CEB Minutes 11/19/2009 R
November 19,2009
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
Naples, Florida November, 19,2009
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 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida,
with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Gerald Lefebvre
Robert Kaufman
Edward Larsen
Kenneth Kelly
Larry Dean
Lionel L'Esperance
James Lavinski
Herminio Ortega (Alternate)
ALSO PRESENT:
Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director
Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Specialist
Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Code Enforcement Board
Page 1
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
Date: November 19, 2009, at 9:00 a.m.
Location: 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Rooms 609-610
NOTICE: THE RESPONDENT MAY BE LIMlTIED TO TWENTY (20) MINUTES FOR CASE
PRESENTATION UNLESS ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE BOARD. PERSONS WISHING
TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS
ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
ALL PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN THE PUBLIC HEARING ARE ASKED TO OBSERVE ROBERTS
RULES OF ODER AND SPEAK ONE AT A TIME SO THAT THE COURT REPORTER CAN RECORD
ALL STATEMENTS BEING MADE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF
THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A
VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER
COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING
THIS RECORD.
1. ROLL CALL
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES-
A. October 22, 2009 Hearing
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS
A. MOTIONS
Motion for Extension of Time
1. Gabino Medina Jr.
CESD20080016167
2. Scott Lamp
2007110819
B. STIPULATIONS
C. HEARINGS
1.
CASE NO:
OWNER:
OFFICER:
VIOLATIONS:
FOLIO NO:
VIOLATION
ADDRESS:
2.
CASE NO:
OWNER:
OFFICER:
VIOLATIONS:
FOLIO NO:
VIOLATION
ADDRESS:
3.
CASE NO:
OWNER:
OFFICER:
VIOLATIONS:
FOLIO NO:
VIOLATION
ADDRESS:
4.
CASE NO:
OWNER:
OFFICER:
VIOLATIONS:
FOLIO NO.:
VIOLATION
ADDRESS:
CESD20090001470
TRICIA JENKS
INVESTIGATOR MICHELLE SCAVONE
COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22, BUILDINGS & BUILDING
REGULATIONS, ARTICLE II, FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, SECTION 22-26(b)(104.1.3.5)
FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2004 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 SECTION 105.1 AND ORDINANCE
04-4 I AS AMENDED COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION
10.02.06(B)(1)(a) AND 10.02.06(B)(I)(e)(i), GARAGE BUILT ON PROPERTY WITHOUT
COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS
371 15960008
8303"" St. NW NAPLES, FL
CEVR20090000974
DALE & KERI ANN OCHS & JEANEEN NORTON
INVESTIGATOR SUSAN O'FARRELL
04-41, AS AMENDED, COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 3.05.01 B
VEGETATION REMOVAL, PROTECTION & PRESERVATION, CLEARING OF NA TIVE
VEGETATION WITHOUT A PERMIT
01138800003
BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL PARK
CESD20090007768
ALBA R. LICCI
INVESTIGATOR RALPH BOSA
04-41, AS AMENDED, COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION
1O.02.06(B)(1)(e), GARAGE CONVERTED INTO LIVING SPACE WITHOUT PERMITS
39890600005
2395 39TH AVE NE, NAPLES, FL
CESD20090009638
JOHN HORTON
INVESTIGATOR AZURE SORRELS
FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2004 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION
10.02.06(B)(1)(.), COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41, AS AMENDED,
SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i), CARPORT CONSTRUCTED ON PROPERTY WITHOUT FIRST
OBTAINING ALL REQUIRED COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS.
68941480006
237 EAGLE ROAD NAPLES, FL
5.
CASE NO:
OWNER:
OFFICER:
VIOLATIONS:
FOLIO:
VIOLATION
ADDRESS:
6.
CASE NO:
OWNER:
OFFICER:
VIOLATIONS:
FOLIO:
VIOLATION
ADDRESS:
7.
CASE NO:
OWNER:
OFFICER:
VIOLATIONS:
FOLIO:
VIOLATION
ADDRESS:
CESD200900I1000
AGATHONICOS G. PAMBOUKIS
INVESTIGATOR REGGIE SMITH
FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2004 EDITION, CHAPTER I PERMITS, SECTION 105. I
& COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-4 I, AS AMENDED, SECTION
10.02.06(B)(I)(a), STRUCTURAL, ELECTRICAL & PLUMBING IMPROVEMENTS MADE
TO STRUCTURE WITHOUT FIRST APPLYING FOR AND OBTAINING ALL REQUIRED
PERMITS TO PERFORM SUCH IMPROVEMENTS
46573004801
201 SANTA CLARA DR. UNIT #9, NAPLES, FL
CESD20090015436
ANNE JULES DELV A
INVESTIGATOR THOMAS KEEGAN
COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22, BUILDINGS & BUILDING
REGULATIONS, ARTICLE II, FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, ADOPTION & AMENDMENT
OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, SECTION 22-26(b) (104.5.1.4.4), PERMIT #
2008051265 EXPIRED ON MAY 4, 2009 WITHOUT COMPLETING THE WORK
74411360006
3404 SEMINOLE AVE. NAPLES, FL
CESD20080014486
CLYDE & SUSAN BRYAN
INVESTIGATOR THOMAS KEEGAN
COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS
& BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE II, FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, ADOPTION
& AMENDMENT OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, SECTION 22-26(b) (104.1.3.5)
& 22-26 (b) (106.1.2) & THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41
AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(.), UNPERMITTED ENCLOSURE OF CARPORT
TO INCLUDE DECKING & SCREENING
60583200008
54 MOREHEAD MANOR NAPLES, FL
5. OLD BUSINESS
A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens
1. CASE NO: 2005010592
OWNER: DOMENIC P. TOSTO A/K/A 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, SEe. I 1,12,15 & 16 & COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 2005-44, THE LITTER
AND WEEDS ORDINANCE, SECTIONS 7 & 8. NO PROGRESS AND A CONTINUA TION OF
NEGLECTED MAINTENANCE AND UNSAFE CONDITIONS RELATIVE TO A STORM
DAMAGED TWO STORY CONCRETE AND WOOD FRAME SEVEN DOME SHAPED
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE.
FOLIO NO: OII99121006
VIOLATION
ADDRESS:
2.
CASE NO:
OWNER:
OFFICER:
VIOLATIONS:
FOLIO:
VIOLATION
ADDRESS:
3.
CASE NO:
OWNER:
OFFICER:
VIOLATIONS:
FOLIO:
VIOLATION
ADDRESS:
999 MORGAN ISLAND NAPLES, FL
2007110819
SCOTT LAMP
INVESTIGATOR AZURE SORRELS
04-41, COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AS AMENDED, SECTIONS
1O.02.06(B)(I)(e)(i). COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE II,
SECTIONS 22-26(b) (104.1.3.5) & FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2004 EDITION, CHAPTER I
SECTION 105.1, UNPERMITTED CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING PERMITTED BARN TO
LIVING SPACE, CONSISTING OF COMPLETE ENCLOSURE OF BARN, ADDING
ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING, INSTALLATION OF A/C UNIT, AND INTERIOR WALLS
ERECTED
727960009
1000 BAREFOOT WILLIAMS RD. NAPLES, FL
CESD20080014978
GENTILHOMME & JEAN SAUREL LOUIS SAINT
INVESTIGATOR WELDON WALKER
COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS & BUILDING
REGULATIONS, ARTICLE II, FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, ADOPTION & AMENDMENT
OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, SECTION 22-26(b)(104.1.3.5), NEWLY CONSTRUCTED
SHED TO REAR OF PROPERTY. IMPROVEMENTS DONE PRIOR TO OBTAINING VALID
COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS
65070600006
520 PALMETTO A VB. IMMOKALEE, FL
FOLIO:
CESD20080012107
ALBERTO E. FRANCO & JUANA LEON
INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL
COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LA WS, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE II, FLORIDA BUILDING
CODE, SECTION 22-26(b) (104.5.1.4.4), PERMITS EXPIRED FOR ADDITION ON HOUSE,
GARAGE CONVERSION AND SHED.
36246760000
4.
CASE NO.
OWNER:
OFFICER:
VIOLATIONS:
VIOLATION
ADDRESS:
5348 18T11 CT. SW. NAPLES, FL
B. Motion for Reduction of Fines/Liens
6. NEW BUSINESS
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens
B. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as Referenced in Submitted Executive
Summary.
8. REPORTS
9. COMMENTS
10. NEXT MEETING DATE - January 28, 2010 (location at Community Development and Environmental Services
2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104)
11. ADJOURN
November 19, 2009
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement
Board meeting to order for November 19, 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 proceeding pertaining thereto and, therefore, may
need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding is made, which
record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is
to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board
shall be responsible for providing this record.
Roll call, please.
MS. WALDRON: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Here.
MS. WALDRON: Mr. Ken Kelly?
MR. KELLY: Here.
MS. WALDRON: Mr. Ed Larsen?
MR. LARSEN: Here.
MS. WALDRON: Mr. Robert Kaufman?
MR. KAUFMAN: Here.
MS. WALDRON: Mr. Herminio Ortega?
MR. ORTEGA: Here.
MS. WALDRON: Mr. Larry Dean?
MR. DEAN: Here.
MS. WALDRON: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance?
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here.
MS. WALDRON: Mr. James Lavinski?
MR. LA VINSKI: Here.
Page 2
November 19,2009
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: There are some changes to the
agenda?
MS. WALDRON: We do have one stipulation agreement, which
will be Item 7 under hearings, case CESD200800 14486, Clyde and
Susan Bryan; and under item number C, hearings, number four, case
number CESD20090009638, John Horton, has been withdrawn. And
that is all the changes I have.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion for approval?
MR. DEAN: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. KELLY: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
All those in favor?
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
And before the approval of minutes, there's one change.
MS. WALDRON: We do. Mr. Lionel L'Esperance was stated
that he had an unexcused absence at the October 22nd meeting, and
this wasn't an excused (sic) absence.
MR. KELLY: I make a motion we accept the minutes from
October 22nd with the change.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. DEAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
Page 3
November 19,2009
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
We're going to move on to public hearings, motions, and the first
one is Gambino Medina, Jr., CESD20080016167.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you can state your names for the
record.
MR. MEDINA: Yes. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My
name is Gambino Medina, Jr. And I'd like to -- I'm requesting an
extension on the demolition --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Could you pull the mike up a little
bit, please.
MR. MEDINA: Sure. I'm requesting an extension on a
demolition for an illegal addition in Immokalee, Florida.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And can you just explain briefly
why you're looking for an extension? We already gave a six-month
extension, correct?
MR. MEDINA: I had a four-month extension, I believe.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Four months, okay.
MR. MEDINA: I'm requesting a six-month extension now, and
that's due to a lot of reasons. There was two open cases on this
property. One has been closed in that section of the Code
Page 4
November 19,2009
Enforcement Board -- department, and I just need some more time. I
don't have the funds right now to proceed with the second phase.
But I do have some documents I'd like to bring into evidence,
which is a letter from a contractor regarding the demolition permit that
he's going to be handling for me. As soon as I can come up with some
money, he's going to pull it and we're going to proceed accordingly.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Would you like to accept those? Do
I hear a motion?
MR. DEAN: Motion to accept.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. KELLY: Second.
MR. KAUFMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
MR. SNOW: For the record, Kitchell Snow. I have seen those.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. All those in favor?
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. LAVINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MR. MEDINA: Thank you very much, gentlemen.
MR. KELL Y: Investigator Snow?
MR. SNOW: Sir?
MR. KELLY: Do you have any issues with the extension of six
months?
MR. SNOW: We agree with whatever the board will decide.
MR. DEAN: And that one case ending in 161, it was closed? I
Page 5
November 19, 2009
mean, that was fine? There's two cases here.
MR. SNOW: Yes, sir.
MR. DEAN: One is done and we're just working on the other?
MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. We're just working on this one, and due
to the financial issues -- he's been diligent. That states he's got a
contractor. He's actually trying to work with it again, but economic
reasons, he's -- he's progressing.
MR. DEAN: Okay. Thank you.
MR. KAUFMAN: Is there any safety, health issues?
MR. SNOW: Not that we're aware of, sir. The structure that
we're talking about is not occupied at this time, so we believe that it's
-- possibly could be permitted, and I guess his contractor's working on
that.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion, questions?
MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion to extend it six
months.
MR. DEAN: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. LAVINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MR. SNOW: Thank the board.
MR. MEDINA: Thank you, gentlemen. Have you-all a good
Page 6
November 19,2009
day.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next case will be Scott Lamp,
case number 2007110819.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you can state your names for the
record, please.
MR. LAMP: Scott A. Lamp.
MS. SORRELS: Azure Sorrels, Collier County code
enforcement investigator.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you.
And the reason you're looking for an extension of time, please,
SIr.
MR. LAMP: I tried to comply. I -- excuse me. I bought this
property with these existing conditions, and I was led to believe that
the building was able to be permitted by the people who sold it to me.
And I've gone ahead and gone through, had drawings done, met with
the architects, the engineers, I've had permits by affidavit.
I've submitted everything. They were rejected. I took them
back, got them resubmitted. And I pretty much have done everything
that has been asked to do, and now I've got to the point where it's a
FEMA issue. The building is too low and it's not going to be able to
be permitted.
I have hired an attorney to go -- to go after this, and now he said
he had -- he would like to leave everything as it is for the moment
until he figures out what he's going to do with it.
So I don't -- it looks like we're probably going to level the
building and just rebuild the whole thing in accordance with the codes.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Have you looked to see ifhe has, in
fact, submitted for approval?
MS. SORRELS: Yes, he has. And he has been very good about
communicating with me, and him and I have both been up at the front
asking several questions and trying to provide all the options
Page 7
November 19,2009
available.
At the time we were underneath the understanding -- we went to
impact fees and made sure that all those things were something that
was going to be feasible for him to do. We never thought about
thinking about the FEMA zoning for flood level.
And so we proceed -- or he proceeded to do what was asked of
him and, unfortunately, it's too low. They won't permit certain things
underneath the FEMA level.
So he did submit the permits, and they were reviewed and they
were rejected. And you know, he did communicate with me that he
did have a lawyer trying to look into this and that most likely what
would happen would be eventually they would level it and build a new
structure after they got the permits and things like that.
MR. KAUFMAN: Mr. Lamp, how much time do you think you
need to have this all resolved?
MR. LAMP: With the possibility that it may take longer, I think
that we should have some reasonable answers within six months and,
you know, I really -- I've expected this to be much farther along than it
is now, so I don't have anything to base it on.
MR. KAUFMAN: Is the facility occupied?
MR. LAMP: It's unoccupied. It's uninhabitable. They had a
makeshift sewer system there. I have dis- -- everything is out of the
building now that would make it inhabitable.
MR. LARSEN: I'm inclined to grant a six-month extension.
MR. KAUFMAN: I'll second that.
MR. LARSEN: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So we have a motion and second.
Any further discussion?
MR. ORTEGA: Just for clarity purposes, we're talking about a
structure. But is this a home? We're talking about a home?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It's a barn.
MR. ORTEGA: Barn.
Page 8
November 19, 2009
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you look in where the case is, the
description. Maybe you can explain, Investigator?
MS. SORRELS: Yes. The original structure was permitted, I
believe it was in '85, as a pool barn. And the prior owners at some
point in time had enclosed the structure completely, turning it into
more or less a guesthouse that they were renting. And then they were
actually -- this case was open when they were still the property
owners.
They sold the property to Mr. Lamp. They did make him aware
of the violations, so -- but that's originally what it was was a pool
barn.
MR. ORTEGA: And when you speak of demolishing, you're
talking about leveling the entire structure or just bringing it back to a
barn?
MR. LAMP: The general contractor that I consulted with for my
attorney has suggested that we level the whole thing and don't try --
you know, don't try to retain any of it. So that's what he's
recommending is going to be the most cost-effective way to do this.
MR. ORTEGA: No further questions.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We have a motion, and we have a
second.
Any further discussions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
Page 9
November 19, 2009
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MS. SORRELS: Thank you, gentlemen.
MR. LARSEN: Thank you.
MS. WALDRON: ***We have an additional stipulation.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay.
MS. WALDRON: It will be item number six from the agenda
under hearings, case CESD200900 15436, Anne Jules Delva.
MR. KELLY: I'd make a motion we amend the agenda.
MR. KAUFMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
The next stipulation will be Clyde and Susan Bryan, and I'm
looking for the case number. Case number CESD20080014486.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
MR. KEEGAN: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Good morning.
MR. KEEGAN: For the record, Thomas Keegan, Collier County
Code Enforcement Investigator.
Case number CESD200800 14486, Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, versus Clyde and Susan
Page 10
November 19,2009
Bryan.
The respondent, Susan Bryan, has reached an agreement with
Collier County on November 17, 2009. She agreed that the violations
noted in the reference Notice of Violation are accurate, and she
stipulates to their existence, an unpermitted enclosure to carport to
include decking and screening located at 54 Moorhead Manor, Naples,
Florida, 34112.
She's also agreed to pay the operational costs in the amount of
$80.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days. She's
also agreed to abate all violations by obtaining all valid permits,
inspections, and 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, or obtain a Collier County
Demolition Permit and remove all unpermitted improvements and
materials, request all inspections through to Certificate of Completion
within 60 days of this hearing, or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed
until the violation is abated.
MR. KAUFMAN: Is Ms. Bryan here?
MR. KEEGAN: No, I received a -- Mr. Bryan's deceased. Mrs.
Bryan could not make it. I received a letter this morning from Shirley
Garcia of the Bayshore CRA from Mrs. Bryan. Shirley delivered it
this morning. I have no problems if you guys -- if the board would
like to read it.
MR. KELL Y: I'm inclined to make a motion to accept the
stipulated agreement.
MR. KAUFMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
Page 11
November 19, 2009
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MR. KEEGAN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next stipulation will be Anne
Jules Delva, CESD200900 15436.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
MR. KEEGAN: For the record, Thomas Keegan, Collier County
Code Enforcement Investigator.
In regards to case number CESD20090015436, Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, versus Anne Jules Delva.
Mrs. Delva agreed that the violations noted in the reference
Notice of Violation are accurate, and she stipulates to their existence.
Permit number 2008051265 expired on May 4,2009, without
completing the work at 3404 Seminole Avenue, Naples, Florida,
34112, folio number 74411360006.
Ms. Delva has agreed to pay operational costs in the amount of
$81.15 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this
hearing and to abate all violations by obtaining a valid permit and
request inspections through to Certificate of Completion within 60
days of this hearing or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed until the
Certificate of Completion is issued, or remove structure by a valid
demolition permit to bring property into compliance and request all
inspections through to Certificate of Completion within 60 days of this
hearing or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed until violation is
abated.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you state your name for the
record, please. Can you please state your name for the record.
Page 12
November 19, 2009
MS. DEL V A: Yep.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What is your name?
MS. DEL VA: Anne Delva.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you.
MR. KEEGAN: This was translated by a -- by some -- the whole
stipulation was translated.
MR. KAUFMAN: By a translator?
MR. KEEGAN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay.
MR. KELLY: Investigator, what exactly was the permit for?
MR. KEEGAN: Complete remodel, complete roof, walls,
everything.
MR. KELLY: And is the work completed and --
MR. KEEGAN: No.
MR. KELL Y: So is 60 days a fair amount of time?
MR. KEEGAN: She -- from speaking with her and the
translator, she's inclined to demo the structure.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And we don't -- we do not have a
translator here now?
MR. KEEGAN: No. Well, no. It was the department person
that speaks Creole that translated out in the hallway.
MR. LARSEN: Okay. This is a residential structure?
MR. KEEGAN: Yes, sir.
MR. LARSEN: She had a permit pulled for a complete remodel?
MR. KEEGAN : Yes, sir.
MR. LARSEN: It wasn't done within the time frame of the
permit, then it expired?
MR. KEEGAN: Yes, sir.
MR. LARSEN: Now you've worked out an agreement through
the translator, and they agreed that basically 60 days is sufficient to
either remodel or the demolition?
MR. KEEGAN : Yes, sir.
Page 13
November 19, 2009
MR. LARSEN: And they understand it's $200 per day?
MR. KEEGAN: Yes, sir, and they also understood that if the
county -- if they do not do it within the 60 days, the county will hire a
contractor to abate the violations, and that cost will be assessed against
the property.
MR. LARSEN: Okay. And I assume this property is not being
occupied?
MR. KEEGAN: Correct.
MR. LARSEN: Is there any utilities that are active to the site?
MR. KEEGAN: I do not believe so. It's been vacant for quite
some time.
MR. LARSEN: Thank you.
MR. KELLY: I have two concerns. One is the time frame even
to do a demo, and two, some kind of translation so that she completely
understands. And I apologize for speaking in the third person when
you're standing here. That if there was a problem with whatever time
frame, she would able to come back to us preferably prior to that time
frame expiring and ask for a continuance.
MS. WALDRON: We do have the option to try and get a
translator here, but it will be moved to the end of the agenda.
MR. LARSEN: Well, perhaps, Ms. Rawson, maybe you can -- if
we just place on the record a caveat that in light of the fact that Ms.
Delva is here and there might be a language barrier, that Ms. Delva
would have the opportunity to come back should there be a problem
that arose in her not getting permits, and the board would entertain at
that time an extension of time for her; would that suffice?
MS. RAWSON: That would suffice, and then I would also
suggest that maybe the staff member who translated earlier maybe tell
her that in the hallway immediately following this hearing.
MR. LARSEN: All right. And we can put that into the form
directive to the code enforcement?
MR. KEEGAN: She speaks English. I've spoken to her on the
Page 14
_""..--,~...__u~.._..__....,._.________
November 19,2009
phone, and I've also spoken to her out there, English, before the Creole
speaking -- she --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Ma'am, do you understand what
we're saying right now?
MS. DEL V A: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, thank you.
MR. KELLY: Okay.
MR. LARSEN: Solves that issue.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you understand that the
stipulation states -- I'm over here. Right up front. The stipulation
states that you have 60 days to either get all the permits for the
property or 60 days to remove any work that's been done on the
property already?
MS. DEL V A: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Any further questions?
MR. ORTEGA: I have one question. If this is a single-family
residence that is in the process of remodel and the finances are not
there to be able to complete it and you're talking about demolition,
you're talking about demolition of the whole house?
MR. KEEGAN: I can show photos. The whole house would
need to be gutted. The roofs bad, the walls are shot. There's no
floors. It's concrete. It was a complete remodel.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What are your intentions? Are they
to finish the remodel or demo the property?
MS. DEL V A: I don't know now. I don't know now, because I
was going to rehab to get help there, but they don't give me the real
instant (sic) now, but I don't know -- but if they want to remove the
house for me, no problem, because I don't know what they have to do
for me.
If I say no and then later they tell me they cannot help me, I have
to come back again here to talk to that, so I say yes now.
MR. KELL Y: If it pleases the board, I'm familiar with the rehab
Page 15
November 19,2009
program in my other hat, and if the application process hasn't been
started, it can be somewhat lengthy to get the approvals for the DRI or
whatever funding stream they're going to get it from. So, again, I
would say that maybe 60 days is not sufficient for her to explore those
options.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What would you suggest?
MR. KELL Y: At least twice that. Maybe six months would be
more realistic, if the county doesn't have any objections to that.
MR. KEEGAN: May I submit photos so you can see what shape
the house is in?
MR. KELLY: Is it habited now?
MR. KEEGAN: No.
MR. KELLY: Okay. I would -- I wouldn't mind seeing them,
but we get into now case presentation.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. I mean, that's what I'm
worried about. We're getting into case presentation now.
MR. KEEGAN : Yeah, that's fine.
MR. LARSEN: No, I agree with Mr. Kelly. I don't have a
problem with extending the time to 120 days, I mean, basically if it's
not inhabited, you know. She's actively working on either the
demolition or the rehab; I think 120 days is fair.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is that in the motion?
MR. LARSEN: I'll make that motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. KAUFMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
Page 16
November 19, 2009
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
What we just did -- ma'am, right up front.
MS. DEL V A: Okay.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We just -- you can just stand right
there, and if you can just listen for a minute. We just changed, instead
of 60 days, you have 120 days.
MS. DEL V A: Okay.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right? But what I'd like the
investigator to do is get with you and just cross out the 60 days and
put in 120, and I'd like you to initial it, too, please.
MS. DEL V A: All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Before you leave, please
meet with the investigator.
MS. DEL VA: All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you.
Next will be the hearings, and the first one will be Tricia Jenks,
CESD20090001470, and there's one speaker for this case.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of Collier
County Code of Laws and -- Chapter 22, Buildings and Building
Regulations, Article II, Florida Building Code, Section
22-26(b)(104.1.3.5). Florida Building Code 2004 Edition, Chapter 1,
Section 105.1 and Ordinance 04-41, as amended, Collier County Land
Development Code, 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(I)(e)(i).
Description of violation: Garage built on property without
Collier County permits.
Location/address where violation exists: 830 3rd Street
Page 17
November 19,2009
Northwest, Naples, Florida, 34120; folio number 37115960008.
Name and owner (sic) of person in charge of violation location:
Trisha Jenks, 830 3rd Street Northwest, Naples, Florida, 34120.
Date violation first observed: February 19,2009.
Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: March
16,2009.
Date on/by which violation to be corrected: April 15, 2009.
Date ofre-inspection: August 27,2009.
Results of re-inspection: The violation remains.
I would like to now present Investigator Michelle Scavone.
MS. SCAVONE: Good morning. For the record, Michelle
Scavone, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator.
This case is in reference to case number CESD2009000 1470
dealing with the violations of the garage built on property without
Collier County permits, located at 830 3rd Street Northwest, Naples,
Florida, 34120, folio number 37115960008.
Notice of Violation was given on March 16,2009, by posting of
the property and of the courthouse.
I would like to present into evidence the -- I have four photos of
the garage.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, first of all, she's asking for a
continuance, correct?
MS. SCAVONE: Did you want to do that or --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, we do that before presentation
of the case.
MS. SCAVONE: Okay.
MS. JENKS: Well, to be honest with you, this property is
already in foreclosure, so I have less than 90 days to vacate the
property .
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I don't think a foreclosure would --
MS. FLAGG: I believe she's withdrawing her request for
continuance.
Page 18
November 19,2009
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is that what you're stating?
MS. JENKS: Right, because there's no point in it.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay.
Go ahead and proceed.
MS. SCAVONE: Okay.
MR. KELL Y: I make a motion we accept the photos and
whatever evidence you have as packet A.
MR. KAUFMAN: I second it.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
MR. LARSEN: Has the respondent seen it?
MS. SCAVONE: Yes, she has.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. LAVINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, is this a situation where
stipulation would be appropriate?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, we don't have a stipulation, so
-- and it doesn't sound like it's going to get corrected. So I don't think
a stipulation would be worth completing; is that correct? You're not
going to correct it or go and get permits necessary? It's in --
MS. SCAVONE: May -- we discussed the stipulation. She
wanted to go forth with the hearing.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay.
MS. WALDRON: Can I just ask the board to make sure that you
Page 19
November 19,2009
guys speak in your microphones when you are talking. Thank you.
MS. SCAVONE: The photos are just -- they're four photos of the
garage that was built. And I don't believe -- I don't know if it's
finished or -- completely finished or not, ifthere's something more
that's going to be added or not, but that's what the photos are, and they
remain the same as -- since yesterday.
February 11,2009, an anonymous complaint came in that a
garage had been constructed without the permits. On February 18,
2009, I made a site visit, observed the new garage was constructed.
No one was home. I left a note for contact trying to get contact
of the property owner. Research was later conducted, and it was found
that there was no permit on file.
On February 26,2009, I spoke with a man named Steve on behalf
of the property owner. He stated that he was working with a builder
and that he would go himself to go and get the permits. Time was
given to get that taken care of, and the permits still were not pulled.
On February -- on March 16,2009, research again was provided
that there was no permits on file. At that time, the Notice of Violation
was issued. And as of this date, there are still no permits on file.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: There's been no -- no submittals or
anything?
MS. SCAVONE: Not at this time, no.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is that correct?
MS. JENKS: To be honest with you, I have had a paperwork
drawn up in order to try and rectify this situation. There's been a lot of
confusion in this case. I will tell you it's not as cut-and-dry as it
appears.
I have taken the time to have drawings done and all kinds of
things for the architect to go out and do his thing and to do an affidavit
and so on and so forth.
We're being put in foreclosure. This will cost me a lot of money
to have done, and I don't think it can be taken care of before the 90
Page 20
November 19,2009
days.
MR. LARSEN: Okay. Well, it's a very nice garage.
Unfortunately, there are requirements for a permit for the construction.
I can understand why, as a homeowner, you may have -- not have
been familiar with all the rules and regulations, and sometimes it's
really the obligation of the professionals. And I'm sorry to hear that
you're in foreclosure. That is, you know, a travesty in this county as
well as many other communities nationwide.
You say that basically you've already been before the magistrate
and he's given a sale date?
MS. JENKS: Yes.
MR. LARSEN: When is that sale date, ma'am?
MS. JENKS: Well, I went on October 14th, and he ordered 90
days.
MR. LARSEN: Okay, all right. So you have less than 90 days,
and you're concerned that whatever we order here cannot be
completed within 90 days; is that it?
MS. JENKS: Right.
MR. LARSEN: And that -- you're worried that a fine will be
imposed upon you after the 90-day period of time?
MS. JENKS: (Nods head.)
MR. LARSEN: Okay.
MR. KELLY: For formalities I make a motion that a violation
exists.
MR. LA VINSKI: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
Page 21
November 19, 2009
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
MS. RAWSON: Before we do that, there is one speaker, and I'm
not sure whether she's on the respondent's case or the county's case,
but we should let the speaker speak. And before you vote on a --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay.
MS. RAWSON: -- motion, we should be sure we close the
public hearing.
MR. KELLY: Withdraw my motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Second withdrawn?
MR. LA VINSKI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. And the speaker,
please?
MS. RAWSON: Steve--
MR. STRESSENRY: Stressenry (phonetic). Do I have to be
sworn in?
(The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
MR. STRESSENRY: Yes. I was just here to -- I'm involved
with the Jenks case. We did some work out on her property, and I just
wanted to see -- basically I was here to see if she -- we -- they sent me
before the licensing board. I'm a concrete contractor. We did the
work out there and never got paid.
Her fiance is a general contractor, so when you said the
professionals should let them know, I just wanted to state that a
professional was involved. So I didn't get paid, and that's where --
they sent me before the licensing board and said I was supposed to
pull the permits.
So I just -- that was only -- I just wanted to see if she brought that
up. She didn't, so I have nothing further.
MS. JENKS: Can I just clarify that?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes.
Page 22
November 19,2009
MS. JENKS: I didn't send anybody before the licensing board. I
didn't even know that there were steps to be taken to send somebody
before the licensing board. I got a phone call from the licensing board
saying, can you please come in and talk to us about the situation that's
happened out there. So I didn't send anybody to the licensing board
nor did I even know that was an option.
MR. STRESSENRY: Okay. Well, Michael and Rob Gagliano, I
spent two days in their office.
MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move to terminate the
public comment at this time as not being relative to the proceedings
before this board.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd like to close the public hearing at
this point.
MR. KELLY: I'll reinstate my motion that a violation exists.
MR. LA VINSKI: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KELL Y: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. LAVINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MR. LARSEN: Now, Ms. Jenks, what that means is basically
the board found there was a technical violation, that you should have
had a permit before the garage was constructed, and that's -- that's
what was decided on just now, okay?
Page 23
November 19, 2009
MS. FLAGG: If it please the board, just to kind of let you know
how the foreclosures work, anything that you-all decide on will
become the responsibility of the bank, and we will work with the
bank. The bank will pay the fines owed, the bank will bring the
property into compliance.
MR. LARSEN : You understand what the director of code
enforcement just explained, Mrs. Jenks? That the levy of the board is
against the property, not against you individually; you understand
that?
MS. JENKS: I do understand that.
MR. LARSEN: Okay.
MS. JENKS: Thank you very much.
MR. LARSEN: So, you know -- and there's also -- you know,
the problem is that basically we can't forego that portion of our duties,
which is to impose, you know, a penalty for not having a permit.
MS. JENKS: I understand.
MR. LARSEN: Okay. All right.
MS. JENKS: Thank you.
MS. SCAVONE: Would you--
MR. LARSEN: Thank you, Ms. Flagg, for that explanation.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're not done yet.
MS. JENKS: Oh, okay.
MS. SCAVONE: The recommendations?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Recommendations, please.
MS. SCAVONE: Okay.
MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to ask a quickie question.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead.
MR. KAUFMAN: Should the board decide that no fines accrue
until such time that the bank takes over the property and that code
enforcement is given the opportunity to work with the bank, is that
proper?
MS. FLAGG: Certainly that's the purview of the board. I will
Page 24
November 19, 2009
tell you that we -- the banks are paying the fines accrued on the
property. We work out arrangements with the bank. Our primary
goal, obviously, is to bring the property into compliance before they
pass it on to somebody else.
MR. KELLY: I think that it's a great idea, and if we construct
whatever our settlement is, perhaps just grant extra time so that they
don't get to that point where fines would start accruing.
MR. KAUFMAN: I agree with that.
MR. LARSEN: I'm not sure I agree with that theory, because
then what you're doing is you're saying that whomever takes the
property, whether it's at public sale, if it's the bank or a third party,
what we're saying is that basically the fines are not going to start to
accrue until that third party takes ownership; and I think that basically
what we should be doing is we should be assessing the penalties
against the property owners, not against a party that is not before this
board.
MR. KAUFMAN: My comment on that would be that if Ms.
Jenks had come before the board and said, I'm going to try to take care
of this situation, would you give me 90 days, I'm sure that the board,
based on our past history, would do that.
So the only thing I'm saying is, that if we would do that now, title
would probably transfer to the bank, and then the bank would be the
responsible party at that time, and they could work directly with code
enforcement and work out an agreement to have everything resolved.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right now it's 60 days, because it
was from the October date.
MR. KAUFMAN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But I mean, if that gets prolonged
and dragged out, then our fines would be prolonged and dragged out
also.
MR. LARSEN: Well, also there are situations which are
occurring in the realm of foreclosures where many banks are
Page 25
November 19, 2009
canceling the sales and not taking possession of the properties. So
we'd have a situation, if we predicated it upon the transfer before fines
started to accrue, we'd have -- we'd have, you know, impositions of
levies or liens in limbo.
So I think -- I'm fine with whatever date the board agrees on,
whether it's 60 or 90 days, but I just wouldn't predicate it on the
transfer of ownership.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is the board ready to hear the
recommendation? Okay.
MS. SCAVONE: Okay. The recommendation is that the Code
Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs
in the amount of $83.15 incurred in the prosecution of this case within
30 days and abate all violations by applying for and obtaining a
Collier County building permit or demolition permit for all
unpermitted construction/improvements to the garage, all related
inspections through a Certificate of Completion within a certain
amount of days of the date of this hearing, or a fine of X amount a day
will be imposed until the violation is abated.
The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator
when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final
inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the
violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the
assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the
provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to
the property owner.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay.
MR. KELLY: I'll make a motion that we accept the stipulated
agreement with the blanks filled in for 180 days and $200 per day.
MR. LARSEN: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
Page 26
November 19,2009
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KELL Y: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
Nay.
Motion passes.
Do you understand what we just decided?
MS. JENKS: No. I'd appreciate it if you could explain it, please.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Basically, the recommendation is
that the operational costs of $83.15 be paid within 30 days, and then
you or the bank will have 180 days to correct the problem, either
finish it or remove it or there will be a fine of $200 a day thereafter.
All right?
MS. JENKS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You're welcome. Have a good day.
MS. JENKS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next case will be Dale and Keri Ann
Ochs and Jeaneen Norton, case number CEVR20090000974.
MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of ordinance
04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code
Section 3.05.01 B, vegetation removal, protection, and preservation.
Description of violation: Clearing of native vegetation without a
permit.
Location/address where violation exists: Big Cypress National
Park, folio number 01138800003.
Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation
location: Dale and Keri Ann Ochs, Richard and Jeaneen Norton, 4050
Southwest 1 02nd Avenue, Davie, Florida, 33328.
Date violation first observed: January 29, 2009.
Page 27
November 19, 2009
Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation:
February 24, 2009.
Date on/by which violation to be corrected: March 30, 2009.
Date ofre-inspection: August 18,2009.
Results ofre-inspection: The violation remains.
I would now like to present Environmental Specialist Susan
O'Farrell.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Have you been sworn in?
MS. O'FARRELL: Nope, not yet.
(The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
MS. O'FARRELL: And it would appear that our respondents
aren't here this morning, so we'll proceed without them.
MR. LARSEN: Ms. O'Farrell, where is this property?
MS. O'FARRELL: This property -- shall I -- do you want me to
go through the whole, like, good morning and how are you stuff?
MR. LARSEN: I was just wondering, it said Big Cypress
National Park.
MS. O'FARRELL: The Big Cypress National Park is out 41 in
the Everglades.
MR. LARSEN: I know where it is, but where is the house?
MS. O'FARRELL: Well, there is no house actually. There are
privately owned parcels within the park.
MR. LARSEN: Okay.
MS. O'FARRELL: So -- and the park has really strict rules on
those parcels and what they can and cannot do.
This is an unimproved parcel within the park that is privately
owned by the Ochs and the Nortons. It's folio number 01138800003.
And they are in violation of clearing of native vegetation without a
permit.
The service was given on February 24th of 2009, and I would
now like to present Exhibits B, which are photographs of the property
as I saw it, and we have Exhibit C, which is a GPS map that was done
Page 28
November 19,2009
by one of the National Park Service rangers showing the clearing.
MR. KELL Y: Make a motion to accept all the exhibits.
MR. LARSEN: I second that.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MR. KAUFMAN: How big a piece of property is it?
MS. O'FARRELL: I think the property is about five acres. The
whole thing wasn't cleared.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Has there been any contact with the
respondents? Susan, has there been any contact with the respondents?
MS. O'FARRELL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay.
MS. O'FARRELL: There has been numerous contacts with the
respondents. It took me a while to find them actually and to find the
correct address to send them the Notice of Violation, but they were
ultimately served.
We've had emails and negotiations going back and forth. I've
had an environmentalist, Paul Lewis -- is that you?
MR. TOSTO: No.
MS. O'FARRELL: Okay -- who called asking questions about
how to bring the property into compliance. And the last email I got
Page 29
November 19,2009
from them was to go ahead and take it to the Code Enforcement Board
because they didn't have the resources to come into compliance.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is it 2.5 acres; is that what it is? On
the Notice of Violation it looks like it might be--
MS. O'FARRELL: Yeah. This folio number is 2.5 acres.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Go ahead.
MS. O'FARRELL: It's kind of -- it's basically a big square out in
the middle of nowhere.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay.
MS. O'FARRELL: If you'd look at Exhibit E, I can show the
property appraiser's picture.
MR. KAUFMAN: If! look at Exhibit C, there's a red circle in
the back off the -- way off the road. That's the cleared area?
MS. O'FARRELL: Exhibit C. We would be talking about the
GPS map?
MR. KAUFMAN: Yes.
MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. The red circle is what was cleared. The
blue line was the designated trail which they also widened. The
yellow center line is a secondary trail that was not permitted. National
Park Service will give them permission to get to their property, so they
gave them permission to create a trail, but then they widened the trail
and put fill into the trail as well. And then you can see from the
purple line the amount of the property itself.
And the little yellow dots are where we found stakes and trees
that had been taped off like they were going to remove them and place
a building on the property.
MR. KAUFMAN: So this is basically a landlocked piece of
property with a right-of-way to get to it? That's the blue trail?
MS. O'FARRELL: Well, it's not actually a right-of-way. It's a
permission granted by National Park Service for them to be able to
access their camp. It would be more -- it would be called more of a
camp than a habitable place. It's all under water right now. I was out
Page 30
November 19,2009
there about a week ago.
MR. DEAN: People buy these lots like--
MS. O'FARRELL: Yes.
MR. KAUFMAN: So you could put a houseboat, but regular
boat, probably not.
MR. DEAN: Wow.
MS. O'FARRELL: According to the National Park -- excuse me
-- restrictions, they're not allowed to put anything out there.
MR. KAUFMAN: Nothing.
MS. O'FARRELL: Once the park took over that section of land,
each parcel had to remain exactly the same as it was when the park
took over. So they were warned repeatedly by the National Park
Service that they couldn't clear, they couldn't put a trailer on there,
they couldn't put the docking that you can see to keep themselves
above the water. All of that stuff is illegal according to the National
Park Service, and all of it was done without a permit according to the
Collier County regulations.
MR. KAUFMAN: How did you become aware of this violation?
MS. O'FARRELL: The violation was reported to me by
Christine Clark, who's the lands acquisition manager of National Park
Service. They have rangers that patrol the area on a regular basis, and
her ranger, Garnet Tritt, who did the GPS mapping, reported it to her,
and she reported it to me.
MR. ORTEGA: Is there any indication that someone's living
there, a trailer?
MS. O'FARRELL: No, they wouldn't be able to live out there.
It's -- it's a beautiful place to be, but you'd be dead of blood loss from
the mosquitoes after about two days.
On 1/29/2009, I visited the site and found that there had been
removal of native wetland species including, but not limited to, Pop
Ash and Cypress as well as Slash Pines and Sabal Palms.
Christine Clark, Garnet Tritt, and I all took a -- a section, we
Page 31
November 19,2009
gridded the section off and counted stumps as we walked through each
of our sections kind of going from left to right, and came up with a
total of 584 mature and juvenile trees that had been removed. They
were thinning out the property rather than clearing it straight away.
That was where we found the burn pile; however, the bum pile seems
kind of small for that amount of trees to be removed, so I'm not really
sure what they did with the trees that they did remove.
MR. KAUFMAN: I do see on one of the photographs the back
of a pickup truck that's there, so there must be something to get that in
there?
MS. O'FARRELL: Yeah. They were able to drive machinery
back in there. There were tire ruts and tracks. And they've hauled a
trailer back there.
MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that a violation
exists.
MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KELL Y: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. LAVINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
And now your recommendation?
MS. O'FARRELL: The county's recommendation is that the
Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational
Page 32
November 19,2009
costs in the amount of $79.72 incurred in the prosecution of this case
within 30 days and abate all violations by preparing a mitigation plan
which meets the criteria pursuant to 04-41, as amended, Section
10.02.06(E)(3), and obtain approval of the required plan, and the
mitigation plan shall be prepared by a person who meets or exceeds
the credentials specified in 04-41, as amended, Section
10.02.02(A)(3), within a number of days that you see fit, or a daily
fine of a certain amount shall be assessed until the mitigation plan is
submitted.
The mitigation plan must be implemented within a certain
number of days of approval of the plan by county staff or a daily fine
of a certain amount will be assessed as long as the violation persists.
The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator
when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final
investigation to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the
violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the
assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the
provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to
the property owner.
MR. KELLY: Susan, could you read the -- I guess it's the third
paragraph, again, for me? It's the one after the mitigation plan. It's
about the actual work.
MS. O'FARRELL: The implementation?
MR. KELL Y: Yes.
MS. O'FARRELL: The mitigation plan must be implemented
within a certain number of days as you see fit of approval of the plan
by the county or a daily fine of a certain amount of money will be
assessed as long as a violation persists.
MR. LARSEN: Let me ask you a question, Ms. O'Farrell. A
first generation Cypress, how long does it take to grow to maturity?
MS. O'FARRELL: Do you want a history of the area?
MR. LARSEN: No, just -- you know, you have a photograph
Page 33
November 19,2009
here and it says, a first generation Cypress.
MS. O'FARRELL: All right. I'll have to give you a little history
then. The Fakahatchee Strand in that area of the Big Cypress that was
completely logged during the 1940's. They used the Cypress for
boardwalks, cigar boxes, benches, various and sundry, really
important things that we needed.
These Cypress Trees are the ones that have recruited after that
logging. So first generation would be after the original, so we're
talking about 40 to 60 years to get to be that height.
MR. LARSEN: Okay. All right. And you said that there were
over 500 trees of different maturities that seemed to have --
MS. O'FARRELL: Yes.
MR. LARSEN: -- been taken out?
MS. O'FARRELL: We found -- well, they had the stumps.
MR. LARSEN: They had the stumps.
MS. O'FARRELL: The one -- the reason that I took the picture
of the stump that -- I don't even know if anyone -- I tested the people
in my prehearing. It's a large round thing that you can't really tell
what it is. That's a fresh stump with sap oozing out of it.
The Ochs and the Nortons insisted that they hadn't done any
clearing for months, but sap doesn't ooze for months after clearing so
-- and that was a large stump.
MR. KAUFMAN: So in your discussions with the owners of the
property, they said that they did not do this? Did they have any idea
how it got done or --
MS. O'FARRELL: They had -- they had some statements to
make about how they had called the county and that I had told them
which trees they were allowed to remove, which native trees they
were allowed to remove. And I think everybody in this building
pretty much knows that I wouldn't tell anybody to cut any tree down.
So they had a lot of reasons for why things were done, but none
of them really made any sense for that many trees to be cut down in
Page 34
November 19, 2009
that space.
MR. LARSEN: So your recommendation is basically to put
together a mitigation plan and that failure to do so --
MS. O'FARRELL: That's the recommendation that I'm required
to give according to the Land Development Code. I don't see that
happening.
What I see happening is that the National Park Service will
acquire the land because they're now out of compliance and aren't
going to be able to come into compliance.
So I would suggest 90 days for them to come into compliance
and that way the National Park Service can start its acquisition process
before the fines start to accrue. That's -- because they've said they're
not going to be able to do the mitigation.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Question. Is there any action that
National Park Service can take to bring them into compliance, or is
this the venue?
MS. O'FARRELL: This is the venue. The National Park Service
requires all parcel owners to be in compliance with all of the codes.
So if the -- if there had been wetlands involved, you know, serious
wetland devastation, we would have had the DEP involved. The
county was involved because they did the clearing without the
permits. The federal government, for some reason, doesn't have
specific, do this or else, in their booklet.
MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to see if! can fill in the blanks for
you.
MR. KELL Y: I have, just real quick, two questions, if you will.
MR. KAUFMAN: Sure.
MR. KELLY: One, is there any type of permit, or was there
anyone that said they could or couldn't do anything to this property?
MS. O'FARRELL: No.
MR. KELLY: And number two, if we find a violation exists and
we put these type of restrictions on it, let's say, for instance, 90 days,
Page 35
November 19,2009
as per your suggestion, if the National Park Service takes ownership of
this property, they would then have to still make this property come
into compliance under those same restrictions and hence be fined X
number of dollars per day after that?
MS. O'FARRELL: Yeah. That's where it gets kind of tricky,
because we don't generally have cases against the federal government.
MR. LARSEN: And correct me ifI'm wrong, Ms. Rawson, do
we have the authority to bind the federal government to any kind of a
directive emanating from this board?
MS. RAWSON: Well, we're not binding the federal government
today. We're binding the owners of this property. But in answer to
your question, probably not. But the federal government at the
moment is not the title owner of the property.
MR. LARSEN: Right. But my point is basically, if they become
the owner of the property, then they wouldn't necessarily have to file a
mitigation plan.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: How's this different than a house
that goes into foreclosure and is owned by --
MS. RAWSON: I think they still have to come into compliance.
Now, whether or not they're going to pay the fines to Collier County is
another story.
MR. LARSEN: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay.
MS. O'FARRELL: Yeah. The cases with the federal
government get pretty tricky because of all the different levels you
have to go through and the interior of the department and all of that.
MR. LARSEN: Well, you know, it all boils down to whether or
not we should give 90 days or we should give an extended period of
time. If we give the 90 days, is that a triggering mechanism for the,
you know, the government to move at that point?
MS. O'FARRELL: Well, the federal government's already been
triggered because they're out of compliance.
Page 36
November 19,2009
MR. LARSEN: Okay.
MS. O'FARRELL: And they were on a condemnation list
anyways. That part -- because it was an undeveloped parcel, they
would have been -- they would have gone through the condemnation
process, which is where they take over the property within ten years.
By clearing the property, they just moved themselves up about nine
and a half years.
So if we give them 120 days or if we give them six months, the
Ochs and the Nortons don't apparently seem inclined to do the
mitigation plan. So at some point it's going to go to the federal
government.
MR. LARSEN: All right.
MS. O'FARRELL: What -- basically what they did by clearing
was triggering that condemnation process to start a whole lot earlier.
MR. KELL Y: And you, or Collier County Code Enforcement,
would ensure that regardless of whoever takes ownership of this
property will make sure that that mitigation gets done and we finally
go through to whatever is necessary, regardless of who owns it.
MS. O'FARRELL: I'll do my best.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I think we're ready for a
recommendation.
MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. I'll try to fill in the blanks.
MS. O'FARRELL: Okay.
MR. KAUFMAN: Pay the operational costs of $79.72 within 30
days. The first blank I'd like to fill in is to develop the mitigation
program in 60 days and complete the work within 90 days or a
$100-a-day fine imposed.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Ninety days from when, from
today?
MR. KAUFMAN: From today, 90 days from--
MS. O'FARRELL: Wait a minute. I got confused. From the
approval?
Page 37
November 19, 2009
MR. KAUFMAN: Ninety days after the 60 days; 60 days to
have the plan, and then 90 days from then to --
MS. O'FARRELL: Having the plan approved?
MR. KAUFMAN: Right.
MS. O'FARRELL: And then, do you want to give me a fine for
the 60 days to submit the mitigation plan?
MR. KAUFMAN: Same $100 a day.
MS. O'FARRELL: Hundred dollars.
MR. LARSEN: I would respectfully disagree with my colleague
in regard to the fine amounts. I would suggest a $500-a-day fine.
MR. LA VINSKI: Yeah, I agree that $100 is not appropriate in
this case.
MR. KAUFMAN: $500, I will amend my motion.
MR. KELL Y: I -- I don't agree with that at all. I think $500 is
when we have second offender public health and safety issues. I
mean, I think that's absolutely excessive. I can't support a motion at
that amount.
MR. LA VINSKI: This is a blatant continuing violation. I don't
see how we can hold that it's not significant, especially in a national --
MR. KAUFMAN: It appears to me that no matter what number
we come up with it won't be paid by the offenders that we have
already found to be in violation. So whether it's $100 a day or $500 a
day is a moot point. But if you'd like to split the baby and make it
$250 a day, I'd be amenable to that as well.
MR. LARSEN: Well, my concern always is basically, you
know, that people who engage in activities designed to undermine the
laws, you know, receive a penalty commensurate with the damage that
they have wrought. And here, this is the Big Cypress and it's
protected habitat, and clearly the damage is very, very extensive, as
showed by photographs.
And I understand Mr. Kelly's position quite well and I agree.
Typically we don't impose a fine of that magnitude unless it's
Page 38
November 19,2009
extremely serious. But I do believe, as Mr. Lavinski believes, that
basically under these circumstances, a fine of such magnitude is
warranted.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
MS. O'FARRELL: I have an opinion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What's that?
MS. O'FARRELL: If you're still open for opinions.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, we're really -- it's discussion
of the board at this point, so -- okay.
I have a motion.
MR. KAUFMAN: Well, let's get to the amount.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay.
MR. KAUFMAN: I have modified my motion to show $500.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Correct. And then you said I'd be
agree- -- I agree with 250, so what is your motion?
MR. KAUFMAN: I'm going to stay with the $500.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. I have a motion and, if I'm
not mistaken, a second by Mr. Larsen; is that correct?
MR. LARSEN: Yes, I second that motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
MR. KELLY: Nay.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Nay.
Motion passes.
MS. O'FARRELL: Is that $500 for both sections; one and two?
Page 39
November 19,2009
MR. KAUFMAN: The first date is the 60 days on the
developing the plan.
MS. O'FARRELL: Right.
MR. KAUFMAN: I would stay with the $100 a day on that one.
MS. O'FARRELL: Okay.
MR. KAUFMAN: Unless I hear any --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is that how it was understood for the
second?
MR. KAUFMAN: Yes.
MS. O'FARRELL: And then the second one with the mitigation
implementation would be $500 per day.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We want to make sure that--
MR. KAUFMAN: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- the board is clear that it's 500 and
100, that that's what we were voting on.
MR. DEAN: One hundred on the 60 and 500 on the remaining?
MR. KAUFMAN: That's correct.
MR. LARSEN: Yes, I'll support that.
MS. WALDRON: Just for clarification on the record, they're
submitting the mitigation plan within 60 days or a $1 OO-per-day fine
and installing the vegetation within 90 days of acceptance of
mitigation plan or $500 a day?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay.
MR. DEAN: Correct.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Correct, yes.
MS. O'FARRELL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good.
MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to compliment the person who took
these pictures. They're excellent.
MS. O'FARRELL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right. The next one will be Alba
R. --
Page 40
November 19,2009
MR. DEAN: Licci.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- Licci. I'm not sure if I'm saying
that correctly or not.
MR. DEAN: Close enough.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But case number
CESD20090007768. And then we'll probably take a break after this.
MS. RAWSON: And Mr. Chair, there is a speaker on this case
as well.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'll try to remember that there's a
speaker.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of ordinance
04-41, as amended, Collier County Land Development Code, Section
1 0.02.06(B)(1)( e).
Description of violation: A garage converted into living space
without permits.
Location/address where violation exists: 2395 39th Avenue
Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120, folio number 39890600005.
Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation
location: Alba R. Licci, 2395 39th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida,
34120.
Date violation first observed: June 8, 2009.
Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: August
20,2009.
Date on/by violation to be corrected: September 8, 2009.
And date ofre-inspection: September 21,2009.
Results of the re-inspection is that the violation remains.
At this time I would like to present Investigator Ralph Bosa.
MR. BOSA: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Ralph
Bosa, Collier County Code Enforcement.
This is in reference to Case Number CESD20090007768. It's
dealing with a violation of a garage converted into a living space
Page 41
November 19, 2009
without permits.
It is located at 2395 39th Ave. Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120,
folio number of 39890600005.
Service was given on August 20th, and I received proof of
service that it was received -- from the post office that it was received
on that date.
I'd like to present the case evidence in the following exhibits.
Exhibit B, I have seven photographs taken on June 8, 2009, of the
interior of the garage.
MR. KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen the photographs?
MR. BOSA: Yes, he has.
MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion that we accept.
MR. DEAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? All those in
MR. KELL Y: Actually, I do have a question about the
respondent's representative and relationship to the respondent.
MR. BOSA: He has the power of attorney for the respondent.
His name is -- Mr. Spalding has power of attorney.
MR. KELLY: Thank you. No further.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. We have a motion, a first and
a second. Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
Page 42
November 19,2009
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
Go ahead.
MR. BOSA: On June 8, 2009, I met with Mr. Brian Spalding to
grant me access into the garage of the home. After he signed an entry
consent form, I inspected the garage and found that it had been
converted into a living space.
Mr. Spalding stated that the home was under lis pendens and that
the current owner was attempting to renegotiate the mortgage to keep
the home. Currently the home is occupied by the son of the
respondent.
On August 20, 2009, I hand delivered the NOV to the home. A
gentleman by the name of John, who claimed to be a roommate of the
homeowner, took the NOV but refused to sign. I then spoke with Mr.
Spalding on September 22,2009, and he stated the violation still
remains. And the case was prepared for today's hearing.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Spalding, can you state your
name for the record?
MR. SPALDING: Brian Spalding with Crown Consulting.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Crown Consulting, okay.
And can you tell me your relationship with the owner?
MR. SPAULDING: I have power of attorney for Ms. Licci, and
I also represent her as a real estate consultant.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good. Do you have anything
to add regarding this?
MR. SPAULDING: No, just -- we agree with the findings. We
became aware -- I was able to do a physical inspection of the property.
This property is in pre-foreclosure. I believe the filing was November
14th of2008.
I was contacted by Ms. Licci in May to assist in her options. An
appraisal was done on May 12,2008. At that time, through the
physical inspection, we recognized that there was an improvement to
Page 43
November 19,2009
the garage. We did a permit search; showed there was no permit.
On June 8th we sent a contract to the current lender, which is Sun
Coast Federal School (sic). Made them aware that there is a violation.
We sent them the report that was given to us.
On October 28,2009, there was a court-ordered hearing. They
did not show up. The owner, Ms. Licci, through a series of financial
hardships, is not able to abate this issue on her own.
There is a buyer right now -- we have it under contract -- who is
aware of the violation, who has agreed that if he can purchase that
property, that that would be done, and he would pull the necessary
permits and do the necessary demolition and then bring back the
garage to its original condition, which would be in full compliance.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What stage of the process are you in
with the buyer?
MR. SPAULDING: We have a fully executed agreement that
was delivered to the lender on June 8th. We received an approval
letter with stipulations. The stipulations we would not agree with, so
we're kind of at a standstill.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Who would not agree with?
MR. SPAULDING: I'm sorry?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Who would not agree with the --
MR. SPAULDING: The owner, the property owner, did not
agree with some of the stipulations that the lender had imposed upon
the approval of the sale.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: When was the closing supposed to
take place?
MR. SPAULDING: There's -- in these types of transactions,
usually closings are not set in a traditional sale that you would
normally have.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, they're set once the bank tells
you that they --
MR. SPAULDING: Yes.
Page 44
November 19,2009
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- approve a sale, usually 30 days.
MR. SPAULDING: That is correct. A closing date was never
set because the stipulations were not met, so there was not --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, usually in the letter that's
approved from the bank, the approval letter for the --
MR. SPAULDING: There was not on this particular one, sir. I
do agree with what you're saying, but in this particular instance, there
was not a closing date set. It is still open.
MR. KAUFMAN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that
a violation exists.
MR. KELLY: We have a speaker, reminder.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yeah. We have one speaker.
MS. RAWSON: Well, no. I guess he was the speaker.
MR. SPAULDING: I didn't know. I didn't realize.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay.
MS. RAWSON: He signed the speaker card, but he is actually
the power of attorney.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Very good.
MR. LARSEN: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
Page 45
November 19, 2009
MR. ORTEGA: Just one note, for the record. When citing
building codes, the 2004 building code is no longer our building code.
It's 2007. And they're actually citing this in our package, just for the
record. And this is not the -- and I mean, this is across the board.
MR. KELLY: Isn't -- isn't the code applicable to when the
renovations were actually completed? For instance, if this was done
during that time, then that's the code they would cite them by.
MR. ORTEGA: It's when the permit is applied for, at that point.
And, of course, the 2007 building code became effective March 1 st.
So anything after that would have to be the 2007, not the 2004.
MR. BOSA: Yeah. A permit was never applied for, never in
applying status.
MR. KELL Y: All right.
MR. LARSEN: And the deed was recorded on 9/21/07.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So I guess, Jean, a question.
MS. RAWSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: In light of this, should they be cited
based on the 2007 Florida Building Code?
MS. RAWSON: They were cited under Collier County Land
Development Code 04-41.
MR. KELL Y: It's like almost inconsequential, the ordinance.
MS. RAWSON: And it always says as amended.
MR. KAUFMAN: I guess going forward, the sheet that we have
in our package that shows the building code for 2004, you may want
to look at that to be updated for future cases.
MR. KELLY: It's inconsequential. They're in violation of an
ordinance which says they have to have a permit. It doesn't matter
what building code it was pulled under.
MR. LARSEN: Well, you know, for purposes of the motion, I
believe Mr. Spalding did admit that basically they were in violation.
So it's not even a contention before the board based upon that
admission.
Page 46
November 19,2009
So I guess the motion, which has been seconded, is just to find
them in violation, and then we can discuss any recommendations as to
penalties.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We had a motion, we had a second.
Did we vote on it?
All those in favor?
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LARSON: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. I think we did vote
on that.
MR. DEAN: Yeah, we did.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Just wanted to make sure.
Okay. Recommendation?
MR. BOSA: The county recommends that the Code
Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs
in the amount of $81.72 incurred in the prosecution of this case within
30 days and abate all violations by applying for and obtaining a
Collier County building permit or demolition permit for the
conversion or improvement and obtain all related inspections through
a Certificate of Completion within X amounts of days from the date of
this hearing or a fine of X amount a day will be imposed until the
violation is abated.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Would anyone like to take a stab at
it?
MR. KAUFMAN: I'll try. The operational costs of $81.72 -- I'm
Page 47
November 19,2009
trying to fill in the blanks -- apply for the permits within 60 days, the
fine for exceeding the 60 days would be $200 a day, and that all
permits and completion of the project be done within 120 days, that's
after the 60 days, or a fine of $200 a day be imposed. Doesn't make
sense, Jen? I saw the scowl.
MS. WALDRON: You're breaking it up into to two sections,
which normally isn't what we do, but it's up to you.
MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Let's just make it the $200 a day and
the 120 days to have it completed.
MR. SPAULDING: Can I speak prior to that? Is that allowed?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Public hearing is currently closed.
MR. SPAULDING: Oh, okay.
MR. BOSA: Just got to read the second part here which I missed
out on.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, go ahead.
MR. BOSA: The respondent must notify the code enforcement
investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a
final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate
the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the
assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the
provision of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to
the property owner.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you.
MR. LARSEN: All right. If I understand this correctly, there is
a garage that is converted, and there's a wall down the middle of the
garage into two units, correct?
MR. BOSA: Yes, sir.
MR. LARSEN: Okay. And no permits were obtained for that
conversion?
MR. BOSA: No, sir. As of yesterday when I checked, no
permits at all.
MR. LARSEN: Is the unit being occupied?
Page 48
November 19,2009
MR. BOSA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It's a little bit late for --
MR. LARSEN: For purposes of the recommendation and the
time frame for which they have to comply --
MR. DEAN: Can I ask a question? What do you mean, a little
late?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, that should have been part of
the case itself.
MR. DEAN: I mean, what concerns this board, and it has been
for the four years I've been on it, is to me, that's a safety issue. A son
and his family live in the property and they have no permits, and this
is added onto the home, and wiring might be hanging anywhere. If it's
an electrical problem, there could be a fire tomorrow, and here we sit
as a board saying, wow, you know, and I -- to me there's got to be a
way to shut it off, and I mean now, and that's how I feel; because I
have a lot of articles in my packet about, in other states, where
families just died in a fire because of electrical wiring, and that's the
purpose of getting a permit, and we're real strong about that on this
board, and I know that.
And to me, if you don't have a permit, you've got to close it
down, period. Thank you.
MR. KELL Y: I concur with Mr. Dean.
MR. LA VINSKI: Yeah, I would support that decision myself.
MR. KAUFMAN: I'll withdraw my motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear another motion?
MR. DEAN: Well, I'd like to know, is there a way to --like is
there a wall going down -- where they added the garage, is there a way
to seal that off, turn off that electric, and just have the home function
as it -- because it's permitted.
MR. SPAULDING: There is.
MR. DEAN: There is. So can we do that?
MR. SPAULDING: We can.
Page 49
November 19, 2009
MR. DEAN: So that would be part of my motion is, as of now.
MR. ORTEGA: However, you will need a permit for the work to
be done in order to do that?
MR. DEAN: Well, I don't know. To me, if it's just -- you're
shutting it off, you've got a fuse box, you turn it off. I don't think you
need a permit to do that.
MR. SPAULDING: It's a breaker to that unit, to that section.
MR. DEAN: It's a breaker, so you just flip the switch.
MR. ORTEGA: But if you're going to separate the two spaces,
there has to be some type of wall. Setting a breaker off, anybody can
come and turn it right back on.
MR. DEAN: That's true. Anybody can do anything, but my
concern is the son and a family that live there. That's--
MR. LARSEN: You know, it's important for the board to take a
position that basically there was a directive that the electricity be
terminated to this unit. I mean, you know, whether or not they violate
the direction of the board is something that we can't foresee at this
point.
I agree with Mr. Dean, I don't believe it's too late to inquire into
these matters. I think it's very important that we know the status of the
property as we're making our determination as to the penalty to be
imposed.
You know, we don't want to be punitive and we don't want to
deny people due process, but by the same token, we have to protect
the citizenry of this county; therefore, I'm of the mind that an
immediate order be issued to terminate the electricity to this offending
unit. And, you know, ifthere is anybody opposed to that, I'd like to
hear their reasons why.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, you can always request
that the breaker be physically removed also.
MR. KELLY: I wanted to comment on Mr. Larsen's statement. I
think you're right. I think, you know, if you, sir, the respondent have
Page 50
November 19,2009
the capacity to get in the unit and you say that you could waive
service and take care of that for us within 70 hours, I think we, as a
board, would feel great.
MR. SPALDING: That's what our position is. We would like to
waive the 60 day and have this imposed immediately so that there's an
immediate response from your board saying that this violation -- you
have already agreed that a violation exists. We would like to see that
the violation is abated immediately and not given 60 or 120 days due
to the electric aspect of it. There are inhabitants there.
MR. KELLY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Would you like to make a motion,
Larry?
MR. DEAN: No. Mr. Larsen, make my motion.
MR. LARSEN: I would move that basically the electricity be
terminated to this offending unit within 48 hours. Failure to do so will
result in penalties accruing at the amount of $200 per day.
Now, in regard to their permits, you know, it's always difficult to
estimate how much time it will take to get the permits in order. But I
think under these circumstances, we'd ask that the permits be obtained
within 30 days or demolition occur within the period of 30 days;
otherwise, a fine of $200 per day will accrue.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Permits and -- okay. So permits
wouldn't be the CO.
MR. LARSEN: Additionally, in regard to the cost of
prosecution, that they be paid within 30 days.
MR. SPAULDING: Would that be 400 a day?
MR. LARSEN: No, it would be 200.
MR. SPAULDING: Two hundred for electric and 200 for the
permit?
MR. LARSEN: No. It would be just the $200 per day. All right.
It'd be $200 per day should you not terminate the electric to the unit.
MR. SPAULDING: Within 48 hours?
Page 51
November 19,2009
MR. LARSEN: Within 48 hours, okay. That's the first part. So
I guess you're correct, sir, now that I understand your question. And
then should --
MR. SPAULDING: And then thirty days later if the abatement
is still not done, then we would accrue an additional $200 a day.
MR. LARSEN: Right.
MR. SPAULDING: So first 0 to 29 is 200, 30 on would be 400 a
day.
MR. LARSEN: That's correct.
MR. SPAULDING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Now, would there be an inspection
after the 48 hours to make sure that the power was, in fact,
terminated?
MR. LARSEN: I believe that would be prudent.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And terminated, we mean the circuit
breaker would be disconnected; is that correct? Is that what we're --
MR. LARSEN: You know, I--
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Short of just flipping a switch,
because when they see code enforcement at the door, they can flip the
switch off.
MR. LARSEN: You know, I hate to get into the technical
aspects of it, but my motion would be that the service be disconnected
to that unit.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Disconnected to the garage.
MR. SPAULDING: FPL, you mean, disconnecting?
MR. LARSEN: To the -- to--
MR. SPAULDING: Are you talking within the structure itself,
the area that's in violation to be terminated?
MR. LARSEN: Right.
MR. SPAULDING: Or the entire structure?
MR. LARSEN: No, just the area that's in violation. So, for
example, if there was new wiring ran to that service box, that that
Page 52
November 19,2009
wiring be disconnected.
Now, I assume that you might have to have an electrician look at
this, but, you know, that's above my pay grade.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Jean, do you have that? Is that clear
enough? I want to make it specific -- as clear as possible because I
just don't want the circuit breaker to be turned off.
MS . RAWSON: Well, here's -- no, I got that part. We need to
shut off the electricity. Within 48 hours we probably won't even have
a signed order and so I think it's incumbent on the respondent to notify
the county within 48 hours that it's done, because we won't have an
order within 48 hours.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right.
MS. RAWSON: And then if it's not done within the 48 hours, of
course, this order would then go into effect.
MR. KELLY: Jean, does it do anything that I asked if the
respondent would waive service in this situation?
MS. RAWSON: Well, the waiving of the service would be for
the next meeting.
MR. KELLY: Oh.
MS . RAWSON: We just won't have a signed order within 48
hours, so it's incumbent upon the county and respondent to get
together within 48 hours and be sure that that's happened. This order
will go into effect; it will just be after the fact.
MR. LARSEN: Okay. All right. So the -- part of my motion
would be that the county is directed to inspect the premises within 48
hours to assure compliance with this board's order.
MR. BOSA: Yes, sir.
MR. LARSEN: Mr. Dean, is the motion --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you second the motion?
MR. LARSEN: -- satisfactory?
MR. DEAN: I second that motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: There you go. Any further
Page 53
November 19,2009
discussion?
MR. ORTEGA: I would probably add that it be done, the work
be done by a licensed electrical contractor.
MR. LARSEN: Motion is so amended.
MR. DEAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MR. SPAULDING: Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you understand what we just
did?
MR. SPAULDING: I do.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good. We'll take a little bit of
a break. Ten minutes. We'll be back at 25 of.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement
Board back to order.
MS. WALDRON: I don't think we're recording.
THE COURT REPORTER: I turned it on.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Figure out where we are.
MS. WALDRON: Number five of the hearings.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you.
Page 54
November 19, 2009
MR. DEAN: Yeah, Pamboukis.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right. This name.
MR. DEAN: Pamboukis.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Agathonicos Pamboukis. It's a real
tough name. One of the most difficult ones I've seen yet.
MR. DEAN: You pronounced it perfect.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yeah.
MR. KAUFMAN: Easy for you to say.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Case number CESD200911000. Is
the respondent present, because I'd like to have a pronunciation on it.
He is not. Okay. Thank you.
If you would swear in the investigator, please.
(The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
MS. WALDRON: This is reference to violation of ordinance, the
Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section
10.02.06(B)(1)(a).
Description of violation: Structural, electrical, and plumbing
improvements made to structure without first applying for and
obtaining all required permits to perform such improvements.
Location/address where violation exists: 201 Santa Clara Drive,
Unit #9, Naples, Florida, folio 46573004801.
Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation
location: Agathonicos Pamboukis, 1874 Englewood Avenue, Akron,
Ohio, 44312.
Date violation first observed: June 24,2009.
Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: June 25,
2009.
Date on/by which violation to be corrected: July 25, 2009.
Date ofre-inspection: October 22,2009.
Results of re- inspection: Violation remains.
I'd like to now present Investigator Reggie Smith.
MR. SMITH: Good morning. For the record, Investigator
Page 55
November 19, 2009
Reggie Smith, Collier County Code Enforcement.
This case is in reference to case number CESD200900 11 000
dealing with the violation of structural, electrical, and plumbing
improvements being made to a condo unit without permits, located at
201 Santa Clara Drive, Unit #9, Naples, Florida, 34112.
Service was given on the 25th of June, 2009, by posting of the
property in the Collier County Courthouse. A Notice of Violation was
mailed regular and certified mail on the 26th of June. Proof of service
was received on the 6th of July, 2009.
I would like now to present the evidence in this case with the
following exhibits. Exhibits A is a series of photos 1 through 5 all
dated the 24th of June of2009, and Exhibit B is a letter from the
owner to -- addressed to myself and the Code Enforcement Board.
MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion we accept the exhibits.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear --
MR. KELLY: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- hear a second?
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LARSON: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MR. SMITH: Exhibit Al is a photograph upon entry to the unit
basically just showing work happening at this unit. Doesn't exactly
Page 56
November 19,2009
show a violation there, just for a reference.
A2 is a photo of one of the bathrooms showing electrical work.
The back wall is all replaced drywall, and below that you can see the
plumbing work.
A3, again, is a photo of drywall being replaced on all three of
those walls visible in the photo.
A4 is a picture of the kitchen area where the water heater
normally exists and some work being done there. Looks like drywall
and whatnot.
A5 is a picture of the kitchen with the entire sink being removed
and the plumbing being worked on there with some electrical wiring
hanging there.
Exhibit B is a letter that I received via email yesterday at three
p.m. from the owner basically telling his story from June of this year
up till today of how he's been troubled with an unlicensed contractor
and basically asking for a continuance.
I did return his email advising him of the exact wording of our
Notice of Hearing that was sent certified mail, the five-day
requirement for requesting a continuance. But I thought this was
important. It basically is telling -- him telling us what he's done,
naming a contractor who has been given a citation by our contractor's
licensing officer. He was an unlicensed contractor.
So I told him I would present that today, and the board would
take that into account.
MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion that we find this respondent in
violation.
MR. LARSEN: I second that motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
MR. SMITH: Just as of yesterday, researching the permitting, no
-- permits have still not been applied for, for any improvements to this
unit. And this is a condo unit, so the owner would not be able to pull
the permits himself. He is out of state and cannot find the contractor.
Page 57
November 19,2009
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Because it says that he has tried to
pull permits; is there any record of that?
MR. SMITH: The only record of that is me providing him
permitting's phone number for him to get the information that's
required. They basically told him you're out of state, this is a condo
unit. A licensed contractor has to pull the permits for this. You would
not be allowed to do this.
His story is that he had a contractor that he believed was
licensed, and until we arrived and found that he was unlicensed, he's
kind of out the wrong way.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The -- the gain access, you gained
access due to the fact that there was a contractor there; is that correct?
They let you in?
MR. SMITH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Any other further -- or any
further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
Can I hear your recommendation now?
MR. SMITH: County's recommendation is that the Code
Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs
in the amount of $81.15 incurred in the prosecution of this case within
Page 58
November 19,2009
30 days and abate all violations by applying for and obtaining a
Collier County building permit or demolition permit for all
unimproved -- or unpermitted construction improvements to the unit,
all related inspections through a Certificate of Completion within the
Code Enforcement Board's recommended amount of days of the date
of this hearing or a fine of, again, the board's recommended amount of
money per day will be imposed until the violation is abated.
The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator
when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final
inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the
violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the
assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the
provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to
the property owner.
MR. KAUFMAN: Is this property vacant?
MR. SMITH: Yes. This property was purchased in April of this
year.
MR. LARSEN: Out of foreclosure sale, right?
MR. SMITH: Possibly, from the bank. This was most likely a
foreclosed property, went back to the bank, and he purchased it.
MR. KELLY: Can I ask a question just about the time line so
that I understand a little bit better? I'm going to take a cue from Mr.
Larsen.
Did this email come after your phone conversation where you
gave him the phone number from the permitting department?
MR. SMITH: Definitely.
MR. KELLY: Okay.
MR. SMITH: I do have a series of emails going back and forth
from myself and this owner starting --
MR. KELLY: Well, my question is this. Maybe this will save
some time. Do you think he knew that he needed a contractor that was
licensed and would pull a permit?
Page 59
November 19, 2009
MR. SMITH: Initially--
MR. KELLY: Yes.
MR. SMITH: -- I believe he thought he had a licensed
contractor. And in his letter there he states that he feels that that
licensed contractor knew all of the ordinances and everything that we
have here to do the work correctly. Obviously not.
I do have a series of emails here from early on beginning on --
our email conversation started on the 25th of August.
MR. KELLY: That's okay.
MR. SMITH: Okay. And from the very beginning there I had
told him a licensed contractor is required to pull a permit whether the
permits -- or the improvements are to stay or to be demo'd.
MR. KAUFMAN: Can I ask ifhe has, since you have contacted
him, tried to get a hold of a licensed contractor.
MR. SMITH: At one point in time he told me over the phone
that he did hire somebody. I put it in my case notes. Nothing came
from that. It was never mentioned again. Nothing was ever applied
for in the county permitting.
MR. LARSEN: His letter indicates basically he wants an
indefinite period of time to work out an arrangement with the
contractor and obtain a permit because he won't be down here until
after the turn of the year.
MR. SMITH: Yes, sir.
MR. DEAN: Let me ask one question. The -- when somebody
gets a -- going for permitting, do they have to go through the condo
association to get approval?
MR. SMITH: I'm not sure.
MR. ORTEGA: In most cases.
MR. DEAN: Is it?
MR. KAUFMAN: Depends on the condo association's, their
rules and regs.
MR. DEAN: So Florida Statute doesn't require anything like that
Page 60
November 19,2009
or wouldn't be involved with that or anything?
MS. RAWSON: No. It depends on the rules and regulations of
the condominium association.
MR. DEAN: Okay.
MS. RAWSON: And I'm not an expert on condominium law, but
I don't think so.
MR. KELLY: Well, if! may, I move to accept the county's
recommendation with 60 days and $200 per day.
MR. LARSEN: I second that motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Permits and all?
MR. KELLY: Yeah, completed, just as it was read to us, yeah.
MR. DEAN: And operational costs, 81.15.
MR. KELLY: Everything, yep.
MR. DEAN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We have a motion and a second.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
Thank you very much.
MR. SMITH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're going to be moving on to
imposition of -- imposition of fines, correct? Okay.
Page 61
November 19, 2009
And the first one will be Domenic P. Tosto, case number
2005010592. And I know he -- there he is. You're up.
MR. TOSTO: Sorry.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of Collier
County Ordinance 04-58, the property maintenance code, Section 6,
Paragraph 12, Section 11, 12, 15, and 16, and Collier County
Ordinance 2005-44, the litter and weed ordinance Section 7 and 8.
The location of the violation is the folio number 01199120007.
Description of violation: 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. All same premises left
unattended and a potential hazard.
Also litter and abandoned property consisting of, but not limited
to, fire damage, weather damage, structural elements, plumbing
installations, construction materials, metal, plastic, and paper items
left uncontained and unattended throughout this entire area of critical
state-concern, special treatment zoned property.
On April 26, 2007, 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 4224 PG 0252, for
more information.
The respondent has not complied with the Code Enforcement
Board orders as of November 19,2009.
The county's recommendation is to issue an order for fines at the
rate of $250 per day for the period between November 2, 2007, to
November 19,2009,746 days, for the total of$186,500. Fines
continue to accrue.
Previous operational costs of $1,295.34 have not been paid.
Additional operational costs of $82.45 have incurred for the
Page 62
November 19,2009
imposition of fines herein. The total recommended lien amount is
$187,877.79.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: This board heard this case, I think it
was back about three years ago probably?
MR. TOSTO: We've heard it -- you guys have heard it several
times, particularly when a new person takes over the case, like Mr.
Seabasty. He just took over the case a couple of months ago, and he
contacted me, and we actually had a hearing last month that we never
actually made it to you guys. It was scratched before because we had
-- their attorney -- your attorney came down and I had explained what
went on, and we brought everything up to date.
And it seems as though when I left that meeting that all was good
and we were just going to continue on as we were; however, it seems
as though something happened in between that 30-day period and
today to bring us to this point.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. There's several new board
members. This is a somewhat complicated case with many different
state and federal agencies involved. I'm not sure if we want to hear a
little bit of an update. I mean, maybe you can --
MR. TOSTO: Sure, I would love to.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay.
MR. TOSTO: We've been issued a letter of intent from the Army
Corps of Engineers stating that it's their intention to issue us a boat
dock, and all of the abutting properties have been notified to that.
We've recently -- on November 5th we had a meeting with DEP
to go over construction procedures, okay. It's my understanding that
they're leaning in the direction of issuing a permit. Now they want to
know how you're going to do the construction, you know, how long is
the crane going to be on the beach, how big is the envelope, the
working envelope, going to be, you know, how are we going to not
impact the seven endangered species that you're working around to the
least as possible.
Page 63
November 19, 2009
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Maybe you can give a 30-second
synopsis of what you're trying to do for some of the newer board
members.
MR. TOSTO: Sure, sure.
MS. WALDRON: Mr. Chairman, can I have the respondent
identify himself, please.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sorry.
MR. TOSTO: Sure. My name is John Tosto, John Joseph Tosto.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you're the son of Domenic,
correct?
MR. TOSTO: Correct.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. Just a quick 30-second
synopsis of what you're trying to do.
MR. TOSTO: Okay. I am trying to renovate the property that
myself and my family own on Cape Romano and --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It's a series of dome buildings.
MR. TOSTO: It's six -- it's dome structures. What happened is
they built the domes right on the sand with no penetration, and when
the waves came, washed away the sand, and the domes, you know,
kind of tilted however they wanted.
We're -- it's our plan to build a new foundation, cut the domes
from the old foundation, put them on the new foundation and demolish
the existing foundation.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is the boat dock part of what you
need to bring in materials and so forth? You'll need a boat dock? Is
that the first step? Or can you do -- can you--
MR. TOSTO: No. Typically on an island, build a boat dock is
the first thing that's put in for that, but no, we don't need that for that.
Most of the equipment will be coming over by barge. And the barge
has a gate that actually opens up right on the beach, so, no, we don't
need the boat dock to proceed.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. What are you waiting for
Page 64
November 19,2009
right now? And, again, in previous times that you've come in front of
us, you've given us a time frame on when you expect certain things to
be done. So if you could maybe go into that.
MR. TOSTO: We are -- there's three parts to this. There's the
Army Corps of Engineers, there's the DEP environmental permit, and
there's the Collier County permitting. We expect to be -- we are going
to ask to let Collier County let us apply for a permit before the
environmental resource from the DEP is issued, and we expect to have
those plans ready in December to go to Collier County.
Depending on their turnaround time, I'm hopeful that sometime
in February we could be issued a permit. If that is the case, it still
leaves a 60-day window before the start of turtle season. It's my plans
to go ahead and get the structure, get the new foundation built, get the
pods onto their new foundation and demo the old structure before this
coming May, turtle season.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Would you need any DEP or
environmental permits or anything like that to do that?
MR. TOSTO: We do. The way that we're structuring the build
right now is it's -- it actually qualifies for an exemption from the state
DEP permitting, and we went over a couple of the last concerns on the
5th, and right now we're putting together the procedures of the
construction.
So the answer to your question is, no, we do not need a DEP
environmental resource permit as long as they grant us the exception.
MR. KAUFMAN: Could I ask for an additional 30 seconds?
MR. TOSTO: Sure, absolutely.
MR. KAUFMAN: This -- these dome structures were built with
permits way back when?
MR. TOSTO: Correct, in 1981.
MR. KAUFMAN: 1981?
MR. TOSTO: Yes.
MR. KAUFMAN: With proper permits, et cetera?
Page 65
November 19,2009
MR. TOSTO: Absolutely.
MR. KAUFMAN: It was less than 30 seconds, but let me follow
up with, in the description of the violation, it's a PM violation of
maintenance where it says -- is it still littered with plastic and metal
and --
MR. TOSTO: I get out there as often as I can, and I've stated this
before; not only do I clean my property, but I clean the whole island,
the whole 3,000 feet of beach. And I've been going out there for 15
years. The island is cleaner now than it ever has been, other than the
concrete structures that I can't physically move.
MR. KAUFMAN: Thank you.
MR. ORTEGA: I have a question. With regards to the state and
DEP, you're actually adding a foundation system?
MR. TOSTO: Weare removing the old foundation and adding a
new foundation system, yes.
MR. ORTEGA: And the state is granting you exemption on
that?
MR. TOSTO: Yes. Well, I haven't seen the exemption yet. We
qualify for the exemption. We've had a meeting that was all positive.
You know, where it goes from here, I'm not sure.
MR. ORTEGA: This meeting was with Jennifer Cowher, the
local DEP representative?
MR. TOSTO: In Fort Myers.
MR. ORTEGA: Uh-huh.
MR. TOSTO: Yes.
MR. ORTEGA: Jennifer's in the position to offer a field permit
when there's an exemption; however, in light of what they're doing, I
find it hard to believe that they're going to be granted an exemption.
But regardless, going back to Collier County, you can apply for
your building permit at any time. You will not be granted that permit
until the release from the DEP occurs.
MR. TOSTO: Oh, I was not aware of that. I was not aware of
Page 66
November 19,2009
that. I was told by Turrell & Associates, who's doing the permitting,
that we would actually need a physical DEP permit to bring our plans
to Collier County.
MR. ORTEGA: You can apply at any time, but the
environmental will not release it -- or the building department will not
release it. They'll put a hold on it until you submit that.
MR. TOSTO: Okay. Thank you for that understanding.
MR. KELL Y: Well, I have a much larger issue with the original
order. Everything in the original order talks about demolition. There's
nothing in there where it speaks about reusing any part of the
structures or bringing them up to code or any type of rehab. It strictly
talks about demolition, and that's not obviously the direction that you
want to go.
MR. TOSTO: Right. Originally the -- the order was actually
given to the previous owner. I bought the parcel with the order in
place. At that time, the fellow who did the investigation for Collier
County deemed them un-repairable. Shortly thereafter we brought my
engineer out there, and we did some studies on the property, and he
stamped a letter saying that they are repairable.
At that point, I think that -- I think maybe the verbiage should be
shifted from demolition or repairable and something to get them into
compliance.
MR. KELLY: Okay.
MR. LARSEN: You finished?
MR. KELL Y: I have more, but go ahead.
MR. LARSEN: Are these units being occupied?
MR. TOSTO: No, they're not.
MR. LARSEN: In regard to the operational costs, how come
they have not been paid yet?
MR. TOSTO: I'm not sure.
MR. LARSEN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I think what Mr. Larsen is trying to
Page 67
November 19,2009
say is that he'd like -- we like to see, as a board, those being paid as
soon as possible.
MR. TOSTO: Okay, okay. The reason why I haven't paid them
is -- well, for one thing, my finance doesn't kick in until I have a
permit in my hand, so this is all -- I've been footing the bill, you know,
100 percent. But that's not the reason why I haven't paid. The reason
why I haven't paid is that I was -- it was my understanding that when
the time came that you had a building permit, we'd go in front of the
board and we'd assess funds due, because obviously it's a lot more
than $1,200 that I have to -- or $1,400.
MR. KELL Y: Just for clarification, this board doesn't have any
jurisdiction over the operational costs, so --
MR. TOSTO: Okay.
MR. KELL Y: Although we could or may abate or reduce the
actual fines that are accruing, we have no jurisdiction to do so on the
operational costs. Those would be due regardless.
MR. TOSTO: Okay. So it's my understanding that says you got
-- I should make payments on this sooner than later.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Correct.
MR. LARSEN: Well, it's always better to have paid the
operational costs and come before this board than it is to have on these
documents stated that you didn't pay the operational costs previously
ordered.
MR. TOSTO: Okay.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Now, in light of his testimony, if we
were to impose a fine -- or a lien on his property in the amount of 187-
and some change, almost 188-, that could definitely impinge on him
getting financing for his property.
MR. LARSEN: Well, that's my concern. My concern is that
basically it's a lot of money, and that for whatever reason, this has
dragged on since July of 2007. And I'm not familiar with the units or
the property, but --
Page 68
November 19,2009
MS. WALDRON: Mr. Chairman, if the county could clarify
some points on this case, please.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay.
MR. SEABASTY: Good morning. For the record, Jim Seabasty,
code enforcement investigator.
I've taken this case over, and when I did, I found out there was a
little bit of confusion. A Mr. Skipper owned the property. He sold it
to the Tosto Living Family Trust.
At that time Mr. Skipper's folio number was used. Since then the
folio number has changed. Now, Skipper was the parent folio number.
Now we have the actual folio number which belongs on that property,
which is 01199121006, and that's for 999 Morgan Island.
Mr. Tosto, I believe his dad was here in April 26th of '07 when
we had the finding of fact, and at that time I believe he was directed to
get a permit. In June 22nd of '07 a demolition permit was applied for.
As of this date of7:58 this morning, that demolition permit has not
been obtained.
The buildings are still there, and we don't have a permit.
MR. ORTEGA: I have a concern. If, indeed -- if this property
can be developed and the houses put back together, especially if
there's more than 50 percent substantial damage to it, is there a letter
from the state that states that this is happening?
MR. SEABASTY: If! may? We have an application that was
turned into DEP, an Arielle Poulos, who is in charge, she received the
application. I have a copy of the application with remarks as what
must be done before the property can get a permit, before the state will
issue the okay for Mr. Tosto to come to the county to get his permit.
There's quite a few items on this. Some have to do with full storage,
bunkers, septic, and the dock. So this just came in -- this document
was November 5th of2009.
MR. KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen that document?
MR. SEABASTY: Excuse me?
Page 69
November 19, 2009
MR. KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen that document.
MR. SEABASTY: I believe he -- did you get one, John?
MR. TOSTO: Turrell, Hall & Associates is doing the
environmental services and, you know, the permitting. Yes, they have
that document as well as all other documents. And just for the record,
Arielle Poulos has been taken over by some -- her position has been
taken over, so not only do we have -- have had this change hands three
different time, we've had that change hands three different times. So
every time somebody changes hands, there's a new group of -- a new
group of questions.
MR. SEABASTY: And we cannot seem to -- excuse me. We
cannot seem to find permits for these original buildings.
MR. TOSTO: Oh, I have a copy of the original permit.
MR. SEABASTY: He might have. Sometimes they get --
MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question going back to what you said
earlier that things change every time there's a different player from the
county's perspective. What do you mean things are okay and they
were going down the road and everything was fine until the change?
MR. TOSTO: Well, everybody, like certain members of the
board, I'm sure, remember the -- remember the situation when we sat
here last year.
When Mr. Seabasty came into play, it seemed as though we
started over. You know, he called me in, he says, you've got a
violation; and he was very nice, by the way. You all have been very
nice, and I thank you for that. But it seems as though everything is
erased and we're starting over.
I mean, 30 days ago I sat in the hallway before the hearing and he
said, the attorney and him, Mr. Tosto, thank you for coming and
everything's good. A week later I get a letter, imposition of fines. So
I'm not really sure how -- what causes this to happen. I'm really not
sure. All's I see -- all's I can be a witness to is what I see, you know,
what happens to the case.
Page 70
November 19, 2009
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions from the board?
MR. SEABASTY: If! may, one more point. We had a period of
approximately two years where nothing really moved forward. At one
time they did apply for a DEP permit, but then that was pulled back.
And until recently nothing has really happened with the property.
MR. KAUFMAN: One question. I'd like to know what you're
asking for. I mean, we have before us the imposition of fines. What
are you asking for?
MR. TOSTO: What I would ask -- I would ask is that you table
the fines until I have a building permit.
MR. KAUFMAN: And you think you'll have the building permit
within?
MR. TOSTO: I don't see any reason why we won't have building
permit, at the latest, May I.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But can you start construction with
the turtle season?
MR. TOSTO: If I get the building -- I need a 60-day window
from -- before turtle season starts. If I get the Collier County permit
before then, I can put the foundation in within that 60-day period. If
not, we're on hold for another six months until the turtle -- turtle nests
hatch.
MR. SEABASTY: Sir, if! may, when I spoke with the people
from DEP, Arielle and the new lady who's taking over, Sue Lytoff
(phonetic), they're not sure whether or not they're actually going to
issue a permit, so I don't know exactly what they're telling Mr. Tosto,
okay. The only thing I can go by is what they sent me in this package
here saying that these were the things that had to be met, these
conditions, so --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Go ahead.
MR. KELLY: I've got a couple comments. I remember this case
well. I remember your father and everything that we've gone through
over the last two-and-a-halfyears together. I believe the structures
Page 71
November 19,2009
have been there since '92, and they're in pretty much the same
condition when Andrew --
MR. TOSTO: '81.
MR. KELLY: But since '92 when Andrew pretty much tore apart
the beach and put them into the tilted condition that they are, they
haven't been inhabited, if I'm not mistaken.
MR. TOSTO: In '99 is when they actually became uninhabited.
Mr. Skipper bought it in '97. They were -- the beach was still 100 feet
from the -- and they were okay.
MR. KELL Y: But my point is we're talking ten years without
really any health, safety, or welfare type issues to the public. It's just
an eyesore, and I believe that's why this was originally brought to us.
A point to make are that these fines that we mayor may not
impose are not necessarily a lien until they're forwarded to the
County's Attorney's Office; is that correct?
MS. RAWSON: No.
MS. WALDRON: You make a verbal order today, and the lien
is in effect as of your verbal order today.
MR. KELL Y: So that's going to hurt any chances of getting
financing.
MS. RAWSON: This will get recorded as soon as it's signed.
MR. KELL Y: The other question I have is -- well, two more,
two more points. One, does demolition really hurt the process? Is
there any way that you could get your demo permit, gain access to the
site, remove the structures, barge them, temporarily store them
somewhere, get all your permitting, do your foundation work and then
bring them back out via barge down the road?
MR. TOSTO: No.
MR. KELLY: And then the last point is this. If you really are
interested in going forward with reconstruction and that's the way the
county and the board see to find leniency, then this original order
should be scrapped. I think that we should -- if that's the case, if that's
Page 72
November 19, 2009
the will of the board, I think we should throw out the original order
and create a new one giving you the time that you need, and that will
then table the fines because they wouldn't -- you wouldn't be in
violation. We'd have a whole new order.
MR. TOSTO: That's sounds like a wonderful thing in my eyes.
Let me answer your first part of that question is, no, I can't do
anything out there with a DEP permit; and I can't do the demo without
actually taking the pods, the pod being the top part of the structure that
we're saving, and putting it on the beach.
I need to get a crane out there to do the demo, so, no, they're not
going to let me do anything until we've got a building permit.
MR. KELLY: Well, that brings up another point. IfDEP has to
approve you to even get a demo permit or do any type of work, can we
even enforce this order? How can county tell you to go get a demo
permit and have this all completed in a certain amount of time if, yet,
it's a government agency that's not allowing you to do it in the first
place to execute that permit?
MR. TOSTO: Well, that's -- that has been a concern the whole
time. I don't -- I'm not an attorney, and I don't really know the answer
to that.
MR. KELLY: No, nor am I. I'm just throwing out ideas, you
know, as to how to resolve this so it's mutually acceptable for
everyone involved.
MR. TOSTO: Sure, sure.
MR. SEABASTY: Sir, excuse me. DEP has no order to tell us
whether or not he should get a demo permit. That's the county. DEP
doesn't get involved in that.
MR. KELLY: Right, I understand. But I think what -- the point
that was being brought up is, let's say, for instance, Collier County
issues a demo permit, and then he rolls heavy equipment onto the
beach; now all of a sudden DEP puts a stop order on the project until
they issue permits where they'll allow the equipment on the beach.
Page 73
November 19,2009
MR. ORTEGA: I don't think Collier County's going to issue any
permit without approval from the DEP regardless, demo or otherwise.
That's going to be step one.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Kelly's point is, nothing can be
done without DEP, so any order we have can't be enforced. I mean,
even if we said, allow the county to go out there and take care of it,
they can't do it without a DEP permit. So I see Mr. Kelly's position.
What I do want to see and where I'm kind of in a quandary here
is, this has been going on for over two years. I don't know -- this
doesn't seem like everybody's working in sync. Seems like there's
some kind of disconnect somewhere, and I'd like to see that disconnect
taken care of.
And you've been in front of us several times, and we've given
extensions, and I'd like just to see this is the last extension if we were
to give it. I'm -- kind of don't want to see it dragged out much further.
We're going to be going into three years come upon -- if we were to
extend this another six months.
So that's, I think, quite ample time to either get it done or have a
demo permit and go that --
MR. LARSEN: See, my problem here is that I haven't heard
anything today which really serves as a basis to deny the county the
relief it requests. I mean, the county came before us on notice to the
respondent seeking an imposition of lien. There was no notice to the
county that there was going to be any application to vacate the
previous order of the board nor was there any kind of application
placing the county on notice that, you know, other relief was going to
be requested besides the relief that the county asked for, which is the
imposition of their lien.
Now, I'm very sympathetic to the respondent in regards to
juggling multiple agencies, but I agree with the chairman that
basically this has been going on since July of 2007.
So ifthere's going to be any fashion in the relief other than the
Page 74
November 19, 2009
imposition of lien, I think it has to take into consideration that not a
great deal has been accomplished, nor have the operational costs been
paid during the last two-and-a-halfyears.
So with the exception of imposing the lien, I don't think we
should do anything in regard to vacating the underlying order. And in
regard to an extension of time, I think the county really needs to be --
their position needs to be taken into consideration, especially the
safeguard -- you know, I don't know ifthere is anybody even using
Cape Romano at this point. Is there anybody out there besides
yourself?
MR. TOSTO: That's the only structure left on the island.
MR. KELLY: But there are hundreds of people every weekend
who visit.
MR. LARSEN: Pull their boats up.
MR. TOSTO: Sure, it's a --
MR. LARSEN: Are they using structures for any purposes
whatsoever?
MR. TOSTO: Yeah. I mean, everybody that pulls up on the
island wants to go take a look at the house, absolutely.
MR. KELLY: Can I play devil's advocate just for a second?
MR. TOSTO: Sure.
MR. KELLY: Let's say tomorrow the DEP grants you your
permits, you come in here, environmental grants you theirs from
Collier County, and you start construction on this. You complete
construction, you have a beautiful home exactly the way you want it.
You are still in violation of this order because it specifically says you
have to demolish it, period.
MR. TOSTO: Well, we will-- we will be demolishing 50
percent of the structure. Over 50 percent of the structure foundation.
All's we're keeping is the actual pods on top of the foundation.
So would that still -- would that still -- I mean, I did apply for a --
and I thought that I was issued -- Jim, I thought that I was issued a
Page 75
November 19, 2009
minor demo permit back a year-and-a-half ago when I was out there
with the machine cleaning up. I believe that I was issued a minor
demolition permit after that order was given.
MR. SEABASTY: No. No, Mr. Tosto. The permit that was
applied for was applied for on the 22nd of June of 2007.
MR. TOSTO: Okay.
MR. SEABASTY: And that was never obtained. Mr. Dunn put a
permit hold on that.
MR. TOSTO: Okay.
MR. SEABASTY: Okay. As far as another permit to clean up, I
don't have any record of that.
MR. TOSTO: The permit -- the application that you're look at, is
it for a major or a minor demolition?
MR. SEABASTY: It's just for a demo.
MR. TOSTO: Just for --
MR. SEABASTY: And that will be after the court case of April
26th. That's after your hearing.
If the board would like, I do have some current photos that were
just taken if they would like to see what the structures look like at this
time.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It was also in the paper, what, last
week, I think.
MR. DEAN: It was in the newspaper.
MR. SEABASTY: Well, these photos were taken on the 19th of
October.
MR. KELLY: Could you repeat again what you just said about
the court date in April?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That was our --
MS. RAWSON: Hearing.
MR. KELL Y: Oh, our hearing.
MR. SEABASTY: That was your hearing date. I'm sorry.
MR. KELLY: And you also said that Mr. Dunn put a hold on the
Page 76
November 19,2009
demo permit?
MR. SEABASTY: Yes, sir.
MR. KELLY: Why was that?
MR. SEABASTY: Mr. Dunn put a hold on the demo permit
because he wanted a -- proof of power of attorney from John.
MR. KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen the photos?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The question I have, is this
testimony? I mean, is this, you know, evidence that we're --
MS. RAWSON: It's not technically a hearing, as you know.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right.
MS. RAWSON: But we've pretty much turned it into one
because it's a very unusual case.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes, this is --
MS. RAWSON: And if it would help the board to see the
photographs, I think that's fine.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: There are some newer members, so
it might kind of help.
MS. RAWSON: Right.
MR. SEABASTY: And this is an unsecured structure.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion to --
MR. DEAN: Motion to accept.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- accept? Do I hear a second?
MR. KAUFMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
Page 77
November 19,2009
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
MR. KAUFMAN: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes.
MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to -- I wasn't on the board in 2007.
But what is it that's been sitting there for two years? And I tend to
agree with Mr. Kelly. What is the downside of granting an -- either
table it, extend it, or whatever you want to -- whatever pleases the
board to doing this? Is there something that's happening to the
environment that's detrimental to the environment?
Obviously the structure is being eroded by the water there. Is
that in danger of falling into the water and polluting the area that it's
in?
MR. TOSTO: No, there's -- in my opinion there's very little -- I
think it's -- to me it would be more of a safety issue than an
environmental issue. You know, we're worried about somebody
getting hurt out there, you know, because it's very hard to secure the
structure.
MR. KAUFMAN: The structure's not posted do not trespass?
MR. TOSTO: It is posted.
MR. KELL Y: To the board, typically we have two options here.
We either fine the property as requested by the county, or we have to
change the original order and grant an extension or something because
it's not in compliance and the operational costs have not been paid.
So we can't reduce the fine, and we typically don't, unless we're
in compliance. So we should decide one way or the other which way
we're going and start working on a resolution.
MR. LARSEN: I agree with Mr. Kelly in that regard.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Would you like to make a
motion to amend our order or impose the fines?
MR. KELLY: You know, I wish we could just kind oflike, you
Page 78
November 19, 2009
know, throw a couple back and just talk about this in layman's terms
because, you know, if we start throwing out motions, it could get into
a 20-minute discussion just trying to change that motion.
Perhaps polling the board to see which way they want to go. Do
they want to just impose the fines and, you know, let the parties deal
with this, or do they want to start working on an extension or
amending the initial one?
MR. LARSEN: Well, 1-
MS. RAWSON: Let me just say one thing. For you to vacate an
order of April 30, 2007, which was entered into by a stipulation, albeit
it was a different owner, is going to be difficult.
MR. KELL Y: What about granting an extension?
MS. RAWSON: Well, obviously you have the right to do that.
MR. LARSEN: Yeah. I agree, I -- you know, I don't feel that
basically amending, vacating, rewriting an order that's been in
existence and which everybody has been operating on for such a long
period of time is in this board's best interest.
In regard to the imposition of the lien, we always have the ability
to abate the lien at a later date but, you know, this lien is $187,000.
And my concern is that it might do more harm than good by imposing
the lien at this time; however, the respondent's testimony in regard to
what's going to happen in the near future, you know, has not been that
strong.
I mean, basically a lot of things are up in the air, and my concern
is, if we give three months or six months extension of time without
imposing a lien, then basically we might find ourselves back in the
very same position three months or six months down the road with
nothing else happening.
And although I'm not adverse to granting an extension if an
extension is to be granted for the imposition of liens, I'd like it to be
shorter rather than longer just to spur some kind of activity on this
project.
Page 79
November 19,2009
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, how about if we impose a
certain time frame to move it along with the respondent coming back
every two months or something to tell us what progress is being
made?
MR. LARSEN: I'd also like to see those operational costs paid
finally.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Absolutely, absolutely. Okay, we--
MR. KAUFMAN: I agree with both my colleagues. I think that
an extension of time would benefit the county more than issuing the
lien on this property.
MR. LA VINSKI: I just wonder if we're ever going to see any
resolution based on some of the comments that he read, the
investigator read, about fuels and all this kind of stuff. I think we're
just whipping a dead horse, that we'll be here two years from now.
MR. DEAN: I kind of feel the same way, because it is a safety
issue, as they stated, and he agreed to, that people do pull their boats
up there and climb on that structure, and the structure is getting old.
And to me, it's been a long time.
I was on the board at the time two-and-a-halfyears ago, so -- and
this -- I don't understand why it's been so drawn out. And then all of a
sudden I saw the picture in the paper. I don't know what they're going
after, but there it was again. And so I feel -- I'd like to end it right
here and go with the recommendation.
MR. LA VINSKI: I agree.
MR. KELL Y: Let me throw one more wrench out there. And I
appreciate the respondent's willingness and -- or, I'm sorry, wish to
reuse the structures; however, geodesic homes are still being built, and
I don't think they're -- you know, there's not a reason why you couldn't
demolish it now and then get your permits and come back and just
build from scratch later on down the road with a newer structure that
meets current codes.
MR. TOSTO: If! take that structure off the beach, there will
Page 80
November 19,2009
never be another structure permitted on that beach.
MR. KELLY: I see now. Thank you.
MR. DEAN: I got it.
MR. ORTEGA: That's why I brought that point up about the
substantial --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Mr. L'Esperance, you haven't
made any comments.
MR. DEAN: Let me just ask one thing. A lot of times when a
structure is there, and as long as you don't tear it all out and you can
add to it, and then it's okay, you get permits and all that; but you're
talking about moving the entire structure, the base, from one place to
another, and I don't -- to me, that's a legal thing. I don't see how they
can do that.
MR. TOSTO: Well, we -- originally we permitted to raise the
structure right where it is. The DEP had some reservations about that
because of the shoreline. You know, we wouldn't be -- we wouldn't
be 50 feet from the mean high water mark.
So in order to -- in order to be able to fall into this exemption
category, we agreed to one of the things that they were asking for, and
that's to bring the structure within 50 feet of the mean high water line.
As far as the 50 percent rule, you know, it's my understanding
that has to do with if we're below flood, and the structure is below
flood. It's built to the old code, which was 12 feet. Now the code's 15
feet.
It is below flood, but we plan to raise it above flood, so I'm not
necessarily sure if the 50 percent rule applies here.
MR. ORTEGA: The 50 percent rule is not what you just
indicated as far as being below the floodplain. It has to do with
substantial damage. And when you have provisions in the code or
state law where they may say ifthere's more than 50 percent damage,
you cannot put it. Now, if you're going to relocate that structure,
you're exceeding 50 percent. That's not my -- that's only a thought.
Page 81
November 19,2009
That's up to the state.
MR. LARSEN: All right. Let me ask you, Mr. Tosto, if we
impose the fines today, the 186,000, what hardship do you suffer other
than having to pay those fines?
MR. TOSTO: Well, as we've stated before, 30 days ago I was in
the hallway in a conference with Mr. Seabasty and your attorney, and
we ended up the -- we ended it up, everything was all good, okay.
The next day, an article came out in the Naples Daily News,
okay. Although I had a great conversation with the editor for the
Naples Daily News, he still, you know, drifted towards the $186,000
lien, okay. They've sent another reporter, which is here today and is
going to report.
What I'm afraid of, if you impose that fine on me, it's going in the
wrong direction now. It's going where -- it's going in the wrong
direction, and that's my fear.
MR. LARSEN: So it's -- you feel that the image ofthe project
will be diminished?
MR. TOSTO: Absolutely.
MR. LARSEN: But you don't have financing in the pipeline
which will be adversely affected by this imposition?
MR. TOSTO: Oh, that would be hugely affected, absolutely.
More important to me would be the diminishing of the project. I
mean, the $186,000, when all's said and done, probably isn't as big as
me obtaining the permit.
MR. KAUFMAN: That sort of reminds me of an execution
where the governor calls in and says, we're going to give you a reprise
(sic) and -- but we can still execute you six months down the line; and
I'd like to know the board's opinion of, what do we lose by giving a set
date as the chairman has pointed out where it doesn't drag on for two
years from now? What do we have to lose?
MR. LARSEN: Well, I'm not sure what you're asking, Mr.
Kaufman, because the only thing before the board today is the
Page 82
November 19,2009
imposition of the fines, whether we impose the fines or not impose the
fines. It's not whether or not we basically give any other relief to the
respondent. So I'm not sure what your question is about what we lose.
MR. KAUFMAN: Well, it's my understanding from the
respondent that if you impose the fine, probably there'll be no ability
to pull a mortgage or what needs to be done to proceed with the
construction, unless I'm understanding --
MR. TOSTO: It would be more difficult, clearly more difficult.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can we do this? Can we withdraw
this and then have it in front of us again in May? And so not impose
the fines, not rewrite the order, but the fines would keep on --
MS. RAWSON: Well, I don't think you can withdraw it. The
county can withdraw it. I guess you could, you know, move to
continue it.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And that way we don't have to
redraw the order. The fines still keep on -- keep on going.
MS. RAWSON: Yes, they do.
MR. KAUFMAN: Can we continue it and also request that the
$1,295 operational costs be paid?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But that's changed.
MS. RAWSON: There's already an order that the operational
costs be paid within 30 days of 2007.
MR. KAUFMAN: Okay.
MS. RAWSON: Now there are some additional operational
costs, so I think, you know, Mr. Larsen gave a word to the wise, so
you've already got an order.
MR. LARSEN: My concern is that basically we would just be
back in the same position we are three months or six months or next
May that we are here today, because I don't have a great deal of
comfort in listening to the testimony today in regard to obtaining
permits, having all of this work done.
And by his own admission, the respondent was quite candid in
Page 83
November 19,2009
regard to the safety factor here. So I'd, you know, be very concerned
about putting this off for an indefinite period of time or for an
extended period of time.
MR. LA VINSKI: Right. If you look at those pictures that he
passed around, I'd be afraid to walk under that thing today, let alone
90 days from now, and somebody's -- could get squashed down there.
MR. SEABASTY: Sir, if! may? This case actually originated
back in 2005 by the other owner, Mr. Skipper, who then, again, sold to
Mr. Tosto, who was at that hearing in '07 where they did the
stipulation.
To clarify, the last board meeting we asked to withdraw it with
Mr. Wright, our attorney, only for the fact of the folio number, the
parent folio number against the actual parcel number. Downtown they
never did change the address from the previous owner to the Tostos,
and that's where that little confusion. But it's all off the parent number
with this sub-folio number here.
MR. KELL Y: I'm an eternal optimist, but unfortunately I don't
feel as though this is ever going to see a new structure. There's just so
much working against, and there's a public will right now, too.
MR. TOSTO: I can appreciate that, and I realize that that's a big
-- you know, that's a big consensus; however, in the past 30 days, we
have a letter of intent from the Army Corps of Engineers and a nod, if
you will, from the DEP. This absolutely is going forward. And I
think if you postpone it till May -- although I can get some literature
to you right away -- you will have a lot of information, and --
MR. SEABASTY: If! may, I'm not aware of anything from
Army Corps. The only thing, like I say, I have is the -- from DEP.
And one of their concerns was -- and like Mr. Tosto said, 50 feet from
the high mean; however, they also say, move them to stable ground,
upland stable ground. I don't know. I'm not an environmentalist. I'm
not an engineer. I don't know ifthere is stable upland ground.
MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion.
Page 84
November 19,2009
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead.
MR. LARSEN: Based upon the testimony/evidence presented
before this board today, I'd like to make a motion to impose the lien in
the amount of$187,877.79.
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. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
Motion passes. Fines have been imposed.
MR. TOSTO: Okay. Thanks for your time, guys.
The next case will be Gentilhomme and Jean Saurel Louissaint
CESD200800 14978.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you state your names for the
record, please.
MR. WALKER: For the record, Weldon Walker, Collier County
Code Enforcement.
MR. LOUISSAINT: Louissaint. My name is Louissaint,
Gentilhomme Louissaint.
MR. J. LOUISSAINT: Jean Saurel Louissaint.
Page 85
November 19,2009
MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of Collier
County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Buildings and Buildings
Regulations, Article II, Florida Building Code, Adoption and
Amendment, Florida Building Code Section 22-26(b)( 1 04.1.3 .5).
Location of violation: 520 Palmetto Avenue, Immokalee,
Florida, folio number 65070600006.
Description of violation: Newly constructed shed to rear of
property. Improvements done prior to obtaining valid Collier County
building permits.
On June 25,2009, 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 attached order of the board, OR 4470 PG 2677, for
more information.
The respondent has complied with the Code Enforcement Board
orders as of September 30,2009.
The county's recommendation is to issue an order imposing a lien
for the fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period between
September 26,2009, to September 30, 2009, five days, for the total of
$1,000.
Operational costs of $86.71 have been paid. Additional
operational costs of$74.65 incurred for the imposition of fines
hearing.
The county's recommendation is to issue an order imposing a lien
in the amount of$I,074.65.
MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to abate
the fines in the amount of $1 ,000 but to impose the additional
operational costs of$74.65.
MR. KAUFMAN: Second.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: I second that motion.
MR. KELLY: I have a comment on this. How is it that we're
ever going to be able to abate any fines if at the last minute they get
Page 86
November 19,2009
another set of costs? This is all brand new to us.
MS. WALDRON: It's brand new to us as well.
MR. KELLY: What's going on? I mean, we want to help the
people out.
MR. DEAN: It went past the--
MS. WALDRON: Well, we -- but as -- we also have hard costs
that are incurred in bringing this case forward for an imposition of
fines hearing, as we do in a finding of fact hearing. We have hard
costs that are expended by the county in order to prosecute this case
here.
MR. KELLY: So we've got to file a lien, it's going to be
recorded publicly; it will come up on their credit reports if anyone
pulls a public records search for $74.65.
MR. LARSEN: Unless they pay it today.
MS. WALDRON: Unless they pay it.
MR. KELLY: Sorry.
MR. LARSEN: Do you understand?
MR. LOUISSAINT: Yes, sir.
MR. LARSEN: Well, the motion hasn't been voted on yet.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Hasn't been -- has a second --
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Yes, I seconded it.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But we're in discussion. It's been
seconded. But we're in discussion phase right now.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Are you in a position to pay the $74.65?
MR. LOUIS SAINT: Yes, sir.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: So it's not imposed as a --
MR. LOUISSAINT: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. It's not a lien.
MR. KELLY: Perhaps, you know, if they do show up in these
cases in the future, we can maybe pull them aside and get that paid for
so --
MS. WALDRON: Yes, sir.
Page 87
November 19,2009
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right. We have a motion,
second.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. KELL Y: There is further discussion. Real quick. How
soon can you pay it? Can you pay it like right now?
MR. LOUISSAINT: Right now.
MR. KELLY: Well, then we don't need it. If they pay it right
now --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, we need to -- we need to make
a motion to abate.
MR. DEAN: We've got to put on the thousand dollars.
MR. KELLY: But the motion was to abate it but to charge the
$74.65.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Which still has to be paid, so I think it's
appropriate to proceed.
MR. KELLY: Right. He'll pay it right now, then we won't need
it at all.
MR. WALKER: I'd like to say something, if I could, please.
Upon coming to this hearing, he was prepared to pay the operational
costs. I had instructed him to wait till afterwards. So he would have
technically had them paid before this hearing, which means that there
wouldn't --
MR. LARSEN: Right. I'll modify my motion. Basically my
motion is now as follows: That we abate the $1,000 predicated upon
the payment of$74.65 before the end of the proceedings today.
Should the $74.65 be paid, the $1,000 will be abated, and no
imposition of lien will be filed.
MS. RAWSON: Actually, if that happens and we know that
before we leave today, we don't need any order.
MS. WALDRON: Well, we do need an order saying the fines
Page 88
November 19,2009
were abated.
MR. KELLY: Right.
MS. RAWSON: Okay.
MR. KAUFMAN: And I modify my second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll modify my second; I'll co-second it
with you, Mr. Kaufman.
MR. DEAN: You amend the motion.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll amend it, yes.
MR. DEAN: Amend the motion is easier.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. LAVINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MR. WALKER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right. That was harder than it
should have been.
MR. KAUFMAN: So the additional cost is for the coffee.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I think this is the last hearing, which
is Alberto and Franco (sic) --
MR. ORTEGA: Mr. Chairman, although the respondents don't
seem to be here, I have a conflict with this case, so -- but as an
alternate, I won't be voting anyways, so --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- and Leon. Does he have to file?
MR. LARSEN: Yeah, I think he still needs to fill out the
Page 89
November 19,2009
requisite form.
MS. RAWSON: I'll give him the form.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And can you just state the reason?
MR. ORTEGA: Yes. Originally when this case started, it had to
do with a contractor taking half the money or most of the money, and
they were left in left field, so we were trying to help them.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. If that's correct,
you have to state for the record, Jean?
MS. RAWSON: Yes, he needs to fill this out.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: For the record.
MS. RAWSON: And I'll leave it with the court reporter.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of Collier
County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Article II, Florida Building Code,
Section 22-26(b)(1 04.5.1.4(4).
Location of violation: 5348 18th Court Southwest, Naples,
Florida, folio number 36246760000.
Description of violation: Permits expired for addition on house,
garage conversion, and shed.
On June 25,2009, 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 4470 PG 2685 for more information.
The respondent has not complied with the Code Enforcement
Board orders as of November 19,2009.
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 October 26,
2009, to November 19, 2009, 24 days, for the total of $4,800. Fines
continue to accrue.
Operational costs of $87 have not been paid. Additional
Page 90
November 19,2009
operation costs of $72.70 have incurred for the imposition of fines
hearing.
The county's recommendation is to issue an order imposing a lien
in the amount of$4,959.70.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Has there been any contact with the
owner, respondent?
MR. RENALD: Yes, I did speak with the respondent the other
day. Still same issue as last time, financial issues. They can't afford
to fix this problem. This is a very expensive problem that they have,
and they're still trying to come up with funds to take care of this.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Did they have any time frame?
MR. RENALD: No. They don't know when they'll be able to fix
this problem.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay.
MR. DEAN: Just one question. The addition on the house and
the garage conversion and shed, has that all been completed?
MR. RENALD: No, it hasn't. The garage conversion has not
been completed, and the addition that's to the rear of the property
hasn't been completed. It's like a big opening in the back of the house
because the job was not finished. So, you know, they're just sitting in
that situation.
MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that we impose the
lien amount.
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. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LARSEN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
Page 91
November 19,2009
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MR. RENALD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do we have any new business?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Any -- well, reports? We
have that one report with the foreclosures which is part of the consent
agenda.
Comments? Oh, sorry.
MS. FLAGG: It's okay.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What do we -- is this under
comments or is this new business?
MS. FLAGG: No, this is actually under reports.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Reports, all right.
MS. FLAGG: Under reports, the Blight Prevention Program is
now officially one year old. And also as of the one-year mark, the
banks, there's -- we're working with over 80 banks to abate code
violations. The banks have now expended over a million dollars in
Collier County to abate code violations even though they don't have
certificate of title to the property yet, so they're abating these
violations in the lis pendens, and as of the one-year mark, 600 -- the
banks have abated 695 code violations.
In addition, just to give you kind of an update on where the
department is at, we continue to receive approximately 140 new cases
every week. The investigators are closing approximately 100 cases
every week with voluntarily compliance.
The lien work that we're doing, the searching of the code cases,
determining whether there's a lien helping people assure that they
Page 92
November 19,2009
don't buy properties with liens on them or with code cases on them
without knowing about it, we're doing about 146 searches a week for
community members, which brings me to the -- we have now
formalized two new services to the community, which is the brochure
that I've given you, so these services are the code property inspection
and the code and lien search.
So a community member -- this is on the code enforcement
website, and these brochures are also being distributed to community
members. Basically titled, thinking of buying a home or investment
property. This is a brochure that tells perspective buyers of these
services that are available to them to assure that they don't buy a
property.
You had several cases here where they had purchased properties
and had no idea that there were prior code violations and cases on
them. So this lets them know up front that they have some options to
gets that -- to find that information before they actually invest their
money to buy a piece of property.
In addition, this past week, we had our first training session of
approximately 30 home inspectors. We provided training, because
we're trying to also encourage the private market solution besides just
having code do the inspections.
These 30 home inspectors were trained on how to search for the
zoning and permit information to determine if there's code violations
with the goal being that they will incorporate this review into their
home inspection.
We're working with Naples Area Board of Realtors to get this
information out and also the home inspection associations. Home
inspectors currently in the State of Florida are not required to be
licensed at this point; however, the state statute did change, and
effective July of 20 10, home inspectors will require licensure.
So we're trying to get ahead of this and providing the information
to our community to let them know that they need to take advantage
Page 93
November 19, 2009
of having a code property inspection done before they buy something
and also a lien search done to know whether or not there's any current
open code cases or liens on the property before they actually invest
their money to purchase it.
In addition, the -- just as another clarification, there are actually
four opportunities for a community member not to have to pay fines.
The first opportunity is that -- if they receive a Notice of Violation by
the investigator to abate before the time line set.
The next opportunity is to abate when there's a hearing before the
Code Enforcement Board. The next opportunity is to come into
compliance at the time of the imposition of lien.
The fourth opportunity is, if the Code Enforcement Board
imposes a lien and, let's say, in the last case, 188,000 lien because it's
been in noncompliance for two years, then at a later date if they come
into compliance, then they can request and we will take it to the BCC
advising they are in compliance and request that the BCC waive the
fines.
So there are multiple opportunities for our community members
not to incur any fines. We help them do that. The goal is compliance.
At that point that they come into compliance, then we work with them
on the fines.
The purpose of a lien is we're trying to assure that the banks do
not pass on these properties with open code violations. And banks do
check -- when they have to sell a property, someone's coming in and
buying, they do check whether there's a lien. That does show up, and
they see that. Sometimes if there's only an order but a lien hasn't been
imposed, the bank has passed on that property to a buyer that wasn't
aware of it because they didn't get a lien search done.
When they go to a title company, they will typically search for a
lien. So if a lien has been imposed, that is going to show up; but if the
lien has not been imposed, then that new buyer may get caught off
guard by an order having being entered, and they're going to be
Page 94
November 19,2009
responsible for that code case and those fines that have accrued until
they come into compliance.
So that's the other reason we're doing this search for the
community members, and we're also getting this information out to the
Naples Area Board of Realtors to let folks know that they have -- for
$25, they can find out if there's anything going on with their property
before they actually invest their hard-earned money into purchasing it.
MR. KELLY: Quick question. The $25. That's only ifthere
was an existing violation, correct?
MS. FLAGG: We search everything for them. We search
whether there is a citation on the property; we search if there's a case
open on the property; we search if there's been a hearing, if there's
been an order issued. We do a complete search for $25, and they get it
in two days or less.
MR. KELLY: And what about a house? Let's say, for instance,
someone was looking to buy and they call in one of the home
inspectors who have been through your training. That inspector is
able to look for code violations; for instance, maybe someone
converted a garage into a living area without permits. That
investigator, is he -- does he have access, let's say, for instance, CD
Plus to see if there was ever permits pulled?
MS. FLAGG: What they did is they trained them on how to
access the information and what they needed to look for, so, yes. And
our goal is to help the home inspector. Our goal is to ultimately help
the community that, before they invest their hard-earned money, make
sure that they understand what they're facing on that particular piece
of property.
MR. KELL Y: Is a list of the approved home inspectors
somewhere on the site, or is there a way to --
MS. FLAGG: There is no approved list of home inspectors.
These are just 30 individuals that voluntarily chose to attend the
training to learn how to do it.
Page 95
November 19,2009
What the community members need to understand is, when they
decide to employ a home inspector, they need to be very specific in
their questioning saying, do you know how to do a code property
inspection, not just whether the faucets turn on and off or there's a
leak, but do you know how to do a code property inspection. If the
answer is yes, they should get included in their home inspection report
specificity in terms of permitting, that there are no unpermitted
structures on the property and that the property is properly zoned for
what they intend to use it -- if you-all will remember that one case
where the couple expended over $800,000, purchased a piece of
property with the intent of it being a rental piece of property, to come
to find out that it was in a zoning that did not permit rentals, and on
top of that, the properties had not -- they had been built but not
permitted.
So that couple lost the 800,000 that they'd invested, lost the
300,000 that they had spent to improve the properties, and ended up
having to declare bankruptcy.
MR. DEAN: One comment. It's nice, like you said, July 1st in
2010 they'll be licensed, and I know other states have this. And you
certainly, Diane, should be commended for your steps and the things
you've done, because I see how a lot of people work, how they get
hurt, it goes with the land, they buy the property and then they're
stuck. So you've certainly done a lot. And this is really a giant step for
Collier County and code enforcement, what you've done. So I'd say
thank you very much. You're really helping the community.
MS. FLAGG: Well, thanks, and it's a large team. I mean, there's
50 members of the code enforcement team, and they're all working
very hard, because their goal is compliance. They want to help.
This is also -- this information is on the code enforcement
website, as is a lot of other information, such as community resources.
If they go to the Colliergov.net website, click on the Code
Enforcement Department, they will find information on where to -- for
Page 96
November 19, 2009
food banks, for the sheriff, Florida food program, for medical
assistance, for transportation assistance, for foreclosure assistance, and
it will take them to other websites. So it's pretty much of a
comprehensive approach to what we're facing as a community in
trying to assist them.
I will also tell you one other thing, which we have a workshop.
The Collier County Foreclosure Task Force has a workshop coming
up with the board in January, and we will be talking about a lot of
components of the foreclosure crisis that's not only affected our nation
but also our community.
And one of the things that we'll be covering is what's next. And I
know that community members are reading a lot about, the recession
is over. I will tell you that there's another shoe that's yet going to
drop, and that shoe is the commercial properties.
So the first shoe was the residential properties and the
foreclosures occurring with the residential properties. What we're
beginning to see now are the commercial properties, and whereas the
residential property was 80,000 to 2 or 3 million, the commercial
properties are ten, 20, 30,40 million. So when commercial properties
start to fail, the bank holding the note on that commercial property is
also going to be affected.
And you have seen banks continuing to fail, being taken over, or
FDIC coming in. And I will tell you, the next shoe for Collier County
is the commercial properties.
MR. KAUFMAN: There's also a form that's being -- the wording
on the form is being finalized at NABOR to include in the package on
all sales that references --
MS. FLAGG: To get this.
MR. KAUFMAN: -- this information.
MR. KELL Y: You've spoken like a true leader deflecting Mr.
Dean's compliment, but I want to thank you, Director Flagg, directly
for your work.
Page 97
November 19,2009
MS. FLAGG: Thank you.
MR. KELL Y: I do have one quick point. The second to the last
case that we had on their imposition of fines, they had that new second
round of op. costs that are put in to bring them in front of us for the
hearing to impose fines.
Is there any way that the respondents can be notified ahead of
time that it sits favorably with the board if those new costs are also
paid along with the original op. costs?
MS. FLAGG: The investigators are certainly informing the
respondents of that, and we'll do a double effort with that. I think
what you're seeing is the investigators are working very closely with
respondents. Their goal is, as is their new mission statement, they're
only after compliance. That's what they're trying to do. And they'll
do whatever they can do to assist them in reaching compliance.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Under comments, I just want to
welcome Jean back to the board.
MS. RAWSON: Well, thank you. Thanks for my little vacation.
MR. KAUFMAN: Do you want to vote on that?
MS. RAWSON: I'm delighted to be back.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And just wish everybody Happy
Holidays, Thanksgiving, and New Year's and so forth, so --
MR. DEAN: Happy Thanksgiving, Merry Christmas.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And--
MR. DEAN: And see you January 28th unless the workshop
doesn't have a date yet.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The workshop will be for who?
MR. LARSEN: That would be in front of the Board of County
Commissioners.
MS. FLAGG: Right. The workshop is for the Board of County
Commissioners with the foreclosure team.
MR. DEAN: I can watch it on TV, I see.
MR. KELLY: When is it?
Page 98
November 19,2009
MS. FLAGG: January 27th. Hang on. I'll get it.
MR. DEAN: Day before our meeting.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That would be two days before our
meeting.
MR. DEAN: The twenty-eighth.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Ours is the 28th.
MR. LARSEN: Just to be clear, that's a workshop that has
nothing to do with this advisory panel, right?
MS. FLAGG: The workshop is with the Board of County
Commissioners and the Foreclosure Task Force. The foreclosure--
there's multiple task forces, so I don't want to confuse you.
We have the community task forces that the code enforcement
investigators work with the Sheriffs Office and the other community
members to address neighborhood issues. Then we have the Collier
County Foreclosure Task Force, which is comprised of the
professionals within the community in the legal profession, the real
estate profession, code enforcement, the Sheriffs Office, and that's
kind of a bigger picture task force, and it was initially started to see
what we could do from a pro bono standpoint, because you have a lot
of folks involved that are not being compensated for their time to help
community members through the foreclosure process that they're
facing.
There was recently, what you probably saw advertised, a
foreclosure workshop at Gulf Coast High School. It was attended by
about, Mr. Larsen, 200 folks?
MR. LARSEN: Over 200 people. I'd like to commend the code
enforcement and their director for their attendance and their
participation on the foreclosure task force, because it has resulted in
assistance being given to the poorest of the poor of Collier County,
and actually we've had people come over from the east coast as well
as Hendry County, Lee County, Charlotte, Sarasota, Glades, so it's -- it
was pretty well attended, and the code enforcement people do a great
Page 99
November 19,2009
job at those functions as well, because everybody has a question for
code enforcement.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions?
MR. LARSEN: Motion to adjourn.
MR. DEAN: Second.
MR. KELLY: Oh, I need an excused absence for the next month.
I won't be in town.
MR. DEAN: Second.
MS. FLAGG: Okay. And let me clarify, too. That workshop
with the Board of County Commissioners is January 27th at one p.m.
in the boardroom.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor?
MS. RAWSON: And our next meeting is here, too, as well.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All in favor?
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. LARSON: Aye.
MR. KELL Y: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. LAVINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I didn't think so.
Page 100
November 19,2009
******
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:01 p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY CODE
ENFORCEMENT BOARD
GERALD LEFEBVRE, Chairman
These minutes approved by the board on
presented or as corrected
as
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES, INe., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 10 1
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
LAST NAME-FIRST NAME,~tDOLE NAME
OIZ-~~ WGI-,.,./V'=
M(YJ~~OA~~ I q (,
CITY I
..&- "" k.
COUN
c:.. ~ ~
NA..\1E OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMM1TIEE
C,G.f3.. CG.:sD "Z=o <:=-'eo> J';Z 1=1
THE BOARD. COUNCil. COMMISSION. AUTHORITY OR COMMmEE ON
WHICH 1 SERVE IS A l,(NIT OF:
o CITY "s COUNTY 0 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
NAME OF POLITlCAL SUBDIVISION:
DATE ON
II
....""-"
V"'~b .
MY POSITlON IS:
\ ELECTIVE
o APPOINTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 88
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council,
commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a, voting
conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before
completing the reverse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143; FLORIDA STATUTES
A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local oHicer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea.
sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he orshe is retained (including the
parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or
to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or
163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one~acre, one.vate basis are not prohibited from voting in that
capacity.
For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father~in-law,
mother-in~law, son-in-law, and daughter-in~law. A "business associate~ means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business
enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation
are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange).
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you
are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min-
utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you
must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made
by you or at your direction.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO tNFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
TAKEN:
. You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the
minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side)
PAGE'
r.F FClRM 88. REV. 1/98
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
. You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes, A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the
agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
';/I:=D 'A/1Ll1 C. O/Z-JGi..6 ~"=>l/6-,-"bl7i.- IJ
I, ?2CtL..Ic.:. . hereby disclose that on
"2"'='='1
,~_:
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
inured to my special private gain or loss:
inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate,
inured to the special gain or loss of my relative,
inured to the special gain or loss of
whom I am retained; or
, by
inured to the special gain or loss of
, which
is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows:
c =~r-C, v / I/;-o~h~j /) -1"
~
c_ (1,.,LL
/I /1 <J 1(0)
Dale File~ /
-~*I (lli"'Ck",l(GG8)
Signature
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES 9112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT~
REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A
CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000
CE FORM 88 . REV. 1198
PAGE 2