Loading...
CEB Minutes 10/22/2009 R October 22, 2009 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida October 22, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Gerald Lefebvre ! Larry Dean Kenneth Kelly Edward Larsen Lionel L'Esperance (Absent) Robert Kaufman James Lavinski Herminio Ortega ALSO PRESENT: Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attorney J en Waldron, Code Enforcement Specialist Jeff Letourneau, Code Enforcement Supervisor Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA AGENDA Date: October 22, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. Location: Collier County Government Center, Third Floor, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Building F, Naples, FI 34112. NOTICE: THE RESPONDENT MAY BE LIMITIED TO TWENTY (20) MINUTES FOR CASE PRESENTATION UNLESS ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE BOARD. PERSONS WISillNG 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 TillS 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, WillCR RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WIDCH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING TillS RECORD. 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES- A. September 23, 2009 Hearing 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. MOTIONS Motion for Re-Hearing 1. David E. Horton CESD20080011966 B. STIPULATIONS C. HEARINGS 1. CASE NO: CELU20090007827 OWNER: HERIBERTO PEREZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATORRENALD PAUL VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 2.02.03 SINGLE FAMILY HOME WAS CONVERTED TO MULTI FAMILY IN AN AREA DESIGNATED FOR SINGLE F AMIL Y USE FOLIO NO: 36120200000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2081 50TH ST SW, NAPLES, FL 2. CASE NO: CESD20090004386 OWNER: KENNETH & BARBARA BLOCKER, SR. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2004 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1 INTERIOR WALLS, DOORS AND ELECTRIC WERE INSTALLED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT, ALSO AN UNPERMITTED CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY FOLIO NO: 60183640000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 109 3RD ST. IMMOKALEE, FL 3. CASE NO: CESD20090002945 OWNER: LISA DASHER OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 1O.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2004 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1 FOLIO NO: 25577800404 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3551 CARSON LAKES CIRCLE IMMOKALEE, FL 4. CASE NO: CEL U2009001 0758 OWNER: J. PEACEFUL, LC OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RON MARTINDALE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 2.02.03. PROHIBITED USE. TRUCK RENTAL BUSINESS PROHIBITED IN C-3 ZONED LOCATION FOLIO NO.: 68391446166 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 77330 PRESERVE LANE NAPLES, FL 5. CASE NO: CESD20090012961 OWNER: J. PEACEFUL, LC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RON MARTINDALE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(e) ALTERATIONS TO STRUCTURE WITHOUT OBTAINING REQUIRED PERMIT(S), SUBSEQUENT INSPECTION(S) OR ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY/COMPLETION FOLIO: 68391446166 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 7770 PRESERVE LANE NAPLES, FL 6. CASE NO: CENA20090005263 OWNER: PAULINO & ADRIANA VEGA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 54, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54-179. ABANDONED PROPERTY (SINGLE WIDE MOBILE HOME) P ARTIALL Y DISMANTLED WHICH HAS BEEN LEFT UNATTENDED AND PROTECTED FROM THE ELEMENTS. FOLIO: 00070440001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3200 WESTCLOX ST. IMMOKALEE, FL 7. CASE NO: CESD20090009150 OWNER: EJ PROPERTIES LLC., EDGERRlN JAMES TITLE MGRM OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ED MORAD VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.006(B)(1)(a). FAILURE TO OBTAIN BUILDING AND LAND ALTERATION PERMITS, INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AS REQUIRED. FOLIO: 125520009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 407 3RD ST. IMMOKALEE, FL 8. CASE NO: CESD20090004481 OWNER: JOHN E. CRlMMEL JR. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR THOMAS KEEGAN VIOLATIONS: 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) AND 1O.02.06(B)(1)(e), COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS & BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE II, FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, ADOPTION AND AMENDMENT OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, SECTION 22-26(b)(104.1.3.5) FOLIO: 24831560009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1390 DELMAR LANE NAPLES, FL 5. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. CASE NO: 2005010592 OWNER: DOMENIC P. TOSTO A/KIA DOMENIC TOSTO, TRUSTEE AND JOANNE M. TOSTO TRUSTEE OF THE FAMILY LIVING TRUST OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JIM SEABASTY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 04-58, THE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 6, PAR. 12, SEC. 11, 12, 15 & 16 & COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 2005-44, THE LITTER AND WEEDS ORDINANCE, SECTIONS 7 & 8. NO PROGRESS AND A CONTINUATION OF NEGLECTED MAINTENANCE AND UNSAFE CONDITIONS RELATIVE TO A STORM DAMAGED TWO STORY CONCRETE AND WOOD FRAME SEVEN DOME SHAPED RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. FOLIO NO: 01199120007 2. CASE NO: CESD20080001776 OWNER: THEODORE W. & KAREN L. WASSERMAN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR AZURE SORRELS VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 04-41, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 10.02.06(B)(I)(a) AND 10.02.06(B)I)(e). ELECTRICAL BOATLIFT ADDED TO THE WEST SEA W ALLIPROPERTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. FOLIO: 52450200000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 410 CRISTOBAL ST NAPLES, FL 3. CASE NO: CESD20080003864 OWNER: JOSE RODRIGUEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR WELDON WALKER VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 04-41, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 10.02.06.B.l.a, 1 0.02.06.B.l.e & 1 0.02.06.B.l.e.i. BEDROOM AND BATHROOM ADDITION BUILT ON SIDE OF STRUCTURE WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING PROPER PERMITS. FOLIO: 63857400007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 607 GLADES ST. IMMOKALEE, FL 4. CASE NO. CESD20090003484 OWNER: FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR THOMAS KEEGAN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, BUILDINGS & BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE II, SECTION 22-26(b)(104.1.3.5), COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 10.02.06(B)(I)(a) AND 10.02.06(B)(I)(e) & FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2004 EDITION, CHAPTER 1, SECTION 111.1. GARAGE CONVERTED INTO LIVING SPACE, BATHROOM AND KITCHEN, INTERIOR WALLS ERECTED AND PLUMBING AND ELECTRICAL WORK COMPLETED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING COLLIER COUNTY APPROVAL, NECESSARY PERMITS, INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION. FOLIO: 48780640001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3141 PINE TREE DR. NAPLES, FL 5. Motion for Reduction of Fines/Liens 6. NEW BUSINESS 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens B. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office 8. REPORTS 9. COMMENTS 10. NEXT MEETING DATE - November 19, 2009 (location at Community Development and Environmental ServiCE 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104) 11. ADJOURN October 22, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board of Collier County meeting to order. The date is October 22nd, 2009. Notice: The respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation, unless additional time is granted by the board. Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes, unless the time is adjusted by the chairman. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Robert's Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and, therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence on which the appeal is to be based. N either Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. May I please have the roll call. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Ken Kelly? MR. KELL Y: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Robert Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mrs. James Lavinski? MR. LA VINSKI: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Herminio Ortega? MR. ORTEGA: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Ed Larson? MR. LARSEN: Present. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Larry Dean? MR. DEAN: Here. Page 2 October 22,2009 MS. WALDRON: And Mr. Lionel L'Esperance is not present. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And he does not have -- MS. WALDRON: And it's an unexcused absence. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And the alternate will be a voting member until Lionel, if he does show up, until get here. Do I have an approval of the agenda -- or should I say changes to the agenda first? MS. WALDRON: We do. We do have some additions to the agenda. Under motions, we will have two items under motion for extension of time. The first item, which is currently item four under imposition of fines will be moved under extension of time. Federal National Mortgage, CESD20090003484. Item two under extension of time will be Rafael Santos and Zonia Barginer, Case CESD20090000849. Under stipulations, we have four stipulations. The first stipulation will be EJ Properties, LLC, Edgerrin James Title MGRM. CESD20090009150. Second item under stipulations will be Lisa Dasher, CESD20090002945. Third item under stipulations will be John E. Crimmel, Jr., CESD20090004481. And the last item under stipulations will be Paulino and Adriana Vega, CENA20090005263. This item will be a time sensitive item at 10:30, due to an interpreter. And I believe that's all the changes that we have. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Just going to give everyone a minute to make the changes needed. Everyone all set? Do I hear a motion for approval of the minutes -- or approval of Page 3 October 22, 2009 the agenda? MR. KELL Y: Make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. And before I go any further, I don't want to forget, today is going to be Heidi's last day, our county attorney. And Jean Rawson will be back next meeting. So I just want to say thank you very much. MR. KAUFMAN: It's not going to be your last day, it's just-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, last day -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: My last day here. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sorry, sorry. I see a bead of sweat coming off. But last day working for the board. Approval of the minutes. Do I hear a motion? MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion we approve the minutes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? Page 4 October 22, 2009 MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. And we're going to move on to motions. The first one is a motion for rehearing. David E. Horton, CESD200800 11966. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman, at this time I would have to recuse myself from the board. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Please note on the record. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. HORTON: Is this -- am I presenting my case today or asking for a rehearing? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No, you'd be asking for a rehearing today. MR. HORTON: I'm prepared and everything's finished. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is it -- MR. KELLY: I have a question of Heidi. Was the motion filed within the time frame allotted? And if so, do we have the ability to just put this on the agenda with an amended agenda vote? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, the request was on September 9th, and his hearing was on August 27th, so it would have exceeded the 10 days. MR. HORTON: The request was actually made the day after the last court case. I wasn't here because of an illness in the family. I sent an e-mail in, and I have a copy of it, to the e-mail that was provided Page 5 October 22,2009 for me at code enforcement. Then when I physically went down there two weeks later I was told that they provided the wrong e-mail. She said it happens all the time. So that's why the September date shows. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You are in compliance, correct? MR. HORTON: Yes. MR. KELLY: So it's a finding of fact basically more than anything? MS. WALDRON: Well, he's got operational costs that he's been ordered to pay as well. MR. HORTON: Everything's been paid for except for court costs. That's the only reason I'm here today, to see if I can get the court costs waived. MR. KELLY: I could save some time and let you know that the operational cost of the board has no authority to waive or to reduce. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Correct. MR. KELL Y: So we would -- MR. HORTON: Who do I appeal to that then? MR. KELLY: I don't think there is. I think it's just a standard rules and reg. issue. Maybe the Board of County Commissioners, but I -- MR. HORTON: I have paperwork here I just want to show you. Anyways, I've got enough for everybody. How do I dispense this? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, are you looking -- we haven't decided if -- I guess we're trying to figure out what you're trying to do. You are in compliance now. MR. HORTON: I'm in compliance. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We can't do anything with operational costs. We can't reduce those. MR. HORTON: No, no, everything's finished. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Correct, correct. MR. HORTON: What I've got here, though, is the paperwork Page 6 October 22, 2009 that shows the chronological of what happened to me. Looks like I'm going to lose my house because of an error made by code enforcement. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, that's-- MR. HORTON: Regardless, I've got a copy of the impacts that the code enforcement's made to me. And I know your -- the job here is to protect the overall standard of the community, but in my case you're going to have an empty house with a reinforced lanai. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, all that's outstanding sounds like there's operational costs, there's no fines. If you were coming in front of us and there was a fine, we can vote on reducing the fine. But there aren't any fines. You're in compliance. The only thing is operational costs. What are the operational costs in this -- MS. WALDRON: $87. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: $87. MR. HORTON: I -- it's not that much to you guys, but I had to put a couple thousand dollars into complying. And in the meantime too, I was told that part of my house was not in compliance, which is going to cost a lot of money to fix, and I found out three months later it was in compliance. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We don't want to hear the case. But I guess by rehearing the case, the outcome would be the same, you still would have to pay operational costs. So there's no gain except for you would have to come back down here again. MR. HORTON: I was under the impression that you had the ability to waive court costs. That's the only reason I came down today. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We do not have the ability to waive operational costs. MR. HORTON: What is the operational cost as opposed to court cost? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Operational costs are their -- Page 7 October 22, 2009 MS. WALDRON: It's basically the same thing. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But it's your -- MS. WALDRON: It's the cost for us to bring the case forward to the hearing. MR. HORTON: Also my paper work shows that I was in compliance before the last hearing. I left a message the week before that I was ready to go, and then I got a notice a week later that I'm to appear. The message was left on Mr. Renald's answering machine. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Jennifer, correct me if I'm wrong, operational costs, even if the case isn't brought to us, do they still have to pay? Would a respondent still have to pay those? MS. WALDRON: If the case is not brought to you and it's pulled off the agenda, the operational costs are not owed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Operational costs are not owed. Is there any administrative way that you could see that ifhe's correct in a voice mail, e-mail or whatever record he has, if that could be shown and argued, would operational costs be able to be waived? MS. WALDRON: Well, I have an affidavit of compliance, and it's also in your packet -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Correct. MS. WALDRON: -- from the investigator, and it states that he was in compliance on the 30th. And we have to go by the testimony from the investigator that that was the time that they were in compliance with the case. It's already been brought forward, we've already spent the cost, you guys have done an order, we've recorded the order, we've incurred those costs as well. You'd have to rehear the case and come up with a different outcome in order for him to get the costs dismissed at this point. MR. KAUFMAN: Or if the county withdrew the case. MS. WALDRON: It's already been heard, though, so we can't withdraw the case. Page 8 October 22, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But -- so if we hear a case and the case -- we find that there's no violation in fact, then there's no operational cost? MS. WALDRON: Correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So is that -- your argument is you want to come back in front of us and find that there was no violation. If potentially you find no violation, then the court cost of $87 would be erased, I guess. MR. HORTON: I don't know if I can take off another day of work to do that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I mean, that's the option. MR. HORTON: Okay, I'll tell you what: The option for me is to do that. In the meantime, I have a chronological order of everything that happened. I don't know if this can go into public record or not or what. If I can disperse this, I'll go ahead and pay the court costs. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm afraid if you give us that information, then it's like hearing the case. And-- MR. HORTON: I see, okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- we want to make a -- MR. HORTON: If I come back, I can disperse this then, correct? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: More than likely, yes. MR. HORTON: Okay, then I'll go ahead and rehear it then. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Discussion from the board? MS. WALDRON: The board's going to have to vote on -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. MS. WALDRON: -- whether you're going to grant a rehearing, due to the circumstances that he's -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Presenting. MS. WALDRON: -- suggesting to you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. MR. KELLY: Does staff have any objection to the statement made that the respondent was in fact within the time frame initially, Page 9 October 22,2009 via e-mail or phone call? MR. PAUL: I want to object. I've never heard from Mr. Horton in regards to this. I guess he may have come into the office, but I don't think it's on a timely -- it was in the time frame of the last hearing. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, let me ask a question. You stated, Mr. Horton, that you have an e-mail that sent to an incorrect e-mail address. MR. HORTON: I have a copy of the original e-mail. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Maybe we should see that and then find out from the county if that -- MS. WALDRON: The e-mail's actually in your packet, and the e-mail address that is -- it's addressed supposed to myself and that is an incorrect e-mail. So this was not sent to me -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, it was never received. MS. WALDRON: -- on the 9th of September. Which is the day that he originally sent this was on the 9th of September. MR. KAUFMAN: Is it possible to, if the board decides to rehear the case, that it can be put at the end of agenda for today so that the gentleman wouldn't have to come back a different day? MR. KELLY: Are you ready for it? MR. PAUL: Yeah, I'm ready, I'm ready for it. MR. KAUFMAN: Would that be okay? MR. HORTON: What are we talking? How long? MR. KAUFMAN: Ifwe, the board, votes to rehear the case and we move it into the agenda so that you don't have to take another day off of work, it's just -- MR. HORTON: Well, I'm self-employed, I'm flexible. But I can leave and come back then today? MR. KAUFMAN: I don't know what time it would be, that scheduling. But everything we -- MR. HORTON: Okay, I'll do that. Yeah, I've got everything. Page 10 October 22,2009 I'm ready. MR. KELL Y: In light of the time frame, knowing that the respondent did in fact make a request within the allotted time, I make a motion that we grant the rehearing. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, we don't know in fact that he did make notice in time. MR. HORTON: Are you talking about the notice via e-mail or the notice via phone? MR. KELL Y: Well, the notice via e-mail that went to the wrong address. MR. HORTON: The one that she referred to is the second e-mail. MS. WALDRON: It has to be provided in writing. We don't -- it has -- I mean, if you call a few days before that, we would tell you it has to be in writing and it has to be within this time frame. The rules clearly state it has to be requested in writing. And this was what we had in writing, this is what I accepted from him at the time -- MR. HORTON: I'm not exactly sure -- MS. WALDRON: -- we gave it to you to make the decision. MR. KELLY: So this e-mail has 9/21 as the date that it was sent to the wrong e-mail address. MS. WALDRON: He sent it on Wednesday, September 9th. If you look at the top, that's when-- MR. KELL Y: Oh, I see. MS. WALDRON: -- I mean, I'll accept that as the date because he had the wrong e-mail address. MR. HORTON: But if you look at the content of the e-mail, it says this is the second one I sent; is that correct? Which means -- MS. WALDRON: No. MR. HORTON: -- it indicates there's one before that, isn't it? MS. WALDRON: No, it does not. It just says I missed my Page 11 October 22,2009 hearing last week due to sudden illness. MR. KELL Y: I concur with the respondent, Mr. Horton. The first line of the e-mail does say I sent this e-mail last week, dot, dot, dot. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, there's a motion. Do I hear a second? MR. KAUFMAN: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. KELLY: Mr. Horton, if you'd like us to rehear this, the county and the board seems to be okay with hearing it today. We would just have to amend our agenda to put this on as a hearing. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That was my next step. MR. KELLY: Sorry. MR. HORTON: Any idea -- could I go for a couple of hours, come back, or we're talking -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I wouldn't go for a couple of hours. It all depends on the cases. Sometimes we're here for an hour, sometimes we're here for four hours. MR. HORTON: All right, all right. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So I wouldn't go too far. Page 12 October 22, 2009 MR. HORTON: Okay, very good, thanks. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion to amend the agenda to put David E. Horton at the end of the hearings? MR. KAUFMAN: I'll make that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KELL Y: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. We're going to move on to the next one. And next will be motion for extension of time, Federal National Mortgage. And it's CESD20090003484. (Mr. Keegan was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Good morning. No representative? Okay. How was this received? Was there a letter? MS. WALDRON: This was submitted bye-mail to me on Monday, and I did tell the representative, I think, I believe it was from the realtor's office, that I would forward it to you for consideration. MR. KELLY: Mr. Chair, if I may? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes, sir. MR. KELL Y: I have a slight issue with granting any type of extension or anything. Judging by the e-mail that was written, it Page 13 --- October 22,2009 appears as though they're trying to sell the home, thus passing the violation and all the repercussions off to a potential new owner. And although the e-mail does state that the potential buyers are willing to rectify the code violations and any costs associate with them, I would hate to the pass on this to someone who maybe wasn't completely informed as to the extent of the violations and have them incur a larger dollar amount than what they maybe were led to believe and thus be back in front of us as a hardship. I'd rather see the bank take care of the liability before passing it on. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion from the board? MR. LARSEN: Yes-- MR. KAUFMAN: Has the county heard from the bank at all? MR. KEEGAN: I believe just that e-mail. MS. WALDRON: Just the e-mail that I received from the -- looks like the representative from the realtor firm. That's it. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes, sir. MR. LARSEN: The e-mail, Jennifer, also requests information pertaining to an extension and to send them any documents and things like that. Was there any followup in regard to this, or do you know exactly who you spoke with? Was it Becca Gallagher? MS. WALDRON: Yes, it was. It was Becca. And I was e-mailing her back and forth. And she just wanted to know, the documents, was there any form that they needed to fill out to request the extension. And I accepted the e-mail as their request for extension, instead of filling out an additional form. MR. KEEGAN: I'm sorry, if I can say something? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Absolutely. MR. KEEGAN: This case, once it was in the foreclosure process, it was turned over to code enforcement's foreclosure team. And I have a note entered here on September 15th, 2009 by John Page 14 October 22, 2009 Santafemia, the initial violation e-mail sent to Citibank, who they were dealing with at the time and then Ms. Waldron received the e-mail. MR. LARSEN: Right. MR. KAUFMAN: Based on the bank not showing up to request anything and based on what Mr. Kelly has already said, I make a motion that we deny the request. MR. LARSEN: Well, you know, we do have a notice of hearing. I don't think there's any contention that it wasn't properly served. It says respondents are required to appear at 8:30 a.m. and hearings begin at 9:00 a.m. And-- MS. WALDRON: I did speak with the representative yesterday as well and informed her that it's in their best interest to send someone to represent them and tell them why they're requesting the extension. MR. KELL Y: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? Mr. Larsen? MR. LARSEN: No, no further discussion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. We will hear the case today. The next one will be Rafael Santos. (Speakers were duly sworn.) Page 15 October 22,2009 THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please. MR. SANTOS: Rafael Santos. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sir, you're looking for extension of time? MR. SANTOS: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you explain why, please. MR. SANTOS: The addition is almost done. I try to pass only the final inspection. The addition is almost done. It hasn't passed only the final inspection, and it's today. And I would like to have at least 45 more days. Because my sister got sick and she lives in Gainesville. And two days before the finalize is tomorrow. But everything is on. I did the appointment for today. But it's -- and I also need to do the survey that is going to cost at least $1 75. But my sister is not working right now and for the month. So I don't know if it's possible. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. MR. KELL Y: Investigator, I noticed here that this was originally entered into a stipulated agreement, so -- MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. MR. KELL Y: The respondent voluntarily basically took it upon himself to correct the violation. Do you feel as though the respondent's been pretty diligent getting this thing taken care of? MR. MUCHA: Absolutely. MR. KELL Y: So no objection for an extension? MR. MUCHA: No objection. MR. DEAN: I have one question. What was the time limit you asked for? MR. SANTOS: It was like -- MR. DEAN: Now. Did you say 45 days? MR. SANTOS: Yeah, if you could. Because I have to pay at least $175 for the final survey. And then like I was explaining you, Page 16 October 22,2009 my sister is -- she got sick and she lives in Gainesville, and she's not going to work for at least a month, and she has two kids. So if I -- I don't know if you can do it. MR. DEAN: The reason I asked is on your to whom it may concern letter to us, you ask for one or two weeks. And then -- MR. SANTOS: Oh, yeah, but -- MR. DEAN: But 45 is needed. I have no problem with that. I just want to make sure we understood. You asked for a week or two, now you're asking -- MR. SANTOS: Yeah, but I'm afraid. I would like to -- you know, if something happen, I don't want to pay $250 a day. MR. DEAN: Makes sense. Thank you. That's good. MR. LARSEN: Is there a motion pending? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: There is no motion, but if you'd like -- MR. DEAN: I'll make the motion that we extend 45 days. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. LARSEN: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Sorry, we had a little technical difficulty. It seemed like all of us Page 17 October 22, 2009 had -- in this order for Santos, looked like there was an original, but it's actually a color copy, so that's what we're talking about. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Chair, we do have one change to the agenda -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. WALDRON: -- if we could do that now before we get started. Under old business, motion for imposition of fines, number one, the county would like to withdraw that case from the agenda. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Tosto? MS. WALDRON: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Do I hear a motion to amend the agenda once again? MR. KELL Y: Motion to amend. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. See, you might get out of here by 10:30. Okay, we're going to move on to stipulations. And next -- first stipulation is E.J. Properties, LLC. Edgerrin James Title MGRM. And Page 18 October 22,2009 it is Case No. CESD20090009150. (Mr. Arthur James and Mr. Morad were duly sworn.) MR. MORAD: Good morning. For the record, Ed Morad, Collier County Code Enforcement. Here before you to present a stipulation agreement for Case No. CESD20090009150. The violation is failure to obtain building permits for improvements of dwelling units'. Location is 407 Third Street, Immokalee. Mr. Arthur James is here representing the property owner of record, which is E.J. Properties, LLC. Prior to today's hearing we had a pre-hearing on October the 12th, 2009, and Mr. James representing the LLC, we discussed the violations, we reviewed the stipulation agreement, and he signed as the agent or representative for the LLC. MR. KELLY: Mr. Morad, the one you have on the screen doesn't have any date or fine amount. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We have to add that in. MR. KELLY: It's a stipulated agreement. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's true. MR. MORAD: I'm sorry? It should be on the -- we left it up to the board, I'm sorry. MR. KAUFMAN: It's not a stip., though. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It's not a stipulated agreement, because not all the terms are agreed to. MR. MORAD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So was there any days discussed and a fine discussed? MR. MORAD: No, sir. Once again, we thought the policy was to leave it up to the board to decide. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No, the policy is to have a stipulated agreement telling us what all the parties agreed to and then coming to us and then we -- Page 19 October 22, 2009 MR. MORAD: Okay. If you'd like, Mr. James and I could go out and agree to the required time and fine, if you'd like. MR. KELL Y: Unless you want to just recap what your discussion was and come up with a time now that's acceptable to everybody. MR. JAMES: I have no problem with that. MR. LARSEN: I think that would be more the prudent way to go. I mean, basically I believe that the code enforcement agents were relying on this board to suggest days and an amount of fine. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I guess the question would be then of the respondent, how long do you think it will take? I mean, have you gotten the permits yet? MR. JAMES: No, I'm working on that now. And he's -- I've been working with him diligently to get the permits. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I mean, all the engineering work's been done? MR. JAMES: Well, I got everything, I just got to find the right contractor to do the job. MR. LARSEN: Right. If I understand, you're in need of permits, right? MR. JAMES: Yeah, that's it. MR. LARSEN: Okay. And the permits are for plumbing and wiring? MR. JAMES: Yeah. MR. LARSEN: All right. And how long do you think it's going to take you to finalize that process and get your permits? MR. JAMES: Give me about 60 days, I should have it. MR. LARSEN: Sixty days. MR. JAMES: Yeah. MR. LARSEN: Okay. Do you think you're going to need any longer than 60 days? Because it's a lot easier for us to give you time now. Page 20 October 22, 2009 MR. JAMES: Well, make it 90. MR. LARSEN: Was that 90? MR. JAMES: Yeah, give me 90 then. We'll go with that. MR. LARSEN: Now, you do know that basically if you don't finish up within that period of time, there's going to be an imposition of a fine. MR. JAMES: I mean, finish up -- it's a 16-unit building. MR. LARSEN: No, I understand. I'm talking about getting your permit. MR. JAMES: Okay, no problem, I understand that. MR. ORTEGA: I have a question. With regards to the time frame, if -- this is multi-family, I take it? MR. JAMES: Yes. MR. ORTEGA: You're looking at permitting and you're also looking at the actual work. MR. JAMES: No, that's not what he's stipulating. He's saying permitting, just getting the permit. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you read under paragraph two, if you can look up -- or if you have it in front of you. MR. JAMES: Yeah. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It says request all required inspections to be performed and passed through a certificate of completion! occupancy. So that means that you are done, not just getting permits, but the work is completed, you call an inspector out and all -- everything is approved. That's what a CO -- or certificate of completion or -- MR. JAMES: Yeah, I understand what that means. So give me six months, then I can have the whole thing finished. Because it's a 16-unit thing. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: See how it changes? MR. JAMES: Yeah, changes very good then, yeah. MR. KELL Y: Mr. Morad, do you have any objections? Page 21 October 22, 2009 MR. MORAD: That's fine with me, yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Now, we just have to come up with a fine amount. MR. KAUFMAN: $100 a day after six months? MR. LARSEN: I think that's an appropriate amount. MR. JAMES: We can work with that. Can we go $2.00? I'm asking now. MR. KAUFMAN: That's what you call negotiating. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, so now we have within 180 days or a fine of $100 will be imposed for each day the violation exists, okay? Is that understood? MR. JAMES: That's understood. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Now, what we'd like you to do before you leave is if we do agree to this, is have that filled in, 180 days and 100 days. You're going to need to initial it and date it. MR. JAMES: No problem. MR. KELL Y: I'll make a motion we accept the stipulated agreement. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? MR. ORTEGA: I do have a second question, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. MR. ORTEGA: Are you here as a representative? MR. JAMES: Yes. MR. ORTEGA: Does he have a Power of Attorney? MR. KELL Y: I know from past experiences that we've worked together and he's under the same foundation and he was authorized in those cases. I'm comfortable. MR. ORTEGA: No further questions. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. MS. WALDRON: And just for the record, operational costs as Page 22 October 22, 2009 well. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And operational costs, okay. MR. KAUFMAN: Operational cost to be paid within? MS. WALDRON: Thirty days. MR. KAUFMAN: Thirty days, 10 days? MS. WALDRON: Thirty days. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm not sure that was a problem. Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. \ CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Thank you very much. Have a good day. The next one will be Lisa Dasher. That is CESD200090002945. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Like to read the stipulated agreement, please. And state your name. MS. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. The violation noted in the referenced Notice of Violation are accurate and I stipulate to their existence. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Pay operational costs in the amount of $86.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate all Page 23 October 22, 2009 violations by: Must apply for and obtain a Collier County building permit or demolition permit and request required inspections to be performed and passed through a certificate of completion/occupancy within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed. That if the respondent -- the respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator to perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provision of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you agree to this? MS. DASHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And if you can just state your name for the record, please. MS. DASHER: Lisa Dasher. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions of the board? MR. LARSEN: Yes. Ms. Dasher, how long do you think it's going to take for you to comply with this stipulation? Are you going to be able to do it within the 120 days? MS. DASHER: I hope so. I was unable to because I'm unemployed during the summer. I'm back to work now, so-- MR. LARSEN: Okay. And do you pretty much know the process and what needs to be done? MS. DASHER: Yes, Maria has been helpful. MR. LARSEN: All right. So you think 120 days is enough time for you to get this taken care of? MS. DASHER: Yes. MR. LARSEN: The only other concern I have is that basically the fine of $200 a day seems high. I would recommend $100 per day after the 120 days, because we're dealing with a patio, it appears. Page 24 October 22, 2009 MR. KELL Y: Miss Dasher, do you have plans to keep the patio and bring it up to current code, or to take it down? MS. DASHER: Yes, I plan on keeping it. MR. KELL Y: I'm curious to see what the board thinks about the 120 days. Ifwe have to bring it up to current code now, it might be a little bit more work than -- MS. RODRIGUEZ: She was working with someone, trying to get the engineering for it. And they were going to do a permit by affidavit. So I don't know if it's got any other adjustments that she needs to do to bring it up to code; I don't know. MR. LARSEN: Well, is it just as a matter of getting it permitted or additional work needs to be done on your patio? MS. DASHER: I think just getting it permitted. MR. LARSEN: So you think that the work was done up to code, it was done properly? MS. DASHER: I think so. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So you do understand that if you do find out that it can't be brought up to code for some reason, that you will have 120 days to either bring it up to code, get a certificate of completion or you would have to demolish it. MS. DASHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. And you have 120 days. And as it stands now it's $200, but we'll have a discussion about possibly reducing it. Any further discussion from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion to -- MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion to reduce the fine from $200 on the stipulation to $100. MR. LARSEN: I second that motion. MR. KELL Y: And accepted. MR. KAUFMAN: And accepted. Page 25 October 22, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. DASHER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You're welcome. MR. KAUFMAN: One last thing. If you for some reason get stuck and you don't get it done in 120 days, before the 120 days come back. MS. DASHER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next case will be John E. Crimmel, Jr. Case No. CESD200090004481. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. KEEGAN: Good morning. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Good morning. The respondent is not present; is that correct? MR. KEEGAN: No, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. MR. KEEGAN: For the record, Thomas Keegan, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. In reference to Case No. CESD20090004481, Board of County Commissioners versus John R. Crimmel. The respondent and the county has reached a stipulation Page 26 October 22, 2009 agreement. He agreed that the violations noted in the referenced Notice of Violation are accurate, and he stipulates to their existence. A wooden gazebo with electric built without first obtaining Collier County approval, necessary permits, inspections and certificate of completion at 1390 Del Mar Lane, Naples, Florida, 34104. Folio No. 248315600009. Therefore, it is agreed that the parties -- that the respondent shall: Pay operational costs in the amount of 87.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing, and also to abate the violations by applying for all necessary building permits or a demolition permit. Request all required inspections through to certificate of completion to bring property into compliance within 60 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator within 24 hours of the abatement of the violation and request the investigator to perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Before I jump into this case, Jennifer, did she -- did you make -- was a change made from $200 to $100 and did she initial it? MS. WALDRON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. Thank you. I forgot to make a mention of that. Sorry about that. Any questions of the board? MR. LARSEN: I have a question, Mr. Chairman. Is this residential or commercial? MR. KEEGAN: Residential, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that we accept the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? Page 27 October 22, 2009 MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. KEEGAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We've still got -- we're going to jump over Vega, because he's time sensitive for 10:30 this morning, and we're going to go on to the first hearing. And that should be Heriberto Perez, correct? Case No. CELU20090007827. Is the respondent present? MR. PAUL: No, he's not. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of Ordinance Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 2.02.03. Description of violation: Single-family home was converted to multi-family in an area designated for single-family use. Location/address where violation exists: 2081 50th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116. Folio 36120200000. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Heriberto Perez, 2081 50th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116. Page 28 October 22, 2009 Date violation first observed: May 11 th, 2009. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: June 17th, 2009. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: July 17th, 2009. Date of reinspection: September 16th, 2009. Results of the reinspection: Is that the violation remains. The notice of hearing was posted at the property and the courthouse on October 2nd, 2009, and was also sent certified mail on October 12th, 2009. At this time I'd like to present Investigator Renald Paul. (Mr. Paul was duly sworn.) MR. PAUL: For the record, Renald Paul, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. Case No. CELU20090007827. A violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 2.02.03. Single-family home converted to multi-family unit in a single-family zoned area with no permits. At this time I would like to bring in some exhibits, B-1 through 11. MR. KELLY: Make a motion we accept the exhibits. MR. LARSEN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? Page 29 October 22,2009 (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. PAUL: And this was simply on my first site hearing. I went into the main part of the home. I had spoken with the tenant and he let me inside. And as you'll see as she goes through the photographs, the first photograph just shows the inside of the main part of the home. The second photograph that she's showing is two bedrooms off to the right side of the home. Actually shows on three -- it's actually three different doors. There's two of those doors that you cannot get through because they're sealed shut. The one off to the left goes into one unit and the one to the right goes to the garage, which is also sealed off as another unit. And that's the side door to the garage. MR. KAUFMAN: Excuse me. So you're saying there are three units there? MR. PAUL: Three units. This has been converted into a triplex. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. PAUL: And this is the inside of the one that's in the garage. And it shows that they've added plumbing and electrical also. And they also have a secondary kitchen in the second one, and they have another kitchen in the third unit also. So in total they've got three kitchens in the home. And this is the back unit, the one that I wasn't able to access. But I was finally able to get entry in there. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: At a different time? MR. PAUL: Right, at a different time. MR. ORTEGA: Have you made contact with the actual owner at all, physical? MR. PAUL: I did, but it was through another person. What had happened was I had gotten in contact with the bank. I believe they had filed a lis pendens for the property and they had actually met me Page 30 October 22,2009 out at the site. And they were like, well, we're going to try to get this situation taken care of. And the owner was there at the time, but he doesn't speak English. So that's how I was able to gain access into the home, into the back part of the home. MR. ORTEGA: Is this property located in Golden Gate City or Golden Gate Estates? MR. PAUL: This is Golden Gate City. And that just shows the other bathroom that was in the third unit -- I mean the kitchen that was in the third unit. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What's the status of the bank? Foreclosure, I guess. MR. PAUL: They have not foreclosed on the home yet. It's still in lis pendens, so they don't have title to the home yet, so he's still the owner. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: Have you looked to see if any building permits were ever pulled on this? MR. PAUL: There hasn't been. There are no-- MR. KAUFMAN: So all of the work that we see here-- MR. PAUL: Is all illegal, yes. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And from the pictures, I take it there's people living in there? MR. PAUL: Yes, there are. Each unit is being rented out as a little efficiency. On 5/11 I was on-site. I had spoken with the tenant, I had explained why I was on-site. We had gotten a complaint about overcrowding at this property. Once inside I did take photographs of the interior of the home. The first tenant advised me that I needed to go speak with the tenant that was living in the garage so that I could get in there, which I did. Page 31 October 22, 2009 And she allowed me entry, and that's when I took the photographs of that one, of those two parts of the home. I was unable to gain access to the back part of the home at that time. On 5/12 I attempted to do personal service to the property owner. The property appraiser sheet states that the owner lives at the residence, but he doesn't. So I was unable to serve the NOV at that time. I sent it certified mail. It was returned on 6/7. Observed that the violation remained. There was no change. There were no permits that were applied for, anything. On 6/17 of'09 I posted a Notice of Violation at the residence and the courthouse. On 6/22 I had a phone conversation with a lady by the name of Diane who was working with the bank, and at that time we had spoken about the violations. And she had said that the property was going into a short sale. But she wanted to meet me at the site so we could possibly get these issues taken care of. On 7/20 of '09 I had met with Diane, and at that time the property owner was on-site. And we went over everything. And that's when she allowed me access into the third part of the home, which was the back part where, as you see, it was converted also. On 8/25 I called Diane because there was no change, no permits had been applied for, and I had left her a message. 8/28, after research, found there was no call back from her. There was no change, violation remained. I prepped the case for court. And on 9/16 found that the violation remained. On 10/2, posted a notice of hearing at the residence and the courthouse and we're here today. MR. KAUFMAN: Have you had any opportunity to speak to anybody from the bank? MR. PAUL: No, no one's ever called me back. Even when I Page 32 October 22, 2009 leave Diane messages, she doesn't call me back. MR. KAUFMAN: Has this been turned over to the task force that has been working with banks? MR. PAUL: Yes, it has. This information has been turned over to them. I don't know where they're at with it at this time, but I've gotten no information on it. I don't have any new information. MR. KELL Y: I'll make a motion that a violation does exists. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. MR. LARSEN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. PAUL: The county asks that the owner pay the operational cost in the amount of -- I don't know what the operational cost is. MR. KAUFMAN: I'm getting-- MR. PAUL: 86.71 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of the hearing. Abate all violations by: Respondent must obtain a Collier County demolition permit and return the residence back to the original permitted state and obtain inspections and certificate of completion within "X" amount of days of this hearing or pay a fine of "X" amount of dollars for each day the violation remains. Page 33 October 22, 2009 Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement. If respondents fail to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Department to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. KAUFMAN: Do you have any suggestion as to violation exceeds "X" amount of days -- whatever the days are, what the fine would be. MR. PAUL: Sixty days and then fines, 200 a day. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. I'd like to make a couple of comments. Number one, there are obviously three families living there. MR. PAUL: Correct. MR. KAUFMAN: So not only because of electrical and plumbing that's there to be a safety violation, and also the people who are living there, if you return this to a single-family residence, they're going to have to make arrangements to go someplace else, so I think that needs to be taken into consideration when we deliberate the case. MR. PAUL: I can put in something here where we can have them vacate those other two parts of the home that have been converted, depending on how much time you want to go. MR. KAUFMAN: Well, it wouldn't be just them vacating it, but then the electrical and the plumbing that was done there needs to be inspected -- MR. PAUL: Correct. MR. KAUFMAN: -- permits have to be pulled, et cetera. MR. PAUL: Right. MR. ORTEGA: There may be more to that. If they're on septic, they're going to have to demolish. They're not going to be able to keep the garage. MR. PAUL: Right. MR. ORTEGA: Most likely. Page 34 October 22,2009 With regards to the work, there's more I'm sure than just electrical and plumbing. There's going to be structural work, because they probably enclosed walls or doors, so -- MR. PAUL: That's correct. MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement Supervisor. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Were you sworn in? MR. LETOURNEAU: No, I wasn't. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. LETOURNEAU: Investigator Paul, what's this zoned, single- family? MR. PAUL: Single-family, yes. MR. LETOURNEAU: So basically the work that they've done they can't keep anyways, right? MR. PAUL: Correct. It has to be converted back to -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah, it has to be demolished. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Plus if there was a chance of it being permitted, then they would have to pay impact fees, but that's not-- MR. PAUL: That's not -- no. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- not a solution. MR. PAUL: No. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. The worry I have is that there's actually people in the house currently. And also the lack of motivation by the owner, the bank probably can't do too much because they don't have title to it yet. MR. PAUL: Correct, they're probably not going to do anything until they get actual title to the property. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. And the problem is they may not take title to this house because of the pending issues that it has, A. And then B, with the fine, if there's a fine attached to this, obviously. So is there any way that we could have the current tenants removed from the units? Page 35 October 22,2009 MR. LARSEN: I think I can help you on that. Basically there is no mechanism this board has to actually remove tenants. I mean, basically proceedings would have to be brought in a different forum. Now, I share the concerns of the other members of the board that there may be a health and safety issue here. I also agree that if this is a short sale or in some kind of process where the bank is negotiating with the owner to convey title, that any additional time we give them, we have to keep in mind that a change of ownership or change of title may be in the works. I'm very concerned that basically this is a three-unit rather than, you know, just a conversion of the garage or some other things that we've seen. Here they've dedicated a lot of time and effort to converting this place over to take rents from people who did not know that they were living in an unapproved, unpermitted unit. I think that although 60 days under some circumstances might be appropriate, I think 30 days under these circumstances for them to correct the violations is more appropriate. And I think that $200 per day for any day after that is an appropriate fine. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I agree with you, 30 days, but I think $200 might be a little bit light. I think 250 might be more appropriate. MR. LARSEN: 250's fine with me. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other discussion from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: On the task force that's been set up to handle these type of arrangements, have they been successful in dealing with this particular bank that has posted a lis pendens on it? MR. PAUL: I don't know at this time. MR. KAUFMAN: The reason I ask is because any fines that accrue after 30 or 60 days, whatever it is, is going to be the responsibility of the bank, along with having a dwelling that needs to be completely changed, if you will. So it would be in their best interest, and I think that's some of the motivation that banks have, to Page 36 October 22,2009 jump on it right away. So it would be interesting to see how the task force handles this one. MR. LARSEN: Well, I mean, as a comment on that, banks just can't take title. I mean, basically either they've got to go to foreclosure sale or they have to be deeded title by the owner. Now, in this particular case, you know, it doesn't matter to me which way the bank takes title. My only concern is that basically something happened within a relatively short period of time to correct the situation, whether that allows the county to move or whether or not it urges the bank along. So I don't think the bank is going to really rush through this. We don't -- do we know if there's a foreclosure action pending? MR. PAUL: No, I don't know at this time. MR. LARSEN: So it might be a considerable period of time before the bank even is in a position to take title. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to try a motion then. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that they be given 30 days to come into compliance and a fine of $250 per day in excess of the 30 days be implemented, plus the payment of the costs of 86.71. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Do I hear a second? MR. JAMES: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. Page 37 October 22,2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Next case will be Kenneth and Barbara Blocker, Sr., CESD20090004386. (Mr. Earnest Freeman, Gina Green and Ms. Rodriguez were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You have to read in the case. MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of Ordinance Florida Building Code, 2004 edition, Chapter 1, Permits, Section 105.1. Description of violation: Interior walls, doors and electric were installed without first obtaining a Collier County building permit. Also an unpermitted change of occupancy. Location/address where violation exists: 109 Third Street, Immokalee, Florida, 34142. Folio 60183640000. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Kenneth Sr. and Barbara Blocker, 110 12th Street, Immokalee, Florida, 34142. Date violation first observed: April 17th, 2009. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: April 20th, 2009. Date onlby which violation to be corrected: May 17th, 2009. Date of reinspection: July 21 st, 2009. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. At this time I'd like to present Investigator Maria Rodriguez. MS. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Investigator Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20090004386, dealing with violation: Interior walls, doors, and electric were installed without building permits and unpermitted change of occupancy, located at 109 Third Street, Immokalee, Florida, 34142. Folio No. Page 38 October 22, 2009 60183640000. Personal service was given on April 20th, 2009. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: B-1 through 19. This case was initiated as a complaint on April 4th -- I mean April 16th, 2009. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion to approve the exhibits? MR. LA VINSKI: I'll make a motion we approve the exhibits. MR. LARSEN: Has the respondent seen the exhibits? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Have you seen the exhibits? MR. FREEMAN: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. RODRIGUEZ: This case was initiated as a complaint on April 16th of '09. Observed interior walls, doors and electric installed without first obtaining building permits. And also an unpermitted change of occupancy. April 20th, 2009, I met with Mr. Blocker, explained the Notice of Violation. He signed, dated and a copy was given to him. Page 39 October 22, 2009 On July 21 st of 2009, observed that the violation remained. Recommendation? That-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No, we have to hear the case first. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Go ahead. Okay, the very first page is the original floor plan. This was an old post office. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. And what is it being used as now? MS. RODRIGUEZ: It's a church. What you see highlighted is what they removed, all the walls that went across. And that's where all the boxes were. Got removed. And in the front where the double doors are where you see the lobby, there were tellers in there, and that all got removed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's where the tellers were? MS. RODRIGUEZ: In the front, yes. MR. KELLY: The walls that were removed, were they structural or were they just there as a racking system to hold boxes? MS. RODRIGUEZ: I don't know. MR. FREEMAN: Racking system. MR. KAUFMAN: Did they go to the ceiling? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. MR. FREEMAN: Yes. MR. ORTEGA: I have a question. Is this an individual structure? MR. FREEMAN: Yes. And let me make a correction. Those boxes just went to the drop ceiling, like the acoustical. They didn't go all the way to -- MS. RODRIGUEZ: In the front where the double doors are, they converted those into office rooms. The very first one -- the very first room is an office. And then it's the lobby. Another room, another room, another room. And then the end one was already there. That's an existing one. Page 40 October 22, 2009 That hasn't been touched. But all these rooms also have electric in them. That's the name of the church. That's the entrance. That's the very first room to the left as you come in with electric, as you can see from the door. That is the second room. And where the gentleman is setting is the little lobby as you come in. That's the electric on the second room. That's the third room. More electric. More electric. That's the end room; that's the fourth room. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Not the postmaster's room but the fourth room. MS. RODRIGUEZ: No, that's not the post off -- that's another room that they put up walls. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right, right. MS. RODRIGUEZ: And this in the lobby, this is as you go into the church. Those double doors weren't there, of course. So you go in through those double doors, and then on the other side of those rooms is that wall that they placed. On the far end of the building, they also added another wall to divide the restrooms. There's a hallway that you go through it. I guess they were trying to hide the restrooms. But there was a wall that was put in, that's part of that wall. It's a long wall. We have nothing further. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. MR. KELL Y: I have a quick question. All the pictures that you showed of the electrical conduits and outlets and so forth, are you saying those were all added? Page 41 October 22, 2009 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. MR. KELLY: Okay, thank you. MR. KAUFMAN: So from the time it was a post office until it was converted to a church, there were no building permits at all pulled? MS. RODRIGUEZ: No, none. All the electric and all the walls were added. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you state your name for the record, please. MR. FREEMAN: My name is Earnest Freeman, local contractor here, licensed in Collier County. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you have authority from Mr. Blocker? MR. FREEMAN: I would say yes. I've done a few other cases with him. Mr. Blocker is here now and he requested that I show up to represent what we was going to do on this proj ect. So I will be the contractor for the proj ect. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If I can have him come up, please. And I'd like to have him sworn in. I'm not sure, I think he's been in front of us before in other cases, but just want to have you state -- can I have you sworn in, please. (Mr. Blocker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you could state for the record that he has the authority to speak on your behalf, unless you want to stand here and -- MR. BLOCKER: Yeah, I give him the authorization. Earnest Freeman. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman, may I as a question? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Blocker, are you Mr. Kenneth Blocker, Sr.? MR. BLOCKER: No, sir, I'm Jerry Blocker. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. That adds another dimension Page 42 October 22,2009 to it. Kenneth, is that your father? MR. BLOCKER: Father. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Attorney, ifhe has authority from his father, which I didn't ask, can he now pass it on to Mr. Freeman? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think that you can hear the testimony today. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Thank you. MR. BLOCKER: I would also like to ask if Gina Green is -- has -- I would like to authorize her as well, if she's needed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good. Thank you. Okay, go ahead. MR. FREEMAN: Well, I'm just -- what do you want me to state, as far as the compliance issue what we plan to do? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I guess have you been working with the county to try to get this corrected? MR. FREEMAN: Yes, we had a meeting with Mr. Snow and Ms. Rodriguez a few weeks ago to, you know, have a little deliberation on what we was going to do with the proj ect. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman, if I may. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MR. LARSEN: Is there any contention that this building is not in compliance with the code? MR. FREEMAN: Well, that was already stated by Ms. Rodriguez with the walls that were coming in as far as not having a building permit. But that was done by a previous tenant. Mr. Blocker had leased the building to another pastor, not the one that's in there now, and he made the alterations to the interior of the building without his knowledge. MR. LARSEN: All right. So there's no contention that permits Page 43 October 22,2009 should have been pulled but were not pulled. MR. FREEMAN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: How long do you think it will take -- or I guess what process do you plan on taking to get this corrected? Do you plan on doing it by affidavit or do you plan on actually going and getting the permits and so -- what's your process and how long do you think it will take? MR. FREEMAN: Okay, the process is yes, we want to get a permit to comply with the walls and do the necessary corrections. But we have two issues. The building permit could probably be maybe even six to eight months from obtaining the permit and getting all inspections and getting the case closed. But then we also have a zoning issue. This building, as you know, was a post office, as stated. Somewhere down the line Collier County changed the zoning in there, so it's no longer permitted to be commercial. And that's one of the biggest issues. The owner has to now go and get a rezone, which is -- you know, I guess I'm just being a little impartial, but I think it's unfair. It was also a commercial building but now it's not one anymore. So we have that issue there with the use now. And if you know any -- have any information on rezones, they can take anywhere from a year. And I guess because of where we are in Immokalee, we're dealing with the master plan approval issue, and God knows when that's going to take place and when it's going to be implemented. So we have like the domino effect on this particular proj ect. Now, all those surrounding properties, they are commercial right now, you know. But for some reason that one's VR. MR. KAUFMAN: That wasn't grandfathered in when the changes were made? MR. FREEMAN: It should have been, sir, but we don't know what went on with the county. We don't know what happened. We sort of got blindsided. Page 44 October 22,2009 MR. LARSEN: Based upon the admission that a violation does exist, I think we should just move to a motion on whether or not a violation exists and determine what the remedies should be. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is that in a motion form? MR. LARSEN: Well, I move to find that a violation does actually exist. MR. KAUFMAN: I second that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? MR. KELLY: Just clarification from the county's standpoint. VR is village residential in that type of zoning? MS. RODRIGUEZ: If they would have converted the church 10 years ago or however many years that they've been in that church, they would have converted it then, maybe it would have been grandfathered in. But they didn't. MR. FREEMAN: Well, when you say conversion, you don't even have to get an occupational license for a church. You just go in there, you open up a building and make it a church. So where does the conversion issue take place? MS. RODRIGUEZ: It's the use. If they would have gone into zoning and changed the use, then maybe they would have grandfathered it in, but they didn't do it. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman, I think we're a little far afield there. I mean, basically that's -- MR. KELL Y: It's just my question was a house of worship is not allowed in a village residential zoned property. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We have a motion, we have a second -- MS. GREEN: Can I just offer one thing on that? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Actually, we're just here to ask questions and have a response, and that's as far as it goes. Because we're in discussion right now. So the hearing is actually closed. Page 45 October 22,2009 MS. GREEN: Oh, okay, I was just going to-- ; I CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But you may be able to bring something up when we have a recommendation, when we get to that point. Any further discussion? MR. ORTEGA: I have a question. If -- this was a commercial property, correct? MR. FREEMAN: Correct. MR. ORTEGA: Was this sunsetted or was it abandoned at one point? MS. RODRIGUEZ: The post office moved. They did a new post office, so they moved from that building to the new building. Then at one point that got changed to a church. MR. ORTEGA: But was it abandoned or empty for 180 days? MS. RODRIGUEZ: I don't know. MR. KELL Y: Do you know when this went from commercial to residential? MS. RODRIGUEZ: No, I don't. MS. GREEN: I do. MR. FREEMAN: Mrs. Green could -- MS. GREEN: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If she has -- if she's been sworn in. MS. GREEN: For the record -- yes, I've been sworn in. F or the record, Gina Green, professional engineer, State of Florida. I have done research. Mr. Blocker actually did contact me. When he got the Notice of Violation and had learned some information and asked me to do some research for him, I went down to the Property Appraiser's Office. When the post office was built, which was back in the Sixties, that zoning there was C-2 in Immokalee. From what we can find at the Property Appraiser's Office, that Page 46 October 22, 2009 property got changed to village residential in the early Eighties. The post office vacated in the Nineties and moved to their new facility in Immokalee. So the post office continued to be there after the county changed the zoning when they did their blanket rezone of looking at areas and they redesignated that street in that area of Immokalee to village residential. But the post office continued to operate. When the post office vacated, it -- then the building was sold and a church rented it, not realizing that anything had to be done, because it was a commercial building in there to begin with, even after it had changed to village residential. It has operated for many years since then as a church. And this violation of change of use just came up. And in order for a church to operate now in a village residential, it's a conditional use. So there are opportunities to keep it as that is what the county's telling us now, is you either go to a conditional use or you rezone the property to a district that -- which right now under the Immokalee Area Master Plan, they could go to C-4 zoning, but with the changes to it, they can actually, if adopted through the Growth Management Plan amendments presently, it could get changed to where they could actually go for C-5 zoning. And that is what ultimately they want to do right now. So that's the history of this piece of property and how the uses and how it came from commercial, got blanketed to. MR. KELL Y: In your research, did you find out when the electrical was added? MS. GREEN: I did not research the building permit side of it. I was asked to research the land use side of it. MR. FREEMAN: When did Pastor Ford have that building? When do you think he became the -- that was the previous tenant before the one that's there now. MR. BLOCKER: The one that's been there now is eight years. MR. FREEMAN: We would say the electrical change inside Page 47 October 22, 2009 probably happened about 10 years ago when the church rented the place. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right, all those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. KELL Y: In light of the testimony, I would suggest that we give ample time for them to chase whatever process they want to go after to get it zoned correctly. The only issue that I have is the electrical. It's been there for 10 years, eight to 10 years. Probably done right. Looks like it's all in conduits. But I don't think that should sway us from allowing them to go after their path to get it zoned correctly~ CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I guess if I could have the engineer back up, I have two questions. Or one question might lead to a second. You said they're going to go for a C-5 use? MS. GREEN: Yes. I've already spoken to Kay Deselem over at zoning regarding doing a concurrent zoning application to go to C-5. And basically with not knowing what the master plan -- right now all the Growth Management Plan amendments are in the transmittal hearing stage right now with Collier County. In fact, I was just here on Tuesday on another proj ect. Page 48 October 22, 2009 Right now it has to get zoning in Planning Commission, it still has to go to the board just for transmittal. Then it has to get -- if it gets deemed to be transmitted and the Immokalee Area Master Plan gets approved for transmittal, it goes to DCA, they have to do all their review and objections, stipulations, whatever. Then if they bring it back, the county looks at all the objections, the corrections are made and then it goes through adoption hearings. From what I'm being told right now, the adoptions for the Growth Management Plan amendments are looking to be in early 2011 is when everything right now that's being heard will get adopted. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The other option would be going for a conditional use, correct? MS. GREEN: Right. The only problem with the -- the problem in Collier County with conditional uses, especially for churches and properties like this, you know, unlike where a church comes in and asks for a building to be built specifically for them, these churches that lease, they could leave in three months, and then you've spent -- I mean, the amount of money to get a conditional use and the time isn't that different than what the cost and time it takes to do a full rezone. So to spend the money on a conditional use on something that three months from now the church could be gone, you've spent all this money for a conditional use; you can't use it to change it to another conditional use, you have to go through another conditional use process. And the village residential leaves very little opportunity for a structure like this one. Because it was built under commercial zoning all those years ago, it doesn't really fit well into the classifications of village residential. And that's part of the problems in Immokalee is, is you have a lot of old buildings that were built under one zoning that don't fit into the new zoning that the county overlayed over them in the early Eighties. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And with conditional use, if the use Page 49 October 22,2009 is not being used for that particular purpose for 180 days, is it? MS. GREEN: Yes, I think it's 180 days. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: 180-- MS. GREEN: No, actually, I think they give you up to a year. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. And you lose that -- MS. GREEN: Yes, then you lose that use and then you have to go through the process again. So it can get very costly for these older buildings. And that's why they would prefer -- the path they would prefer to take is to go ahead and rezone to C-5, see what happens with the transmittal hearings and the adoption hearings for the Immokalee Area Master Plan. Because they know right now they could go in for a rezoning of C-4 under the current master plan. But they would prefer to spend their money wisely, since they're looking at changing this in Immokalee, and go for the C-5 zoning, which gives them opportunities for more uses, legal uses in the building without having to go through more costly processes. In case the master plan doesn't get approved as proposed right now, then they would just change our application to be to whatever the highest zoning the master plan would allow. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Let's say hypothetically you do get that C-5 zoning, do you then have to go for a site development plan or a site improvement plan for the church? MS. GREEN: Only if there needs to be changes made. If the building as such and the parking as such supports that use, then no, they just go in and do their use. If the parking has to be upgraded or there's any upgraded sites, then if they're not changing the building portion of it, then it would just be a site improvement plan, which is a much shorter process. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Have you done a calculation for what's required for parking spaces and so forth for a church? MS. GREEN: I have not on this particular one yet because we Page 50 October 22, 2009 haven't gotten to that stage yet. But with churches, I found -- I'm dealing with several other churches here in the county. With churches you have a lot more leniency with your parking. And especially in Immokalee. I actually just did a parking reduction actually for another church for the Blockers that's on Main Street and got an administrative parking reduction on that one. So, you know, they -- churches have a little more leniency because they know that it's -- you know, how they calculate seats, everything. So, you know, I do not see there being a problem. They actual have parking that's in -- and from the pictures you see, they have their handicap access. The building was a government building to begin with, so it has good access. The parking is still in good shape. You know, it's just a matter of them adjusting. If their seats -- it's basically telling them you can have this many seats. It's more the seats drive how many parking, not the -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It's the square footage, not the square footage of the building. MS. GREEN: Not the square footage, it's number of seats. And they calculate it by chair. If you have chairs in the sanctuary or if you have the pews, they give two 24 inches per length of pew as a seat. So -- and you know, they don't count offices, that sort of stuff. No square footage, it's strictly seats. MR. KAUFMAN: I have no problem with giving sufficient time to do whatever is necessary. Is it possible, because of the electrical, that somebody can bring out a licensed electrician to inspect it to make sure no hazard exists with the wiring, considering it's a place that a large number of people attend? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right, what I'm worried about is egress and ingress. Obviously if there is some kind of emergency there, i.e. a fire, is there enough -- Page 51 October 22, 2009 MR. FREEMAN: There is several accesses from egress, I think she showed that on the floor plan, that still exist. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Could we have the ability to have like a fire inspector go out there and look at the ability to get in and out of the building? MS. RODRIGUEZ: He has little cardboard signs that said exit, but nothing is the lit type that they should have. So he'd have to replace those. MR. FREEMAN: Yeah, we can upgrade those. I guess what you're asking me for is to get a building permit and get all these necessary things that will comply with the fire department as well? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yeah, but you won't be able to get a building permit because it's going to be a commercial building and they're not going to permit that. MR. FREEMAN: How about just for the electrical improvements? I don't know. You got a good point there. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You're not going to get any kind of permit. If there's an issue with the electrical, they're going to have to get a permit to correct it, and they're not going to be able to get that permit. So then the other issue is the church will not be able to operate there until they get this use. MR. ORTEGA: Well, the question is can they operate as a church to begin with. That's question number one. Because there is a change in use. Then you have to consider the fire issue. Life safety issue, okay? MS. RODRIGUEZ: The case started from the fire department. They are the ones that called this. That's how we ended up with this. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Well, that explains quite a bit then. Then that's telling us that there's a health and safety issue that the fire department has with this property. Page 52 October 22, 2009 MR. FREEMAN: Well, the existing air conditioner had a little smoke and they panicked and called the fire department. But the air conditioning from the building was already existing and it just had a little issue there. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. Okay, well, I don't think we need to hear anymore unless we ask questions of the respondents. Any other questions? MR. ORTEGA: I still have the same question. Can they exist there? There's a change in use that has occurred. Can they exist there? You cannot get building permits. On the other hand, this is beyond this board, perhaps, but can the county be amenable to accepting a private provider or an engineer's inspection as a temporary means? But again, you have to go back, there's a change in use. So can they operate there right now? And you have to consider again the life safety issues. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Currently that's why it's in front of us, because the use is not -- MR. KELL Y: If I may, we've already determined that they can't. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So the time frame -- MR. KELL Y: Time frame is the issue. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. ORTEGA: So is this building currently being used? MR. FREEMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So the issue is -- MR. ORTEGA: How do we keep them in there? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Well, currently they should not be in there. MR. LARSEN: I have grave concerns. I mean basically they have no permits for the wire. You know, I mean, they restructured the interior without any kind of review or approval. It's just a recipe for disaster. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you have a motion? MR. LARSEN: I move to give them 30 days. Should they fail to Page 53 October 22, 2009 obtain permits and do the work necessary under those permits within 30 days, then I believe we should impose $100 per day for a penalty. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. ORTEGA: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? MR. KELL Y: Nay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: One nay. Motion passes. Do you understand what we just did? MR. FREEMAN: No, I don't, could you explain it to me? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. What we just did is we imposed a motion that you have 30 days to pull the permits and get the work in order to get everything corrected, get a CO and so forth. And if that is not the case, then you will have a fine of $100 per day. MR. FREEMAN: Okay, is there any options? Because that's not even possible getting a permit through the county in 30 days. That's impossible. I've been working in this county as a builder for 15 years. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Chair, do we give them the option for the building permit like we usually do as well-- or the demo permit? It's either building or demo permit. MR. FREEMAN: Can we just demo the walls is what she's saYIng. MR. LARSEN: I amend my motion to include the option where basically they can either obtain the permits and perform the work up Page 54 October 22,2009 to code or they can get the permit and demolish it. MR. FREEMAN: And when you say demolish, are you just meaning just the walls that were constructed inside the building? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Remove anything that was constructed within the building. MR. LARSEN: Well, anything that the code enforcement people have deemed to be in violation. MR. KELL Y: May I also suggest that you add in the operational costs and notification? Your order had one step and it was only partial. There's three or four more steps to our typical orders. Maybe start over? MR. LARSEN: Well, I mean, basically I assume that the operational costs and the notification to the code enforcement of the completion of the work would be in the final order. What are the operational costs, Jennifer? MS. WALDRON: $85.86. MR. LARSEN: 85.86? MS. WALDRON: Within 30 days. MR. LARSEN: Within 30 days. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Would the second like to amend their motion? Would you like to amend the second? MR. ORTEGA: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? MR. KAUFMAN: I have one question. On item two, it says unpermitted change of occupancy. How would that motion change that use, whether you take the walls down or not? MR. LARSEN: Well, you know, that's getting into the zoning issue, correct? MR. KAUFMAN: That's what-- MR. LARSEN: What I'm concerned about is basically we're exceeding the scope of what we're doing here. I mean, basically a Page 55 October 22,2009 violation has been admitted, we found a violation to exist. Now what we're doing is we're discussing a remedy. They have the remedy of either -- their option of either bringing this up to code, getting it permitted, getting a certificate of occupancy or demolishing those improvements which violated the code. Now, my concern is that basically we're talking about a year or two where people are basically pursuing zoning changes while this is being used as a church and having an assembly in there every single week with the fire department worrying that there's going to be some catastrophe out there. They have unpermitted wiring? I'm not quite clear on what walls were removed and what walls were changed, but it seems like there was significant work done in there over the course of several years which the county was not aware of. And I guess basically what I'm concerned about is that we give them an option of either rectifying the situation or removing those walls and that electrical which created the violation to begin with. MR. KELLY: Since we're commenting, I'd like to say that by removing a partition that only went to a drop ceiling that's hung by aluminum wires and then adding partitions back to that same level, it's like a glorified cubicle. You're not adding structural walls to it, not to mention the electrical work was done eight to 10 years ago and it's been used like that since. I don't see as though this being brought in front of us today all of a sudden constitutes a county emergency and a health issue if nothing's happened in the last eight years. And the testimony about the fire department wasn't that they say that everyone's in grave danger, it was just they had concern because they saw a little smoke from an AC unit that malfunctioned, something that normally wears and tears. I think we should give them at least a year. MR. LARSEN: Now, in response to that, you know, with the walls going up to the drop ceiling, I didn't hear any testimony saying Page 56 October 22, 2009 that those walls went up to a drop ceiling by people who were in there and did the changes to the walls. What I heard was that basically it was the contractor who has been hired now by the Blockers saying that was what occurred. What I saw was two diagrams, one where it was an original post office and that there were walls. Those walls didn't indicate that they went to a dropped ceiling. I mean, I don't know what the changes were, but I don't hear any testimony here today by people who said I was there when it was a post office, this was the status, these were the electrical components, these were the walls, this is what was changed. What I do see is two different diagrams that show significant changes which take it from a grandfathered situation to a situation where permits were not taken, they're not obtained, even though the work was done accordingly or purportedly under the purview of the owner who owned the building since I believe 1996. MR. KELL Y: That was my exact concern. And that's specifically why I asked the question to the contractor, Mr. Freeman, were they just boxed racking systems or were they actually structural walls. And he confirmed that they were just up to the drop ceiling. I believe that's the exact words that were added. And the investigator confirmed that. So that's why I reached my conclusion where I'm at. MR. ORTEGA: Is this a sprinkled building? MR. FREEMAN: I'm not sure. I can't recall. MS. RODRIGUEZ: I don't believe (sic) seeing sprinkles (sic) from the ceilings, uh-uh. MR. ORTEGA: Was there a report from the fire department or the fire marshal when they went out there? They did just see the smoke and the AC and that was it, or was there more? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Somebody -- I think it was smoke and somebody called the fire department and they came out. MR. ORTEGA: But when they were there -- MR. FREEMAN: Nobody wrote up a report. Page 57 October 22,2009 (Mr. Snow was duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: I do so swear. For the record, Kitchell Snow, Supervisor, Immokalee. I think what initially happened, that there was some sort of a fire and the fire department was called. Oftentimes we go and we look on the site. I would not hold with Mr. Kelly's assumption that the electrical is -- when it was installed, because we don't know if it was installed 10 years ago or it was installed last week. The owner's own testimony stated that permits were made without the knowledge. So I don't think we can assume anything about the electrical. I think once we decide -- we address the permitting issue, that's going to address the zoning issue. However, the zoning issue is not going to take place. That's going to be a long process. And this church has been operating, as Mr. Kelly attested, for quite some time, so we have to wait. It's a permitting issue, that's all we're talking about here. If they want to get the permits to continue, that's going to correct the zoning. If they don't want it and they want to remove it, that's going to be their choice. Those are the two options that we have here. One will take care of the other, if we decide or if the board elects to do that. But we would request some leniency. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The issue with the 30 days too is can they get permits to demolish. MR. FREEMAN: It takes about two weeks for it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But can that be done being that be it's not correct zoning? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It can be done, demol-- okay. All right, we have a motion, an amended motion, we have an amended second. Any further discussion? Page 58 October 22, 2009 (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? MR. KELL Y: Nay. MR. KAUFMAN: Nay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Two nays. Motion passes. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Chair, can you just clarify what the order is? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Larsen? MR. LARSEN: Okay. Operational costs of$85.86 will be paid within 30 days. The respondent has 30 days to either obtain permits, bring the property up to code and obtain those approvals necessary, including inspections, or to obtain permits and demolish those improvements which are in violation of the code. MS. WALDRON: What was the fine amount? MR. LARSEN: $100 per day for every day thereafter, after the initial 30 days. MS. WALDRON: Thank you. MS. GREEN: Can I ask one other question? Only on what happened. That's all. Because, I mean, there's -- it seems as if we're talking about the building permit, but we haven't done anything to address the problems of the land use and all that. Does the 30 days include a land use change also, which we know is thoroughly un -- I mean, it's not even remotely possible. You know, I haven't heard any discussion as far as that portion of it. I just want to understand what happened so that -- because I don't think my client Page 59 October 22, 2009 understands either. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thirty days to get the issue taken care of. MS. GREEN: Totally. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Uh-huh. MS. GREEN: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Moving on to the next case. Paulino and Adrianna Vega. CENA20090005263. And we have an interpreter. Could we have all the parties sworn in, please. (Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Vega were duly sworn.) (Interpreter Maria Delashmen was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And this is a stipulated agreement, correct? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. INTERPRETER: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I guess the question is, has this been fully explained to him when he did sign? MS. RODRIGUEZ: I did explain it to him, but if she wants to go over it, that's fine. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes, I'd like to have her go. MS. RODRIGUEZ: I'm going to read it. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $86.14 incurred in the I prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. INTERPRETER: I would like to pay it right now. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Abate all violations by: Applying for and obtaining a Collier County building demolition permit, and request required inspections to be performed and passed through a certificate of completion -- INTERPRETER: Yes. MS. RODRIGUEZ: -- within 90 days of this hearing or a fine of Page 60 October 22,2009 250 per day will be imposed. INTERPRETER: Okay. MS. RODRIGUEZ: 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. INTERPRETER: Okay. MS. RODRIGUEZ: 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. INTERPRETER: Okay, no problem. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Any discussion? MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to ask a couple of questions. Number one, is this a -- is this going to be removed from the property, is that what you're going to do? INTERPRETER: No, I'm going to cut it. MR. KAUFMAN: Going to cut it, okay. Do you think that 90 days is sufficient time? INTERPRETER: If you could give me a little bit more time, it would be better for me. MR. KAUFMAN: Does the county object to extending the time to 120 days? I see this has gone on since July. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Well, the only problem with that is that the mobile home is -- they gutted out the entire inside of the mobile home. There's electrical wires hanging out. So we really wanted it to be removed because it was a health and safety issue. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The other thing, I take it that this mobile home's going to be disposed of, correct? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can we -- a lot of times in cases similar to this we put in there that the material must be disposed in a Page 61 October 22,2009 properly -- in a site that's -- I can't think of the words, but properly disposed of. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yeah. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So we might want to add that. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Add that on there? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Just as a suggestion. MR. ORTEGA: Is this an old mobile home? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. INTERPRETER: Since it's all iron, I'm going to just chop it and sell it. It's metal that he can sell. MR. KAUFMAN: Is it possible to remove the electricity from the unit immediately and then given additional time to remove the unit itself? INTERPRETER: Can I cover the windows with a plywood for the moment? MR. KAUFMAN: That wasn't what I was asking. INTERPRETER: Yes, I can remove it. MR. KAUFMAN: Would the county have any problem with the electrical service being -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Disconnected. MR. KAUFMAN: -- disconnected within the next 30 days, if you will, or less and then granting the respondent additional time to remove the actual trailer from the property? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Are we reading too much into this? MR. LETOURNEAU: Is it hooked to electric? MS. RODRIGUEZ: It's hooked to the electric. INTERPRETER: It has no electricity. The trailer has no electricity . MR. ORTEGA: Does it have a meter? INTERPRETER: Yes, it has a meter but it's not hooked to the -- oh, you see, the people that lived there prior to that, they took the meter. Somebody took it. Page 62 October 22,2009 MR. ORTEGA: That could have been FP&L or Lee County Co-op, whoever it is. INTERPRETER: Yes, because they didn't pay no rent and they took it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, it would be probably modifying the stipulated -- MR. LARSEN: No, my motion it is to accept the agreement as written. Parties have agreed to it and I don't see any reason for, you know, changing the agreed upon stipulation in this particular case, so I move to accept the stipulation as presented. MR. LA VINSKI: I second. MR. DEAN: I second the motion. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Chair, did you want to add the comment in that you suggested earlier, to a site intended for disposal? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Larsen did not change it as such, so it would be no. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? Nay. Motion does pass. INTERPRETER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next case would be J. Peaceful, L -- do you need a break? We'll take a until five of. Would that be sufficient? We'll recess until five of. Page 63 October 22, 2009 (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm going to call the Code Enforcement Board back to order. Next case is 1. Peaceful, LC. Case No. CELU20090010758. (Mr. Martindale and Mr. Georges Chami were duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended, Section 2.02.03, prohibited use. Description of violation: Truck rental business prohibited in C-3 zoned location. Location/address where violation exists: 7730 Preserve Lane, Naples, Florida, 340 -- MR. MARTIN: 34117, I believe. MS. WALDRON: 3411-- MR. MARTIN: 9. MS. WALDRON: -- 9. Folio 68391446166. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Georges Chami, 7675 Margherita Way, Naples, Florida, 34109. Date violation first observed: June 30th, 2009. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: August 11 th, 2009. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: September 7th, 2009. Date of reinspection: September 16th, 2009. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. At this time I'd like to present Investigator Ron Martindale. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can we put these two cases together, since there's two cases? MS. WALDRON: Mr. Chair, we'd like to present the two cases separately to keep the two points. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good. MR. MARTINDALE: Good morning. For the record, Ronald Page 64 October 22, 2009 Martindale, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CELU20090010758, the violation of a truck rental business in a C-zoned -- C-3 zoned location, located at 7770 Preserve Lane, Naples, Florida, 34119. Folio 68391446166. Service was given on 11 th of August, 2009, certified mail. And I'd like to enter three exhibits into -- for the case. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear -- first of all, were they shown to the -- MR. MARTINDALE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: They were shown to the respondent. Have you seen them? MR. CHAMI: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion to accept the exhibits? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. LA VINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. MARTINDALE: On August the 30th -- I'm sorry, June the 30th, I was on-site on a call we received about some violations at the shopping center. Page 65 October 22,2009 When I arrived there, I observed eight to IOU-Haul trailers, trucks and vans on the south side of the business. I obtained a site development plan, contacted Kay Deselem of Zoning and Land Development Review, and later met on the 15th of July with Supervisor Jeff Letourneau. We discussed the case and called the shopping center owner, Mr. Chami. Jeff explained the obvious violations at first and then the other potential problems. He was then placed on speaker phone so we could both talk to him. It was explained that the call was being made as a courtesy and no notices were filed yet. He would be allowed to pursue avenues to effect compliance for the allegations, at least until the investigator returns from vacation to resume at that time. On the 14th, I met with Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager, and Kay Deselem. The report was discussed. Kay advised the U -Haul truck business could only be allowed and permitted in locations zoned as C-4 and that the location of the business was zoned as PUD. After obtaining the following research, I issued a Notice of Violation, mailed it certified mail. It was received on the 11 th of August. And that's where we are at this point. The photographs, B-1, is an indicator of what the site looks like with the rental equipment there. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's on the west side of the building, correct? MR. MARTIN: That's affirmative. The next one is a portion of an e-mail that Mr. Joseph Schmitt, Administrator ofCDES, sent and returned to Mr. Chami, giving him the options, what the options were. Basically that he could have the trucks removed and operate the business with trucks being in a location other than there, because it's not zoned for that. Number two would be to have the area rezoned to C-4. And the last of course would just be to completely close the business. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It says there's three options and the Page 66 October 22,2009 third one is, or petition the board. And that is which board? MR. MARTINDALE: That, sir -- yeah, Board of Commissioners. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's what I thought, okay. MR. MARTINDALE: The third element here is an excerpt from the current Land Development Code. The highlighted area is what pertains to this particular case. The first one states that this type of operation cannot be conducted in a C- 3 zoned area, it must be operated in a C-4 zoned area. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: This site also has a gas station/convenience store, laundry facility where you can drop off your laundry and a post office. What is the use for a gas station? MR. MARTINDALE: I do not know, sir. I assume it's in C-3. MR. LETOURNEAU: I believe that gas station was permitted there originally in the site development plan in the PUD. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What PUD was it under; do you know? MR. MARTINDALE: Yeah, it's the Olde Cypress PUD. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Olde Cypress PUD, okay. (Mr. Letourneau was duly sworn.) MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau. And I do believe that gas station was originally permitted in the PUD. MR. CHAMI: It was permitted as multi-use retail facility. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It was what? MR. CHAMI: Multi-use retail facility. It was not permit as gas station but multi-use retail facility. It's around 11,000 square feet facility . MR. LARSEN: Mr. Martindale, I mean, I assume that the violation is because it says that this is some kind of wholesaling use and that it's associated with the need for outdoor storage of equipment; Page 67 October 22, 2009 is that correct? MR. MARTINDALE: That's correct. And it specifically states in the ordinance here that rental equipment is not permitted. MR. ORTEGA: I have a question. This is a PUD, you stated? MR. MARTINDALE: Yes, sir. MR. ORTEGA: What does the PUD say; do we know? MR. MARTINDALE: That's why I consulted with the planning and the zoning people. And they're the ones that gave me the information for which I cited the gentleman. MR. LARSEN: So let me get this clear. You're saying that basically in C-3, even though it's a mixed use retail, that it's more appropriate for them to operate the U -Haul operations under a C-4 because of the specific language of this provision? MR. MARTINDALE: Yeah, it's prohibited in a C-3 zoned area, and it's not prohibited in a C-4. Basically he could run the operation without the rental equipment on-site. If he could relocate the rental equipment and still operate the I I I offices there, which would be extremely inconvenient, I understand, but he could still run the business there but he couldn't have the equipment. By looking at the picture, if you would put that up there, J en, the reason being for this is the PUD and the way this was all zoned over there, you can see the parking facilities would be extremely limited. Put a lot of materials in there parked in the parking lot. MR. LARSEN: All right. So you're saying that basically the parking that was supposed to be allocated to retail customers is now being taken up by the equipment to be leased. MR. MARTINDALE: I believe that's why the original PUD was designed that way. It's why the zoning was --like the lady said earlier about the seating and so forth, that's how they go by the parking situation. Page 68 October 22, 2009 MR. LARSEN: Okay, thank you. MR. MARTINDALE: Uh-huh. MR. CHAMI: Can I make some comment? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes, sir. MR. CHAMI: Thank you very much. The U-Haul-- I start the business on the U-Haul in 2003. In fact, in September, beginning of September, 2003. So it's a little bit more, over six years we're in business on the U - Haul part. F or the last four and a half years, five years, the U -Haul was absolutely not big part of our business or any kind of importance in our business. We're making probably on the whole year around $13,000 max in revenue on the U-Haul. This is gross revenue. For the last 18 months it's totally day and night. For the 18 months -- and unfortunately what's happening in town was happening with people moving, people relocating their homes and different other businesses. The U -Haul business got a little bit more importance. Now, the picture we see here is little bit confusing and misleading. The very simple reason why, because we usually we try to get as much as possible trucks between June and August for when the kids goes back to school, to colleges. This is why we really need the most possible trucks. And every year this is the best period for us and we don't even have trucks, because it was already very limited as truck business, per se. Now, when we went on 2003, and this is too old for me to be able to confirm it without any doubt, we went through the C-3 definition and all the uses, and went through the C-4 as well. I could not see anywhere I was not allowed to use rental businesses in C- 3. Now, if I go back today and goes through the definition and the permitted uses, yes, C-4. And frankly, even four months ago I was having some problem to find in C-4 where is written permitted use is rental equipment and rental vehicles. Page 69 October 22, 2009 In June when the problem started, we were very taken by surprise. We could not even understand how this happen, how can we have this problem right now. Mind you, we had around 14 calls on us within, what, two weeks, I believe, from one businesses to code enforcement for many, many violation. Most of them were not founded. Unfortunately we had around four of them which are to be discussed. One of them was the U-Haul. We went back and forth with the county with regard to see what to do with the U-Haul business. Frankly, we could not understand the whole issue about the U-Haul. For us it was a little bit surprising. The little I can say is very . . surpnsIng. Now, Mr. Schmitt, what he told us to do is to go back to the board, the county commissioners board, and to petition the board to see, since we had this business for six years, to see if we'll be able to -- the county will be compassionate with us and try to give us enough time either to make a determination about the use or to make also a rezoning or conditional use or no matter what the business is. Now, for time being the business, the parking part, is extremely -- I wish we were busy. I wish we were able to say that we are able to not having any problem. The parking is most of the time empty. And the summer we got was probably the toughest summer, like everybody else in town, the toughest summer we ever had in eight years in business, or seven year in business. I understand that probably when business start going back, if we're still in business, it will be probably a problem if we have this kind of trucks. But we always kept our trucks and the U-Haul area to five to six spots. We always did. Unfortunately not around August and September. But the problem was never in our mind a problem until in June or in July we end up having this in our face. Why we never reacted before to this, because frankly, summertime was very, very tough, and Page 79 October 22, 2009 we had the major problem first of all to deal on signage for my tenant. Unfortunately he was here until -- he had a meeting at 11 :00. He had to leave. But unfortunately we rented the space to a pool company. And this is the second case you'll be hearing after. And unfortunately this has bothered one business owner in the area. And she like to find around 14 or 1 7 code enforcement on us, three from the fire department, we have four on the transportation. We had probably kind of nice game going, which is calling constantly on us. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right, we're not hearing any other cases -- MR. CHAMI: Exactly. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- so let's just try to keep it focused to this case. MR. CHAMI: So basically what happened here, to make it -- we try to get the person a sign. And my whole correspondence with the county, my whole focus with the county was about giving this tenant his sign, what his due -- or his right to have a sign. And this issue went totally on the side. N ever even paid attention to it, never even petitioned the commissioners or anything like this. What I'm ready to do -- unfortunately it's too late. When I got this notification for the hearing, it was too late for me to really react. What I ready to do today basically is to go request the comment -- the comment period for the County Board of County Commissioners to request from them at least to hear my case on the comment area next week on Tuesday. I understand it is not enough time for them to do anything. Probably they will not even make a decision on Tuesday. What I'm doing as well today, I have to petition the board as well. We have 14 days in advance notice for the board to be petitioned, which I will do as well today. So basically will do a comment and I will file for a petition as well today to give me enough Page 71 October 22, 2009 time not for this next meeting but for the following one hopefully to be able to get in front of the board and express the problem to them and see what they would be able to do. Sorry, I'm breaking your equipment here. So basically what I'm trying to do is to go in front of the board hopefully next week for a comment period. We understand around 10 minutes. And probably will be no decision, no -- but at least to bring it to their attention. And 14 days later or 15 days later to be in front of them as a petition to be able to see if they will hear it as a petition and to see if they will determine it as being acceptable use. Because it's very vague. The wording is very vague. I understand the way we're reading it today. Am I grandfathered or not? I don't know. And this way I would like to see if am I able to be grandfathered or go through a zoning to rezone the property. But this is take around two years. And Mr. Schmitt told me he has no problem to do this, he will work with us to rezone it. But frankly, I would like to have a little bit more time because I want (sic) to start spending 10 or $15,000 right now for rezoning when I'm able to use this money to keep my business open. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you know if there was a LDC change? MR. MARTINDALE: Not to my knowledge. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. So in 2000 -- MR. MARTINDALE: There's constant updates, but this is the most recent. But I have no idea when the last one was. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you have not looked at the Olde Cypress PUD to see if it states in there that this use would be approved? MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, we did ask the planning department to take a look into this, and Planner Ray Bellows made the Page 72 October 22, 2009 determination that this was not an acceptable use for this PUD. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: So I do believe he went over it and he made the determination that it was equivalent to a C- 3. MR. CHAMI: The PUD just talk about all the uses permitted within the C- 3. This is the wording in the PUD. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. Any further discussion, questions from the board? (No response.) MR. KELL Y: I make a motion that a violation does exist. MR. LARSEN: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Do you have a recommendation? MR. MARTINDALE: Yes, sir. We recommend that Code Enforcement Board order the respondent to pay all operational charges in this case. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you put that up on the screen, please? MR. MARTINDALE: I'm sorry. In the amount a of 86.14 incurred in the prosecution of this case Page 73 October 22, 2009 within 30 days, and abate all violations by: Number one, ceasing all outside storage of rental vehicles and equipment; or number two, relocating rental vehicles and equipment to an area designated for such use; or three, having the described property rezoned to allow for such use. Failure to comply with option one, two or three within "X" amount of days of this hearing will incur a fine of "X" per day until brought into compliance. And if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. KAUFMAN: Mr. Chairman? How many vehicles are parked there today? MR. CHAMI: Today proba -- I can tell you probably from yesterday. It was a lot. Yesterday we had probably 10 vehicle -- probably between nine and 11, probably. And probably six trailers. MR. KAUFMAN: My question to the county would be, on the time limit on this, how many days? And it looks like that you are going before the BCC sometime within the next 30 days? MR. CHAMI: Absolutely, yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But they're not going to be making a decision. MR. KAUFMAN: No, I understand that. And our next meeting isn't until December, as I -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No, we don't have a meeting in December. MR. KAUFMAN: Oh, we have one in November. If we were to meet halfway on this, give the respondent time to get before the BCC and see what they're saying, and not start accruing the fines until 60 or 90 days, we would have the ability to be as fair as you could possibly be to both sides. Would the county have any Page 74 October 22,2009 problem with that? MR. MARTINDALE: We have no objections to that, sir. We just would like to be, at least I would as the investigating officer, kept abreast of any status changes that he may get as soon as possible for the record. And I don't think it's a health and safety issue, it's just a violation of the ordinance. And we don't want to cause any financial problems with anybody, these are just -- you know, we're doing our job. We go out and it's down-printed on paper and that's what we report. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: He has been in front of us before for . a sign Issue. MR. MARTINDALE: I believe so, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MR. LARSEN: This is the property across from Gulf Coast High School? MR. CHAMI: Exactly, yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's correct. MR. LARSEN: And your vehicles, when you pull in, you've got the pumps out front, you've got the post office inside, and these vehicles are actually parked behind the building, aren't they? MR. CHAMI: Behind the building. MR. LARSEN: And there's other parking spots out in front. MR. CHAMI: Exactly. Along Immokalee Road. We have 57 parking, I believe. With a full occupancy for our building, which we're not, we're -- I believe it's 49. What we should be having -- what we're requested to have, if I'm not mistaken. So we have 57, around eight spot more. Even with the full occupancy of the building, the 11,000 square feet. MR. LARSEN: What's behind the parking spots on the other side of the fence where you park the U-Hauls? MR. CHAMI: We have the Bougainvillea -- I believe the Bougainvillea Shopping Center, Zookies and the other Pinch-a-Penny Page 75 October 22, 2009 and other businesses. MR. LARSEN: It's not residential. MR. CHAMI: No. The residential is on -- we have a buffer, in fact. Like we have in the PUD, the commercial PUD is on the front and then you have kind of preserve area and then you have the residential on the other side. MR. LARSEN: Right. So, you know, there is no neighbors being impacted by this. MR. CHAMI: No. Absolutely not. MR. KELL Y: I'll make a motion that we accept the county's recommendation with 120 days and a fine of $100 per day. MR. LARSEN: I second that motion. I think that's more reasonable. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? MR. LARSEN: And of course the -- but the payment of the cost of prosecution will be within 30 days? MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to add one thing to the motion, if possible, and that is that Mr. Chami be in contact with code enforcement to let them know what's going on with your deliberations with the county. MR. CHAMI: I will. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Larsen, would you like to amend your -- MR. LARSEN: Yeah, I amend the second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And the first? MR. KELL Y: Sure. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right, thank you very much. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. Page 76 October 22,2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. CHAMI: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, next will be 1. Peaceful, LC. Case No. CESD20090012961. (Mr. Martindale and Mr. Chami were duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 1 0.02.06(B)(1)( e). Description of violation: Alterations to structure without obtaining required permits, subsequent inspections or issuance of certificate of occupancy completion. Location/address where violation exists: 7770 Preserve Lane, Naples, Florida, 34119. Folio 68391446166. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Georges Chami, 7675 Margherita Way, Naples, Florida, 34109. Date violation first observed: August 5th, 2009. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: August 11 th, 2009. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: September 7th, 2009. Date of reinspection: September 16th, 2009. Results of the reinspection: The violation remains. I would now like to present Investigator Ron Martindale. MR. MARTINDALE: For the record, Ronald Martindale Collier County Code Enforcement. Page 77 October 22, 2009 In reference to Case CESD20090012961, location is 770 Preserve Lane. And I would like to enter two exhibits, if I may. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Have you seen them? MR. CHAMI: I don't believe so. Most probably, but I want to see these ones. MR. MARTINDALE: Sorry. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. LA VINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. MARTINDALE: While I was investigating the prior case, I also observed what you'll -- photograph one here. This -- I believe this was originally built as a bank, and that was a drive-through there. They've taken the window out and replaced it with two doors. You can see by the fresh stucco around the edges where it's been filled in. It's been since prior painted -- painted since then, pardon me. And upon investigation I couldn't find any permits of any type. Picture two, please. This was a drive-thru area from where you see that box truck up Page 78 October 22, 2009 to the bank window. They put an elevated ramp across this area up into the -- enter into the business of Splash and Sizzle. None of the work was -- no permits were pulled for any of the jobs. And I sent a Notice of Violation to Mr. Chami on this also. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other pictures? MR. MARTINDALE: No, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Are you done with your testimony? MR. MARTINDALE: Yes, sir, I'm sorry. MR. CHAMI: Thanks a lot. And my apology for getting two cases in front of you today. This case, frankly it's little bit mind boggling in one way. We rented the space to Splash and Sizzle around end of August of this year. And Splash and Sizzle has another company called Slab to Shingle, and they are general contractor as well. Now, they started the construction. They assured me all the way that I hired Nova Engineering for all the permitting to expedite all the different inspection and so on. And frankly, I have nothing to say beside good things about this tenant. They are really very, very nice, very good -- doing their work in very professional way, and I never doubted a minute that everything was being filed on time, everything was done. Even at one time the whole place was -- the racks were in, the fixtures were in, everything was ready to go. Even the shelving was totally full, all the product were on it. The fire department made an inspection and we're still waiting to open the doors. And the reason they told me we cannot open is because we want our occupational license, and we can't get occupational license until the structural department at Collier County will provide us with the permit, with a sign, a final inspection on the door. So everything led me to believe, and I'm still -- I'm not able to understand what happened here in between. Because we were waiting Page 79 October 22, 2009 over four days until we got a license occupation. And this was waiting for the doors to be permitted and to be inspected and everything was from structure and everything was supposed to be done. Suddenly we got the license for occupation. We have it. And I don't know then what happened. All what I know, that one business in the area made a complaint, code enforcement came in another time, and they found basically that the -- to my understanding, the complaint was about doing the work without permit. They inspected, and obviously code enforcement found that basically no permit was being provided for the door, and it was in between Nova Engineering and between a final-- frankly, this is details I don't really know exactly what happened in between. This is why I was having my tenant here to explain to you in detail what happened. Now, from this particular point we had another problem came back after, which was the ramp. And the ramp which was supposedly somebody at the county told Nova Engineering you don't need to have a permit for this particular ramp. All what you really need is permit for the door. As we speak today, I understand they filed the permit for the door, they filed the permit for the SDP, so basically to show basically the ramp was being done. But this is all done after the fact that code enforcement was on-site and basically they found us we are not in conformance. So what happened in between, how come we end up having this occupation license and how come the door was being inspected but was not being -- I don't know, frankly. I fail to understand. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The actual violation is? MR. MARTINDALE: Performing work without inspections. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What work in particular? MR. MARTINDALE: The door, the ramp. Anything that October 22, 2009 they've done there without any -- obtaining any permits. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That elevated area there? MR. MARTINDALE: Yes. That was the drive-thru. And it's essentially -- I don't think that's the issue. The issue is just the construction of a structure, and that is a structure, without any approval, permits, subsequent inspections, COso MR. LETOURNEAU: I believe they removed the drive-thru, changed the -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm not sure if you -- you haven't been sworn in, have you? MR. LETOURNEAU: Do I have to get -- I'm sorry. (Mr. Letourneau was duly sworn.) MR. LETOURNEAU: Like Investigator Martindale said, there was a drive-thru for a bank. I believe they modified the window there and put a door and then built a ramp leading up to the door, basically what's going on there. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further questions? MR. KAUFMAN: Mr. Chami, did you speak with your tenant and specifically ask them did you get a building permit for this work? MR. CHAMI: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: And they said? MR. CHAMI: Yes. And they told me -- later on their understanding from Nova Engineering that Nova Engineering was presenting -- fighting for the permit. But I fail to understand -- this is why I was really hoping that he will be with me here and we explain. But I believe -- I thought he would explain everything to code enforcement about all the details. Because until today I still fail to understand how Nova Engineering did all the inspection without having a permit filed. Usually you file a permit and then you do the inspection after. How this happened, I have no idea. MR. KELL Y: Engineers are allowed to file a permit by affidavit Page 81 October 22, 2009 and basically do the work and then just say afterward it's up to code. MR. CHAMI: Okay, thank you very -- MR. KELL Y: And that's probably his intention. But Mr. Martindale, you've checked CDS and CD plus has nothing. MR. MARTINDALE: Several times. MR. ORTEGA: Permit by affidavits are limited to residential, not commercial. But permit -- private provider can do it, but you still have to apply for a permit first. Obviously the ramp impacted the SDP, so that was one issue. You had to take care of that before you -- actually, you could do the building permit, site development plan both or the amendment to, but apparently that was never done. MR. MARTINDALE: I believe the tenant is trying to get an insubstantial alteration to the PUD because of this. I don't know what the story is completely on it, except it's obvious that the structure has been modified and there's no record of any permits. MR. ORTEGA: This may not qualify for that. But are you in the building department now? Are you proceeding with this? MR. CHAMI: My understanding, everything was being filed on Friday or on Monday. MR. ORTEGA: Do you have any proof of this? MR. CHAM!: Uh-uh. MR. ORTEGA: That's very easy. The contractor can give you a copy of the permit application, then you know for sure, as owner of the property. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that a violation did exist. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Does exhibit. MR. KAUFMAN: Does exist. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: For the record, I'd just like to note that there was a speaker slip filled out. Mr. Dan Deerey -- Page 82 October 22, 2009 MR. CHAMI: He just left. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- and he left. MR. CHAMI: He left. MR. LARSEN: Yeah, I second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Do you have a recommendation? MR. MARTINDALE: Yes, sir, I do. The Code Enforcement Board -- we request the Code Enforcement Board order the respondent to pay all operational charges/costs in the amount of 86.14 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days. And to abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County building or demolition permits, all required inspections through to issuance of a certificate of compliance or occupancy within "X" amount of days, or incur a fine of "X" per day until brought into compliance. The respondent must notify code investigator when the violation's been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may Page 83 October 22, 2009 abate the violation and may use the assistance of Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right. Anyone like to take a stab at this? MR. LARSEN: Well, I'd like to suggest that basically we give the respondent 120 days and then $100 per day until -- for every day thereafter. MR. KAUFMAN: I'll second that. MR. KELLY: And that's obviously accepting the rest of the recommendations by county? MR. LARSEN: Yes, it is. With the proviso that the operational costs are paid within 30 days, not the 120 days. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. CHAMI: Thank you very much. Have a wonderful day. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You too. MR. MARTINDALE: Thank you, gentlemen. MR. LARSEN: You have Horton next; is that correct? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is that the last case? MR. LARSEN: If so, I have to recuse myself once again. Page 84 October 22, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do we have a whole package for them? MR. MARTINDALE: Jeff just made me one. MR. KELL Y: Have we got some old business? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Horton? THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Horton, I just want to remind you that you are still under oath from the previous time you were here. MR. HORTON: Um-hum. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Didn't want you to run off and miss it. THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Paul, I just wanted to remind you that you are still under oath. MR. PAUL: Okay. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Chairman, just for the record, we don't have all the original case documents with us because we weren't prepared to rehear this today. I don't have the statement of violation to read off. I don't have any of that, so -- because usually it's a request for rehearing and then it's scheduled for another day. MR. KELLY: But it's in compliance. It might be relevant. MS. WALDRON: I'm just telling you that I don't have that to-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you read at least the -- MS. WALDRON: I have the previous order. MR. KELL Y: If at any time you feel as though county is unable to properly -- MS. WALDRON: I think the investigator can present the case without us reading the statement of violation. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We did ask that before and I think-- MR. PAUL: Yes, I can present-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- you did state that you are prepared to hear the case. MR. PAUL: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you need to read anything in? I Page 85 October 22,2009 mean, can you -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, I think we can read in what was in the prior order. I've got that in front of me, if you'd like me to read it in, or you'd like to. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I mean, at least you could state the case, state the violation. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. Well, the alleged violation was Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) of the Collier County Land Development Code. And the violation was: There was an addition to the rear of the home without first obtaining a Collier County permit. The address of the property was 2128 55th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida. Folio 36379480008. I think that covers the pertinent part. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, as long as that's enough for the record. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I believe so. Mr. Horton is here, so he has received notice of the hearing. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. PAUL: I can go ahead? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MR. PAUL: For the record, Renald Paul, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. Again, the reference, Case No. CESD20080011966. Violations of Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Addition of a lanai with no permits. Service was given on 10-9 of '08. I'd like to present some case evidence in the following Exhibits B-1 through 3. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion to -- MR. LA VINSKI: I make a motion we accept -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, first before I say that, has the Page 86 October 22, 2009 respondent seen the pictures? MR. PAUL: No, he hasn't seen them. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you could please show him. MR. HORTON: Yeah, he showed me a little bit ago. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I just want to make sure. And if you can just state on record that you have seen -- they were presented to you. MR. HORTON: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good. MR. KELL Y: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a first? MR. LA VINSKI: Yeah, I'll make a motion. MR. KELL Y: Oh, that's right. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. PAUL: As you'll see in the first picture, it shows the picture of the lanai. MR. ORTEGA: I remember this one. MR. PAUL: And the second picture is the property card from the property appraiser's. I don't know if she'll be able to zoom in. But Page 87 October 22, 2009 what it pretty much shows is there's a little writing that talks about the date that it was actually added. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Where are we looking? MR. KAUFMAN: Left side. MR. PAUL: Right there. They've got little points that point to that that show that they were added in like '95. I'm sorry, it's very difficult to see. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The one to the right. MS. WALDRON: '96. MR. PAUL: '96. MR. LEFEBVRE: I can't tell if that's '95 or '96. MS. WALDRON: It's '96. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, the second line down right where the line is. And then on the other side right where the line is, it says '96. Okay. MR. PAUL: Okay. And the third picture is the original 1990 permit. It's actually a survey. And on the survey you can see that there is no lanai. This case began on 9/8 of2008. I went to the property, I spoke with Mr. Horton. I had explained while I was on-site, somebody originally complained about a different violation, as I told him that I would have to research and get back to him. On 9/25, checked with the permit department, they still had not gotten the plans back, so I was still monitoring. On 10/9 I had received the information back, found there were several violations on the property at that time. On 10/9, I was on-site. I had spoken with Mr. Horton and I had explained the several violations, which also included the lanai. At that time he did not sign the Notice of Violation, he had refused. But I did give him a copy of the notice. On 11/18, after research, found that the violation remained. On 12/17, found that the violation had still remained on-site. Page 88 October 22, 2009 On 1/27 of2009 we had a meeting with the permitting department, me and Mr. Horton and several persons that work for the permitting department. Some of the violations were found not to be violations at that time. But he still did have other violations that were still on-site that needed to be corrected. And he was informed on how to correct these issues at that time. On 3/2 of 2009 he came into the office to take care of most of the violations, but the lanai hadn't been taken care of at that time. On 3/23 he had asked for an extension of time, which was granted due to finances. So I just continued to monitor the case. 4/30 of'09, called Mr. Horton on the phone. He advised that architect told him that the way that the lanai was built would not pass today's codes. He was going to check with some other persons to see if there's a possible way that he can get this taken care of. 5/18, I had spoken with Mr. Horton, he said he was speaking with the architect at that time, and there was a possibility that he could get this into compliance. 6/1/2009, Mr. Horton advised that the screen company was coming out and would be able to fix what needed to be done at that time. And I told him I'd continue to monitor it. On 6/22 I spoke with Mr. Horton on the phone. Said that the work was done but he didn't know when he was going to get the permit. I informed him that he did not -- if he did not have the permit by next week, I would prep the case for CEB, and he said he understood. On 7/15 of '09 after research found that the violation remained. Owner has still not applied for the permits for the addition, so I prepped the case for CEB. On 8/4 of2009 the Notice of Hearing was posted at the courthouse and the property. On 8/14 I had spoken with Mr. Horton before the last hearing. I had informed him that the case was prepped for court, and he said that Page 89 October 22,2009 he understood. And I told him what the operational costs were. On 9/23 of'09, after the first hearing, Mr. Horton did come into compliance with the lanai. He did get the CO. He had -- he was issued the permit on 9/23 of'09 and got the C.O. on 9/29 of'09. And we're here today. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you'd like to speak now? MR. HORTON: Yeah. The only reason I'm here today is to ask for a waiver on the fees for today. And I have a sheet here chronologizing everything that's happened so far. Some of our dates were off. But it explains the delay from why it wasn't in compliance. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Would you like to enter that into evidence? MR. HORTON: Yeah. How do I do that? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Has he seen -- MR. HORTON: Yeah, I showed it to him a little bit ago. MR. KELL Y: I make a motion we accept it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. LA VINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Just give us a minute to have it passed out, then we can take a Page 90 October 22, 2009 look at it. Is the house for sale currently? MR. HORTON: No. MR. KAUFMAN: In reading this, unless I missed something, it looks like the only problem here was item three, respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement. I believe that's -- looks like everything was done. MR. PAUL: From the prior, correct? From the prior hearing? MR. KAUFMAN: Right. Yeah, everything was done on 9/23. Permit, everything -- MR. PAUL: The CO was -- he had gotten the CO on the 29th, on 9/29. MR. KAUFMAN: Which is prior to -- MR. PAUL: The hearing. MR. KAUFMAN: -- the reinspection on the 30th. MR. PAUL: Correct. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay, how did you find to reinspect it on the 30th ifhe didn't notify you? MR. PAUL: We're able to just check the computer system. It's just a random check that I do. And when I checked it, I noticed that he had gotten the CO, even though he didn't call me. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Has everyone had a chance to read this letter? MR. DEAN: I was the last one to get it so it's taken me a little longer. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No problem. Just let me know when you're ready. MR. DEAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions from the board? (No response.) Page 91 October 22, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you have any further statements? MR. HORTON: No, do you have any further questions, though? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I just asked the board and doesn't seem like there is. Do I hear amotion? MR. KAUFMAN: Let me try a motion. Given the ordinary benevolent things that we do on this board, since everything was in compliance and the only thing that was missing as far as the general public is concerned, they're not harmed, I'd make a motion that we find that this was in compliance. The key here is the fine, if you will, is zero. The court costs are the question in mind. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. Now, if we find -- we have to find if there's a violation or not. If there's no violation, then the operational costs would not have to be paid. If we do find in fact there was a violation but it was corrected, then yes, a fine -- not a fine but operational costs would be incurred. So are you trying to say that -- MR. KAUFMAN: Based on the problem with the e-mail going to the right place at the right time, I find that a violation did not occur, that it was attempted to notify the county. MS. WALDRON: Just for clarification on that, the e-mail was only the request for rehearing, it did not have anything to do with the case details. That wasn't part of the getting into compliance. MR. PAUL: Right, there's no proof that -- MS. WALDRON: Right, that doesn't have anything to do with the -- MR. KAUFMAN: Well, I'll stay with my motion, that-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Hearing none -- MR. KELL Y: I make a motion that a violation did exist. Past Page 92 October 22,2009 tense. MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? MR. KAUFMAN: One. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Motion passes that there's a violation that has been found. MR. HORTON: What does that mean to me? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What that means is that if no violation was found, then you wouldn't have to pay operational cost. But because a motion has been made and seconded and approved by the board that a violation did exist, you are responsible for paying the operational cost of -- what was it, $87 and some change? MS. WALDRON: $87 even. MR. KELL Y: The key here was timing. MR. HORTON: The whole point of me coming in here was to show you the timing of what happened in between, you know, right around, you know, July and August. MR. KELLY: And that's what I was anxious to see. But since it was brought in front of the board and we did go through the expense of hearing the case before the CO was achieved, in my mind there was a violation because the permit was not finally approved at the time we heard the case. MR. HORTON: I show here on July 20th, I paid for the permits Page 93 October 22, 2009 and I sent -- I went into the county or over to the Horseshoe and gave three sets of plans. I called the inspector on the same day to tell him that that was the case. Then you see on 7/27 is when I received my notice for the hearing. It's out of my hands at that point. It's in the county's possession; is that correct? MR. KELLY: Yes, sir. But the actual CO, the finalization of the permit, wasn't achieved until almost -- well, to the end of September. MR. HORTON: Well, the reason there's a 30-day lapse there is because once I got my notice after the first hearing that I was in violation, they said I had 30 days. I was in no hurry to make that payment. I think I waited till the 28th day to do that. MR. KELL Y: I hear you. MR. HORTON: That's the lapse there. MR. KELL Y: I can appreciate that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: There's been a motion, a second and there has been a violation found, so you will be responsible for paying the $87. MR. HORTON: How do I -- do I do by writing you a check now or do I go downstairs or what? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You can write a check right now. That would be -- MR. HORTON: Well, I can't do that right now, I don't have my checkbook with me. What do I do? MR. DEAN: Within 30 days. MR. HORTON: Go to Horseshoe Drive? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MR. HORTON: Very good. Thanks. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. MR. KELL Y: In the case, I make a motion that the violation did exist and the corrective action is to pay the operational cost of $87 within 30 days, and there's no other further action. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I guess that would be the Page 94 October 22, 2009 recommendation? MR. KELL Y: Well, we made a motion that a violation existed. Now we have to actually make a motion for the order, correct? MS. WALDRON: Right. We just need to put some wording that the violation has been abated to the date of this hearing. MR. KELL Y: I'll amend my motion to say that the violation has been abated. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear -- MR. KAUFMAN: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Amend the second -- MR. KELLY: Well, we never had-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Oh, okay, I thought you were amending your previous one, sorry. MR. KELL Y: So we had the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We have a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Weare moving on. MR. LARSEN: Just for the record, if that had to do with the prior case, I'm abstaining and I'm excused. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next case -- or motion for imposition of fines would be Theodore and Karen Wasserman. Page 95 October 22, 2009 (Ms. Perez and Mr. Scofield were duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Ordinance 04-41, the Land Development Code, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e). Location of violation: 410 Cristobal Street, Naples, Florida. Folio 52450200000. Description of violation: Electrical boatlift added to the west side seawall property without first obtaining required Collier County building permits. On May 28th, 2009, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board, OR 4460, Page 2921 for more information. An order of continuance was granted. See order OR 4442, Page 2234. The respondent has complied with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of September 30th, 2009. The county's recommendation is to issue an order imposing a lien for fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period between September 25th, 2009 to September 30th, 2009, five days, for the total of$l,OOO. Operational costs of $87.57 have been paid. The total recommended lien amount is $1,000. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to abate the fine. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. Page 96 October 22, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. PEREZ: Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You understand what just -- MR. SCOFIELD: No. MR. KAUFMAN: You get an out of jail free card. MR. SCOFIELD: So the fine's been waived? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MR. SCOFIELD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you paid the operational cost, so you're all set. MR. SCOFIELD: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You're welcome. Have a great day. I think that's one of the quickest ones I've ever seen. All right, next case is CESD20080003864, Jose Rodriguez. (Mr. Walker and Mr. Rodriguez were duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: The notice of hearing was posted at the property and the courthouse on October 1 st, 2009. This case is this reference to violation of Collier County Ordinance 04-41, the Land Development Code, as amended, Sections 1 0.02.06(B)(1)( a), 1 0.02.06(B)(1)( e), and 1 0.02.06(B)(1)( ei). Location of violation: 607 Glades Street, Immokalee, Florida. Folio 63857400007. Description of violation: Bedroom and bathroom addition built on side of structure without first obtaining proper permits. On April 23rd, 2009, the Code Enforcement Board issued a Page 97 October 22,2009 finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4449, Page 2446 for more information. The respondent has not complied with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of October 22nd, 2009. The county's recommendation is to issue an order imposing lien for fines at a rate of $200 per day for the period between August 25th, 2009 to October 22nd, 2009, 59 days, for the total of$II,800. Fines continue to accrue. Operational costs of $86.71 have not been paid. The total recommended lien amount is $11,886.71. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to impose the recommended lien amount of$II,886.71, and of course the operational cost in the amount of 86.71 be paid. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Although those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. WALKER: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is that it? Page 98 October 22, 2009 MR. LARSEN: No, we've got-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Step up. Case CESD20090003484. Federal National Mortgage Association. (Mr. Keegan was duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: Property and courthouse were both posted on October 5th, 2009. This is in reference to violation of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, buildings and building regulations, Article 2, Section 22 to 26(b)(104.1.3.5). Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended. Sections 10.02.06(B)(I)(a) and 10.02.06 (B)(I)(e). And the Florida Building Code, 2004 edition, Chapter 1, Section 111.1. Location of violation: 3141 Pine Tree Drive, Naples, Florida. Folio 48780640001. Description of violation: Garage converted into living space, bathroom and kitchen, interior walls erected and plumbing and electrical work completed without first obtaining Collier County approval, necessary permits, inspections and certificate of completion. On May 28th, 2009, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4460, Page 2930 for more information. The respondent has not complied with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of October 22nd, 2009. The county's recommendation is to issue an order imposing a lien for fines at the rate of $200 a day for the period between September 25th, 2009 to October 22nd, 2009, 27 days, for the total of $5,400. Fines continue to accrue. Operational costs of $88.43 have not been paid. The total recommended lien amount is $5,488.43. Page 99 October 22, 2009 MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to impose a lien in the amount of $5,488.43, which includes the fine plus the operational cost. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELL Y: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. MR. KEEGAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. All right. Any new business? (No response.) MR. KAUFMAN: Next meeting will be held at? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Reports? Do we have a report from -- for foreclosures? MS. WALDRON: (Shakes head negatively.) MR. KELLY: I like the new shirts. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is that under new business or comments? Just comments? The next meeting will be November 19th, 2009. Location will be at the community development and environmental services building. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman, do we have to take any action on this letter from code enforcement bright dated October 15th in regard to foreclosure, collect authorization -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It's under the consent agenda. Page 100 October 22,2009 MR. KELL Y: Consent agenda. MR. LARSEN: Okay. So no further action needs to be taken? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No further action. MR. KELL Y: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :58 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD GERALD LEFEBVRE, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on , as presented or as corrected . Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 101