'm not going to tell you that you can't do it. I don't think that it expressly falls under the purposes for which Page 62 September 24,2009 you were created. I'd caution you if you haven't read it, but you might want -- if you haven't read the ordinance and you do want to show some sort of support, you could -- your letter of support could indicate that you're supporting the concept. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. And I'd also like to commend staff for their efforts. This is one of those cases where the rubber hits the road. This is where our county government is taking steps to ensure that our county stays beautiful and that our property values stay as high as possible, given the circumstances economically that's faced this nation. I think that's a wonderful job that you have done, and it affects all of us. Thank you. MS. FLAGG: There's a large team out there. There's quite a few code investigators that -- I mean, it speaks to their commitment to the community that they gave up a Saturday. And this isn't just one team, there's five teams of investigators, and all five teams gave up their Saturday to go out and help clean up the community. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Wonderful. Any other comments on new business? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seeing none, the next Code Enforcement Board meeting is October 22nd. And I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. DEAN: Motion to adjourn. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion. Do we have a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY : We have a second. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 63 September 24, 2009 MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: We'll see you next month. Thank you. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:55 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD KENNETH KELLY, Acting 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 64