CEB Minutes 02/25/2010 R
February 25, 2010
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
Naples, Florida
February 25,2010
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the County Code Enforcement
Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in
Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with
the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Gerald Lefebvre
Larry Dean
Tony Marino (Alternate)
Kenneth Kelly
Lionel L'Esperance
Robert Kaufman
James Lavinski
Ron Doino (Alternate)
ALSO PRESENT:
Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board
Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director
Jen Waldron, Code Enforcement Supervisor
Page 1
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
Date: February 25, 2010, at 9:00 a.m.
Location: 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Bnilding F, Naples, FL 34104
NOTICE: THE RESPONDENT MAYBE LIMITED 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 ORDER AND SPEAK ONE AT A TIME SO THAT THE COURT REPORTER CAN RECORD
ALL STATEMENTS BEING MADE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF
THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A
VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER
COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING
THIS RECORD.
I. ROLL CALL
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES-
A. January 28, 2010 Hearing
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS
A. MOTIONS
Motion for Extension of Time
1. Sara Barrera
CESD20080005775
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:
2003031014
GEORGE B & KAREN T DELPORTO
INVESTIGATOR JAMES SEABASTY
91-102, AS AMENDED, SECTlON(S) 1.5.6, 1.8.7, 1.9.2,2.1.11,2.1.15 PAR. 1,2.2.10.2.2,
2.6.21.2.3,2.7.6 PAR'S 1,2,3 & 5 & SECTION 3.3.11 WOODEN DECK/DOCK COMBINATION
APPROXIMA TEL Y 16 FT. BY 20 FT WITH ELECTRIC EXTENDING FROM THE BACK OF
THE MOBILE HOME, PARTIALLY INTO THE CANAL
01208000005
102 EGRET LANE PLANTATION ISLAND, FL
CEVR20080000441
RE INVESTMENTS LLC.
INVESTIGATOR SUSAN O'FARRELL
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION
3.05.01 B VEGETATION REMOVAL, PROTECTION, AND PRESERVATION VEGETATION
REMOVED FROM PROPERTY WITHOUT OBTAINING THE PROPER COLLIER COUNTY
PERMITS
41882320006
6121 SHADY OAKS LANE NAPLES, FL
CESD20090011176
FIDEL JR, & ESPERANZA AL VIAR
INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ
FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2004 EDITION, CHAPTER I, PERMITS, SECTION 105.1
A ROOF, CARPORT AND STORAGE ROOM ERECTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A
COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT
00062920005
1312 CHRISTIAN TERRACE EXTENSION lMMOKALEE, FL
CESD20090009468
ERICK PONCE & ANITA GARZA
INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ
COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LA WS, CHAPTER 22 BUILDING AND BUILDING
REGULATIONS, ARTICLE II, FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, ADOPTION AND
AMENDMENT OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, SECTION 22-26(b)(106.I .2) &
22-26(b)(104.1.3.5) A STRUCTURE- TIKI HUT AND FENCE BUILT AND INSTALLED
WITHOUT A PERMIT
51677514428
1287 ALLEGIANCE WAY IMMOKALEE, 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:
8.
CASE NO:
OWNER:
OFFICER:
VIOLATIONS:
FOLIO:
VIOLATION
ADDRESS:
CEVR20080016165
ALAN & MARGARET VINCENT
INVESTIGATOR SUSAN O'F ARRELL
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT, 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 3.05.08 C
OBSERVED MELELEUCA AND BRAZILIAN PEPPER ON SUBJECT PROPERTY
38450321000
7020 SABLE RIDGE LANE NAPLES, FL
CESD20090014845
FELIX & GUADALUPE ALVARADO
INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ
FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2004, CHAPTER 1, PERMITS, SECTION 105.1
A METAL CARPORT ERECTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A COLLIER COUNTY
BUILDING PERMIT.
00055000000
4810 MYERS RD. IMMOKALEE, FL
2006100546
CHARLES H FREEMAN
INVESTIGATOR SUSAN O'FARRELL
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION
3.05.01 B VEGETATION REMOVAL, PROTECTION, AND PRESERVATION. CLEARING
IN EXCESS OF ONE ACRE WITHOUT PERMIT
37641240001
2860 glH ST. NW NAPLES, FL
CESD20080015112
MARIE L. GILOT
INVESTIGATOR WELDON WALKER
COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22, BUILDINGS AND BUILDING
REGULATIONS, ARTICLE II, FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, ADOPTION AND AMENDMENT
OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, SECTION 22-26(b)(104.1.3.5). CONSTRUCTION!
REMODELING BEING DONE TO MAIN HOUSE AND SHED ON PROPERTY WITHOUT
PERMITS
75212240007
1707 6TH A VENUE IMMOKALEE, FL
9.
CASE NO:
OWNER:
OFFICER:
VIOLATIONS:
FOLIO:
VIOLATION
ADDRESS:
10.
CASE NO:
OWNER:
OFFICER:
VIOLATIONS:
FOLIO:
VIOLATION
ADDRESS:
11.
CASE NO:
OWNER:
OFFICER:
VIOLATIONS:
FOLIO:
VIOLATION
ADDRESS:
5. OLD BUSINESS
CELU20090010964
TEAK WOOD FARMS, LLC.
INVESTIGATOR JOSE LUIS CANO
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 2.02.03
ILLEGAL OPERATION OF A HORSE TRAINING AND BOARDING ON THE ESTATES
ZONED PROPERTY.
41832000004
4840 TEAK WOOD DR. NAPLES, FL
CESD20090010456
DAVID & JUANA CARRILLO
INVESTIGATOR WELDON WALKER
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION
1O.02.06(B)(I)(a). OBSERVED 2 STRUCTURES NOT PERMITTED
51040120009
12071MMOKALEE DR. IMMOKALEE, FL
2007100985
DUANE S & FLEETA K WHEELER
INVESTIGATOR WELDON WALKER
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTIONS
10.02.06(B)(1)(a); 10.02.06(B)(l)(e); 10.02.06(B)(I)(e)(i). NO COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS
WORK CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO REMODELING OF WINDOWS, FLOOR,
INTERIOR/EXTERIOR WALLS, ELECTRIC, PLUMBING, TRENCH DUG AND FILLED IN
FROM HOUSE TO THE WATER MAIN
00123240006
119 HANCOCK STREET IMMOKALEE, FL
A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens
1.
CASE NO:
OWNER:
OFFICER:
VIOLATIONS:
FOLIO NO:
VIOLATION
ADDRESS:
CESD20080014486
CLYDE & SUSAN BRYAN
INVESTIGATOR AZURE SORRELS
COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LA WS, CHAPTER 22, BUILDINGS AND BUILDING
REGULATIONS ARTICLE II, FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, ADOPTION AND AMENDMENT
OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, SECTIONS 22-26(b)(104.1.3.5) AND 22-26(b)(1 06. 1.2)
& COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE, 04-41, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AS
AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). UNPERMITTED ENCLOSURE OF CARPORT
TO INCLUDE DECKING AND SCREENING
60583200008
54 MOREHEAD MANOR NAPLES, FL
2.
CASE NO:
OWNER:
OFFICER:
VIOLATIONS:
FOLIO:
VIOLATION
ADDRESS:
3.
CASE NO
OWNER:
OFFICER:
VIOLATIONS:
FOLIO:
VIOLATION
ADDRESS:
4.
CASE NO.
OWNER:
OFFICER:
VIOLATIONS:
FOLIO:
VIOLATION
ADDRESS:
CEVR20080014785
SOUTHERN DEVELOPMENT CO. INC.
INVESTIGATOR SUSAN O'FARRELL
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AS AMENDED, SECTION 4.06.05(1)(2)
PROPERTY HAS FALLEN BELOW REQUIRED LANDSCAPE STANDARDS SET BY
APPROVED SDPA 2007-AR-11210
00726000009
13245 T AMIAMI TRAIL EAST NAPLES, FL
2007110592
AHMET & MELISSA F. CELIK
INVESTIGATOR SUSAN O'FARRELL
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE, 04-41, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AS
AMENDED, SECTION 305.01. PROPERTY HAS BEEN MECHANICALLY CLEARED IN
EXCESS OF I ACRE WITHOUT REQUIRED PERMITS AND A BERM WAS CREATED
WITH THE ADDITION OF FILL
45970600003
1645 ]7TII ST. S.W. NAPLES, FL
CEVR20090000974
DALE & KERI ANN OCHS & RIDHARD & JEANE EN NORTON
INVESTIGATOR SUSAN O'FARRELL
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE, 04-41, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AS
AMENDED, SECTION 3.05.01 B, VEGETATION REMOVAL, PROTECTION AND
PRESERVATION. CLEARING OF NATIVE VEGETATION WITHOUT A PERMIT
01138800003
BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL PARK
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 Ollice as Referenced in Submitted Executive
Summary.
8. REPORTS
9. COMMENTS
10. NEXT MEETING DATE - March 25, 2010
11. ADJOURN
February 25, 2010
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement
Board of Collier County meeting to order, February, 25, 2010.
The respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case
presentation, unless additional time is granted by the board.
Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to
five minutes, unless the time is adjusted by the Chairman.
All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to
observe Robert's Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that the
court reporter can record all statements being made.
Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will
need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore may
need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,
which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code
Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record.
And I'd like to introduce our new member, Ron Doino. Thank
you very much for coming on board,
And we have, let me see, three -- we have not quite a full board,
so the one alternate will be voting, and the other will not, correct?
MS. RAWSON: Right. The alternate -- I won't say the oldest,
the one who's been here the longest.
MR. MORINO: Probably the oldest.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay.
And if I can have the agenda changes, please -- or roll call first.
MS. WALDRON: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre?
MR. LEFEBVRE: Here.
MS. WALDRON: Mr. Larry Dean?
MR. DEAN: Here.
MS. WALDRON: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance?
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here.
MS. WALDRON: Mr. Ron Doino?
MR. DOINO: Here.
Page 2
February 25, 2010
MS. WALDRON: Mr. James Lavinski?
MR. LA VINSKI: Here.
MS. WALDRON: Mr. Robert Kaufman?
MR. KAUFMAN: Here.
MS. WALDRON: And Mr. Tony Morino?
MR. MORINO: Here.
MS. WALDRON: And Mr. Ken Kelly? I'm sorry.
MR. KELLY: That's all right. I'm here. Barely.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Changes to the agenda, please.
MS. WALDRON: Under letter A, motions, we do have two
additions for motion for extension of time. The second one will be
Lisa Dasher, Case CESD20090002945.
And we will be moving item number four from imposition of
fines under motion for extension of time. This will be number three,
Dale and Keri Ann Ochs, and Richard and Jeaneen Norton. Case
CEVR20090000974.
Under stipulations, we have five stipulations. The first will be
item number 10 from hearings, Case CESD200900 1 0456, David and
Juana Carrillo.
Number four from hearings, Case CESD20090009468, Erick
Ponce and Anita Garza.
Number 11 from hearings, Case 2007100985, Duane S. and
Fleeta K. Wheeler.
Number three from hearings, Case CESD20090011176, Fidel
and Esperanza Alviar, Jr.
And number six from hearings, Case CESD20090014845, Felix
and Guadalupe Alvarado.
Under letter C, hearings, number one, Case 2003031014, George
B. and Karen T. Delporto, has been withdrawn.
Number two, Case No. CEVR20080000441, RE Investments
LLC, has been withdrawn.
And that is all the changes that I have.
Page 3
February 25, 2010
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Great. Do I hear a motion to
approve the agenda?
MR. DEAN: Motion to approve the agenda.
MR. KELL Y: Chairman, before you vote on that, I have a
conflict on the items that we're sending to the County Attorney, which
would then become part of the consent agenda. And if! vote on this,
I'd be in conflict. So I need to re-cuse myself for the vote because of
that conflict.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you need to --
MR. KELLY: Fill out that handy-dandy form.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And also, does he have to state on
record why there's a conflict?
MS. RAWSON: I'm going to give him a form to fill out that's
going to become a part of the record. Because after he fills it out, I'll
give it to the court reporter.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good.
And do I have a motion to approve the agenda?
MR. DEAN: I make the motion to approve the agenda.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. KAUFMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MORINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And there's one that has re-cused
Page 4
February 25, 2010
himself. Ken Kelly has re-cused himself.
Approval of the minutes for the January 28th, 2010 hearing. Do I
hear a motion?
MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion we approve the minutes.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MORINO: Aye.
MR. LAVINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MR. KELLY: One abstention.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And we'll start off with the public
hearings. Motion for extension of time. Sara Barrera?
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You're looking for an extension of
time?
MS. BARRERA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you bring the mic. closer to
you, or down?
MS. BARRERA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. And can you explain why
you're looking for an extension of time?
MS. BARRERA: Because some of the people that were laid off.
MR. BARRERA: Melissa Zone.
Page 5
February 25,2010
MS. BARRERA: Melissa Zone was laid off. So--
MR. BARRERA: If you don't mind.
Melissa Zone was laid off, so the lady who took over the case,
which was Nancy Gundlach, she was the one that request this for
another extension, because she wasn't ready.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And that's the lady in the county, is
that what you're talking about?
MR. BARRERA: Yes.
MS. BARRERA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, the person that you've been
working with to get this corrected?
MR. BARRERA: Yes.
MS. BARRERA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. And also in your letter it
states that you're going for a variance on April 3rd; is that correct? Is
that yours?
MR. BARRERA: Yes, sir, April 3rd.
MS. RODRIGUEZ: That was for the zoning department,
Melissa. Because they're asking for a variance.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right.
So they're looking for a variance and then once they have the
variance then the case will be resolved at that point?
MS. RODRIGUEZ: Correct.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Why would you -- I'm not sure
about the 365 days, because the hearing is a little over a month and
then BCC approving it a few months after that. 365 days seems like a
lot, but -- any questions of the board?
MR. L'ESPERANCE: What's the county recommendation?
MS. RODRIGUEZ: Well, we recommended the 12 -- or 365
days was because they'll have the last meeting in June. Then they'll
have to put the permit in, get it approved through the county, call all
the inspections and then C.O. it. So we figured 365 days would be
Page 6
February 25, 2010
more than enough.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: I have another question for the county.
Are there any public safety, health or welfare issues we should know
about?
MS. RODRIGUEZ: No. The last hearing that we came to, or the
very first one, they were told that nobody could live in it until it was
C.O.'d. So no one's living in that room. It's just there.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Are we certain about that?
MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you.
MR. KAUFMAN: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes.
MR. KAUFMAN: Was the $86.71 paid?
MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, it was.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion?
MR. KELLY: I'll make a motion that we grant the extension of
time, 365 days.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MORINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
Page 7
February 25, 2010
Nay.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You're all set. You have 300 and --
well, hopefully you'll get the variance, but you have 365 days to
correct any issues you have with your property.
MS. BARRERA: All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Have a great day.
MS. BARRERA: You, too.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next one will be Lisa Dasher.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Please state your name.
MS. DASHER: Lisa Dasher.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you're looking for an extension
of time for --
MS. DASHER: Yes, I am.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- for 120 days.
And looking at your letter, it states that you're having a problem
with your engineer?
MS. DASHER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What are you doing I guess to
basically correct it and get this fixed within 120 days?
MS. DASHER: Well, I just recently found out that he's working
on a home in Immokalee just last week. I had no idea where he was
at, couldn't contact him, wasn't answering phones or anything. And I
had already paid him money. So I've been checking on the house that
he's built and I haven't found him yet. But hopefully soon.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Well, I'm just looking to see
what has to be done.
Any questions of the board?
(No response.)
MR. KAUFMAN: I have one question.
Do you think -- I mean, he's missing. Is there somebody else that
can step up and take over, should you not be able to find him?
Page 8
February 25, 2010
MS. DASHER: That's what I'm going to look into. Because I
don't think I can.
MR. KAUFMAN: So I just question why 120 days and not 90
days.
Does the county have anything to add to this?
MS. RODRIGUEZ: The engineer that he hired sometimes
disappears. He is from lmmokalee. And I have worked with him with
prior cases, and he's got this history of taking forever. He does come
through, I mean, even though sometimes they do come to court.
And I gave her -- I said yes to 120 days because I figured that in
120 days she could get the permit. Because I'm assuming it's all
finished. She already paid him. She's just waiting for him to give her
the blueprints.
MR. KAUFMAN: And I'll ask my Lionel question, is there any
safety and health issues there?
MS. RODRIGUEZ: No, there's not. It's just a carport.
MR. KAUFMAN: Then I make a motion that we grant the 120
days extension.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MORINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
Page 9
February 25, 2010
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MS. DASHER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You have another 120 days.
MS. DASHER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And the next one will be Dale and
Keri Ochs.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: State your name for the record,
please.
MR. OCHS: Dale Ochs.
MR. NORTON: Richard Ochs -- or Richard Norton.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And is this the property that is in a
park, national park, and I guess there was land cleared. Was that the
one?
MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. For the record, Susan O'Farrell, Collier
County Code Enforcement Environmental Investigator.
This refers to the case that's part of the Big Cypress National
Park.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Correct, I remember this case.
And reasoning for an extension?
MR.OCHS: We're dealing with Brian Coleman with the
department -- state department, and he's going -- they're going to buy
it from us, I believe.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. And when is that
antici pated?
MR.OCHS: The next couple of months. He's working on it
already.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So you're looking for a minimum of
120 days?
MR.OCHS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Have you been in contact with Mr.
Coleman?
Page 10
February 25, 2010
MS. O'FARRELL: Yes, Mr. Brian Coleman actually works for
the National Park Service, and they -- the Ochs and the Norton's are
going to convey the property over to the National Park Service as a
way of complying and bringing the property into compliance. And
Mr. Coleman said that he felt that four months would be enough time
in order to do that.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good.
MR. KELLY: Investigator O'Farrell, will the park service then
file the mitigation plan and re-vegetate the property?
MS. O'FARRELL: We'll have to find out from our attorney's
office how they do that. Generally speaking we don't file cases
against the federal government. So that's something that will go to the
county attorney's office for an opinion on that.
MR. KELLY: Okay.
MR. KAUFMAN: I see that the operational costs have not been
paid; is that correct?
MS. O'FARRELL: As far as I know they have not.
MR. KAUFMAN: Is there any reason why they haven't been
paid?
MR. OCHS: Excuse me?
MR. KAUFMAN: Is there any reason why the operational costs
have not been paid?
MR.OCHS: As far as the permits -- or the fines?
MR. KAUFMAN: The fines.
MR. OCHS: Actually, I had moved twice and we didn't know
about that there was a hearing. We missed it. So we finally got in
contact with her and now we're here to try to solve this, so --
MR. KAUFMAN: Does that mean that you're going to be paying
that fine today, or --
MR. OCHS: No.
MR. KAUFMAN: It's $79.72.
MR. OCHS: Oh, yeah, we could pay that.
Page 11
February 25, 2010
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The fine's broken down into two
different sections. One is there's an operational cost which is the cost
of prosecuting the case. The other, the fine is actually a per day cost,
which is $100 a day. Typically we like to see as a board the
operational cost paid within 30 days of a hearing. And obviously that
hasn't been paid, which is the 79.72. So that's what Mr. Kaufman is
talking about.
MR.OCHS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right? And typically we look at
the operational cost being paid before we grant an extension.
MR.OCHS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So with that being said, do you want
to include that in your motion?
MR. KAUFMAN: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Do you want to restate your
MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to approve the time extension, with
the payment today of the operational cost of79.72.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And Jean, would that be acceptable?
MS. RAWSON: Yes. I need to know how long the extension is.
MR. KAUFMAN: You were asking for 90 days, is that --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No, 120.
MR. OCHS: 120.
MR. KAUFMAN: 120.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good. Do I hear a second?
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
Go ahead.
MR. KELLY: I have just a point, because it's not sitting well
with me. So code enforcement finds that the land was cleared, owned
by private residents, and they're forced to file a mitigation plan and re-
vegetate the property with natives or in this case give up your property
Page 12
February 25,2010
to the government, and they're not going to fix it. That doesn't sit well
with me.
I'm not making a political statement, I'm just saying, you know, if
we're taking someone's private property and giving it to the
government, more or less, to get out of this debacle, government
should have to re-vegetate it. And now we're saying Collier County
can't prosecute it any further because we don't file cases against the
government. Which I understand. So it's just -- to me it doesn't sit
well.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: And I believe you're selling the property,
not giving it?
MR. OCHS: In theory, yes. We're not sure what's going on yet.
MS. O'FARRELL: Yes, Brian Coleman is buying the -- they're
going to buy the property.
MR. KELLY: Okay. Well, at least you're compensated then.
MS. FLAGG: Mr. Kelly, I will tell you that we will seek
compliance by the National Park Service.
MR. KELL Y: Great, thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, we have a motion, we have a
second. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MORINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
Page 13
February 25,2010
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Next case --
MS. WALDRON: Mr. Chairman, can we skip down to the
second stipulation? We are trying to get an interpreter for the first
stipulation.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right.
Garza?
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you speak into the microphone,
please.
MR. PONCE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And can you state your name for the
record.
MR. PONCE: Erick Ponce.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And can you state your name for the
record, please?
MS. RODRIGUEZ: Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code
Enforcement.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And Jen, do you want to read the
case?
MS. WALDRON: Stip.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Oh, stip, thank you.
Do we have the stipulation on the screen?
MS. RODRIGUEZ: It is agreed between the parties that the
respondent shall: Pay operational costs in the amount of $82.29
incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing.
Abate all violations by: Must obtain a Collier County building
permit or demolition permit and request required inspections to be
performed and passed through a certificate of completion/occupancy
within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day will be
imposed.
That the respondent must notify code enforcement within 24
Page 14
February 25,2010
hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator
perform a site inspection to confirm compliance.
That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may
abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County
Sheriffs Office to enforce the provision of this agreement, and all
costs of abatement shall be assessed through the property owner.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions of the board?
MR. KAUFMAN: Is that sufficient time for you to get
everything done, the 120 days?
MR. PONCE: Yes, sir.
MR. KAUFMAN: Given that, I make a motion we accept the
stipulation as written.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. LA VINSKI: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MORINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MR. KELLY: Mr. Lavinski.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Whoever is making a motion or
motions, the first and the second, if they can raise their hand.
Next one will be Wheeler. Do we have an interpreter yet?
MS. WALDRON: (Shakes head negatively.)
Page 15
February 25,2010
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And the respondent is not present; is
that correct?
MR. WALKER: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you.
MR. WALKER: Weldon Walker, for the record, Collier County
Code Enforcement Investigator.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you read the stipulation?
MR. WALKER: Yes, sir.
Collier County, Florida, versus Wheeler, Duane, and Fleeta.
Respondents will pay operational costs in the amount of$80.86
incurred in the prosecution of the case within 30 days of the hearing.
They will also abate the violation by: Obtaining a Collier County
building permit, inspections of his or her property located at 119
Hancock Street, Immokalee, Florida, 34142, and a certificate of
completion within 90 days of the hearing or pay a fine of $200 per day
will be imposed until the violation is abated or obtain a Collier County
demolition permit, inspections and certificates of completion within
60 days of the hearing of this -- or a fine of $200 a day will be
imposed until the violation is abated.
If the respondents fail to abate the violation, Collier County may
abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County
Sheriffs Office to enforce the provision of this order.
Respondent must notify Collier County Code Enforcement
within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request that
investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance.
And that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, Collier
County may abate the violation and use all the assistance of the
Collier County Sheriffs (sic) to enforce the provision of the
agreement, and all costs of the abatement shall be assessed to the
property owner. All costs of the abatement shall be assessed to the
property owner, again. Kind of redundant. I think I --
Page 16
February 25, 2010
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So we're going to assess him twice.
MR. WALKER: Yeah.
MR. KAUFMAN: You made your point twice.
MR. WALKER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is there anyone living in this --
MR. WALKER: No, not at this time. The actual property has
received permits. It has been inspected. But the final inspection is the
only one that's -- that needs to be done. And the actual permit had
lapsed, so the contractor had to re-app the permit.
MR. KAUFMAN: This is an old case from back in 2007--
MR. WALKER: Yes.
MR. KAUFMAN: -- that's kind of lingered on, I guess?
MR. WALKER: That's correct. That's correct.
And it was due to the fact that they had actually initially I (sic)
got the permit and extended the permit and there is a lack of funds,
from what Mr. Wheeler has indicated with (sic) me. But he's said now
he's prepared to move forward to get it completed.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: On the statement of violation,
request for hearing, I think there's just a scrivener's error, but date of
re-inspection December 20,2010, that should be 2009.
MR. WALKER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions of the board?
MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion we accept the stipulation as
written, Kaufman.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. LA VINSKI: Second.
MR. DEAN: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I don't know who raised their hand
first.
MR. LA VINSKI: He can have it.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussions?
(No response.)
Page 1 7
February 25, 2010
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MORINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MR. WALKER: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Alviar is the next case.
MS. WALDRON: Esperanza.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What was it?
MS. WALDRON: You had it right.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please?
MR. AL VIAR: Fidel Alviar, Jr.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: State your name, please.
MS. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier
County Code Enforcement.
It is agreed between the parties for the respondent shall (sic):
Pay operational costs in the amount of $80 incurred in the prosecution
of this case within the 30 days of this hearing.
Abate all violations by: Must apply for and obtain a Collier
County building permit for all improvements, the new pitched roof,
the carports and the storage shed, and request required inspections to
be performed and passed through a certificate of
completion/occupancy or a demolition permit and request required
inspections to be performed and passed through a certificate of
completion/occupancy within 180 days of this hearing or a fine of
Page 18
February 25,2010
$100 per day will be imposed.
The respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of
abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site
inspection to confirm compliance.
That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may
abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County
Sheriffs Office to enforce the provision of this agreement, and all
costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right. Any questions of the
board?
MR. KAUFMAN: Is there any electrical involved in this--
MR. AL VIAR: No.
MR. KAUFMAN: -- situation?
MR. AL VIAR: No.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions?
MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion we accept the stipulation as
written.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. LA VINSKI: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MORINO: Aye.
MR. LAVINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
Page 19
February 25,2010
The next case will be Alvarado.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please?
MR. ALVARADO: Felix Alvarado.
MS. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier
County Code Enforcement.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you.
MS. RODRIGUEZ: It is agreed between the parties that the
respondent shall: Pay operational costs in the amount of $80 incurred
in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing.
Abate all violations by: Must apply for and obtain a Collier
County building permit or demolition permit and request required
inspections to be performed and passed through a certificate of
completion/occupancy within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of
$200 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated.
The respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of
abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site
inspection to confirm compliance.
That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may
abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County
Sheriffs Office to enforce the provision of this agreement, and all
costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions from the board?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion?
MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written,
Kaufman.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
Page 20
February 25,2010
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MORINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MR. ALVARADO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You're welcome.
And if I'm not mistaken, that should take care of the stipulated
agreements.
MS. WALDRON: We actually have one additional stipulation
that came in. It's case CE --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Oh, yeah, the interpreter.
MS. WALDRON: And that one as well.
The first one is CELU20090010964, Teak Wood Farm LLC.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion to amend the
agenda?
MR. DEAN: I'll make a motion to amend the agenda.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. LA VINSKI: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
Page 21
February 25, 2010
MR. MORINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please.
MR. NAGY: John Nagy.
MRS. NAGY: Paula Davis Nagy.
MR. CANO: Good morning. This is in reference to case --
THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please.
MR. CANO: I'm sorry. For the record, Louis Cano, Code
Enforcement. C-A-N-O.
It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Pay all
operational costs in the amount of $80.20 incurred with the
prosecution of this case within 30 days.
Abate all violations by: The property owner must cease all
equestrian business at any and all properties other than properties
zoned for such use within seven days of this hearing or a fine of $1 00
a day will be assessed until abatement.
The property owner must remove the website advertising the
equestrian business at the site within seven days of the hearing or a
fine of $1 00 a day will be assessed until abatement.
The respondent must notify the code enforcement within 24
hours of abatement of the violation and request an investigator to
perform a site visit to inspect and confirm compliance.
That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may
abate the violation and may assess the cost -- and may use the
assistance of Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions
of this agreement, and all costs of the abatement shall be assessed to
the property owner.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions of the board?
Page 22
February 25,2010
MR. KAUFMAN: I have one question. On the LLC, are you the
registered agents for that LLC?
MRS. NAGY: No.
MR. NAGY: No, sir.
MR. KAUFMAN: Who are the registered agents for the LLC?
MR. NAGY: The registered agent is Tom Garlick.
MR. KAUFMAN: And has he given you permission to enter into
this agreement?
MR. NAGY: No.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay.
MS. RAWSON: Mr. Garlick is an attorney. And I'm sure he's
their attorney, and that's why he's the registered agent. But I suspect
the violation is probably against these folks.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Are you the owners ofthe property?
MR. NAGY: Yes, sir. Yes. We took the property in an LLC
because at the time we weren't married, you know, and there's a
couple horses out there and we had friends come ride the horses and I
didn't want any liability, so we extended liability, that's all.
MR. KELLY: Question for the investigator.
Is this a non-occupational license issue or is it a zoning issue?
MR. CANO: It's a zoning issue. In order to have a business like
this, they have to have at least 20 acres.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any--
MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion that we accept the stipulation
as written then.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
Page 23
February 25,2010
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MORINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MR. NAGY: Thank you.
MS. WALDRON: We can go ahead and do the translator
stipulation.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good.
Garza, right?
MR. DEAN: Number 10.
(Speakers were duly sworn. Interpreter Fidel Alviar, Jr. was duly
sworn to interpret.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right.
MR. WALKER: For the record, Weldon Walker, Collier County
Code Enforcement Investigator.
Stipulated agreement is with Mr. Carrillo, David and Juana. It's
in reference to building permits.
They agree to pay operational costs --
MS. WALDRON: 80.29.
MR. WALKER: -- 80.29. $80.29 incurred in the prosecution of
this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate all violations by:
Obtaining the valid Collier County building permit for the following
unpermitted structure.
Get all inspections through a certificate of completion within 120
days of the date of this hearing or a fine of $150 a day will be
imposed.
Or obtain a demolition permit with all inspections and certificates
of completion.
Page 24
February 25,2010
And remove unpermitted structure within 120 days of this
hearing or a fine of$150 a day will be imposed.
They must remove such waste to a suitable -- for such disposal.
Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of
abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site
inspection to confirm compliance.
And that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county
may abate the violation and may use the assistance of Collier County
Sheriffs Office to enforce the provision of this agreement, and all
costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What kind of structures are we
talking about?
MR. WALKER: We're talking about there's a main house and
there's an additional house that's towards the rear of the property.
Both structures have been there for some time. And the structure in
the back to the rear of the house is actually a shed that has been -- it's
been converted to living quarters, upstairs and downstairs.
The original home, which is the main structure, has been
converted into a three-family.
So what needs to occur is that it needs to be either permitted or
restored back to its original condition.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So the main house has to be restored
to a single-family dwelling and that the second structure has to be
restored to a shed.
MR. WALKER: Technically, yes. That's what the permit says.
That's what originally was put there. It was a shed.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. Is 120 days enough to do
this? Sounds like -- I mean, I don't want to get into hearing the case,
but basically it sounds like a lot of work. I mean, I would assume that
there's going to have to be plumbing removed and so forth, correct?
MR. WALKER: Quite possibly.
MR. DEAN: Is anybody living in there now?
Page 25
February 25,2010
MR. WALKER: Yes, it's a three-family. It's been divided into
three families.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Another question. Is it your feeling that
the permit or the zoning would allow multi-family, or do you think
that that will be a route that will be taken, or not?
MR. WALKER: Yes, in that area there's multi-family. The
thing is with this particular structure, it has been that way for a while.
And a lot ofthe structures in Immokalee along Immokalee Drive have
been divided and subdivided and they've been that way for a while.
The actual structure that he has has electrical attached to both
with two different meters. So there's some clarity for him that needs
to occur in reference to what he needs to do.
But the actual property is -- the actual permit for it was for a shed
and the main building was for a single-family home.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Do we have any health or safety
violations, in your mind?
MR. WALKER: I would have to say from my point of
experience, or my vantage point, what I see is not necessarily a health
and safety issue as much as it is -- because it was done -- it wasn't
done -- it was done well. It was put together well. But again, that's
not my expertise. As I look at it from the outside and the inside,
there's nothing that physically gives me the impression that it's a
health and safety issue.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What are your intentions? Are you
going to convert it back to its original structure, back to single-family
and then the shed back to -- or building back to a shed, or do you plan
on going to get permits or keep it as it is?
MR. CARRILLO: As it is, yes. The previous owner, he had his
mother-in-law living there. And it has the meter itself there, electrical
meter. And I want to keep it that way if possible, you know, get the
permits and I'm willing to do whatever it takes, you know, to --
Page 26
February 25,2010
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Have you had an engineer or have
you hired anyone to start this process?
MR. CARRILLO: Not yet. Not yet. And--
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay.
MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question. Is this property one P J.D.
number? Is it one --
MR. WALKER: Portfolio?
MR. KAUFMAN: Yes.
MR. WALKER: Yes, it is.
MR. KAUFMAN: And is that folio zoned for multi-family?
MR. WALKER: Let me refer to this.
MR. KAUFMAN: The reason I ask the question is because if
they go to the county to apply for a permit and it's not zoned properly,
this won't take 120 days, this could take a year. Because then you'd
need to have a variance, et cetera, et cetera. So I guess that's the first
question I have.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: RS -- it says residential
single-family-five is what -- where it says Notice of Violation, zoning
district.
MR. WALKER: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So what does that mean, five units
per acre? What does RSF-5 mean?
MR. WALKER: I can't answer that question at this time. What I
can tell you is is that it is a migrant housing project where migrant
housing people also have -- the migrant housing organization has
approved it for migrant housing.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, that doesn't -- that's not
zoning. If you can introduce yourself and --
MR. SNOW: Sir, if I may, Kitchell Snow, Collier County Code
Enforcement.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You've got to be sworn in also.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
Page 27
February 25,2010
MR. SNOW: It's residential single-family, it's not multi-family.
So it's one family. So that's going to be the zoning for it. He's going
to have to return it back to a single-family home.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That was my question.
MR. SNOW: Okay.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. I think that
answers it.
Do you understand what was stated? That more than likely you
will not be able to keep it in its existing state, keeping it what sounds
like four families, if it's zoned in fact residential single-family one
unit so--
,
MR. KAUFMAN: I would like to see if we could get some
leeway given for the respondent to contact the county and see which
way this goes. Because I don't know if it's a family member that's
living on the property would constitute multi-family. There's two
meters on the property. Given sufficient time to check with the county
and see where that comes out before we start accruing fines to the
property .
MR. WALKER: That's -- I agree with that. That's fine.
MR. KELLY: Again, without hearing the case, and I thank you
both for bringing this up, does LCEC make it a habit to put a meter on
a structure that hasn't been permitted?
MR. WALKER: The interesting thing is is that we see that kind
of thing plenty of times in Immokalee where you have your main
structure, and in this case residential single-family, and they may have
two meters attached to two different structures.
So I mean, it's -- that's probably definitely room to find some real
clarity with regards to what he can and cannot do or what they will or
will not allow.
MR. KELLY: I'm in favor of granting more time.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The two things we're wrangling with
here are, it's an unpermitted structure; it's been there for quite some
Page 28
February 25, 2010
time, there's people living in it. So that kind of leaning towards 120
days may be a lot.
But then on the other hand we have issues that are probably
going to take more than 120 days. So there's conflicting -- for myself,
there's a little bit of a conflict here. I'd like to see it get corrected. But
I -- he's known about this since September of last year and there's been
no -- Notice of Violation was August of last year and there's been no
movement in six plus months in this case, so I'm a little leery to give
too much lead time on this, because I'm afraid that six months from
now we'll be in the same position, or whatever time we decide.
MR. KELLY: Well, just a general point to the board, if this was
not entered into a stipulated agreement and we were to hear this case,
we'd be judging this case on the packet that we'd been presented. In
that packet there's no reference to the original permit or any zoning or
structure diagram or layouts that were given at the time of that original
permit. So how do we know that that structure is in fact allowed, you
know? I mean, there's not a lot of information there.
I'd like to give him some time for clarity. And there are proper
channels to go through. And I can see how the language barrier would
be debilitating for him to continue to --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you suggest a time period?
MR. KELLY: I'm going to confer --
MR. KAUFMAN: I would like to see him granted 90 days just
to contact the county and see which direction they're going in to
whether they need to demolish the other structure or can it somehow
be a variance issue to bring it up to where it could stay the way it is.
And I would think that's sufficient time to get ahold of the county, stay
in contact with Officer Weldon and see where we go. And after 90
days we'd have a better idea of, and you would have a better idea of
what to --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you want to put in -- or change
the stipulated agreement where it says you have 90 days to find out if
Page 29
February 25,2010
it can be permitted, and if it can be then a certain period of time to get
permits and to get it C.O.'d, or after 90 days if it can't be permitted, to
receive a demo permit. That's -- probably break it down into two
different --
MR. KAUFMAN: I think to make things simple, or simpler, that
we grant 90 days somehow -- I know you'd have to withdraw the
stipulation and whatnot. Grant 90 days to do the investigation with
the county as to what can or can't be done. And at that time come
back and see where we are.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, I'd like to -- we're here to
abate the case, not to have it keep on coming back to us. So I'd like to
see 90 days and have some resolution on the county, either go ahead
to have it permitted or to have it demolished and then have a time
period after that to have it demolished or permitted. What's the --
MR. DEAN: My comment I'd like to make is to me it's
single-family, it's zoned that way. If it's multi-family it could be a fire
safety issue. And I still say that yeah, it's been good for a while, but
how well do we know the electrical, the plumbing, everything else?
To me that's a violation. I don't go along with this.
MR. KELLY: Mr. Dean, to clarify that, would you be okay with
the 90 days for the investigation if the investigation comes back that it
has to be single-family then they vacate the property within those 90
days?
MR. DEAN: So those people are going to live there in safety
issue right now?
MR. KELLY: The investigator said it's been there for quite some
time.
MR. DEAN: I understand.
MR. KELL Y: I agree with you, though, there --
MR. DEAN: That just bothers me about all the times you read
about a fire in this state and that state that something was out of code
and people died. And I don't want to be a person that says yeah, it's
Page 30
February 25, 2010
okay to stay another 90 days living in the unit. If they had an
inspector go in there, that would probably make it a lot easier, but
obviously he hasn't done it.
MR. WALKER: And if I can to clarify, my visual assessment
has really limited determination in terms of what can be going on
inside walls or plumbing or anything of that nature. And I can't
suggest that I'm qualified to answer that question.
From a visual standpoint when I look, it has the presentation that
they've been living there and there doesn't appear to be any problems
living.
MS. FLAGG: Mr. Chair, we can withdraw the case and have a
building inspector go out there and inspect the property and in
addition look at the options for these folks.
MR. DEAN: That I'd feel very good about, thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: County withdraws the case then?
MS. FLAGG: (Nods head affirmatively.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We don't need a motion then, do
we?
MS. RAWSON: No.
MR. CARRILLO: Yeah, the reason I'm asking for more time,
you know, because, you know, everybody having problems with
money, you know, and I need money, you know, to do whatever it
takes, you know, get the permits or demolition, whatever, you know.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What the county just did is they're
going to withdraw the case for now and I guess work with you to have
an inspector go out there and take a look at the property. And then at
some future time you may come back in front of us to get this
rectified.
Okay, so you can meet with the county.
Does he need to contact you and set up a time?
MR. WALKER: He can come to my office as early as tomorrow
morning, and I can again make contact for him in reference to an
Page 31
February 25,2010
inspector coming out and maybe performing some kind of assessment
or evaluation of the property.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Maybe before you leave the meeting
maybe you should set up a time for tomorrow that you can meet and
see if you can help him.
MR. WALKER: That would be fine.
MR. MORINO: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Is there
anybody living in the shed?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I think he said the previous owner's
mother.
MR. CARRILLO: Yeah--
MR. MORINO: How do you feel about the people that are living
in the shed now, where does it go?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The case has been withdrawn. So
they're going to meet tomorrow, they're going to set up a time to meet
and they're going to work it out and then possibly come back in front
of us.
MR. MORINO: Thank you.
MR. CARRILLO: Yeah, also the health department from
Immokalee comes every six weeks to check on the place.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All you need to do is talk -- before
you leave today, please set up a time to meet with the investigator
tomorrow and he'll help you out.
MR. CARRILLO: All right.
MR. WALKER: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Have a good day. Thank you.
All right. If I'm not mistaken, we should be moving on to cases
at this point. And the first case will be Ann (sic) and Margaret
Vincent, CEVR200800 16165.
MR. KAUFMAN: Alan and Margaret.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What did I say? Alan, sorry.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
Page 32
February 25,2010
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: State your name for the record,
please.
MS. VINCENT: Margaret Vincent.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you.
You can move -- if you want to, you can move the mic. so it's
closer to you.
MS. VINCENT: If it gets any closer, I'll eat it.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And if you could state your name,
please.
MS. VINCENT: Margaret Vincent.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You already -- Susan?
MS. O'FARRELL: Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were -- for the
record, Susan O'Farrell, Collier County Code Enforcement,
Environmental Specialist.
MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of Ordinance
04-41, Collier County Land Development Code, as amended, Section
3.05.08.C.
Description of violation: Observed Melaleuca and Brazilian
Pepper on subject property.
Location/address where violation exists: 7020 Sable Ridge Lane,
Naples, Florida. Folio 38450321000.
Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation
location: Alan and Margaret Vincent, 7020 Sable Ridge Lane, Naples,
Florida.
Date violation first observed: 11/13/2008.
Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation:
11/25/2008.
Date on/by which violation to be corrected: 12/30/2008.
Date of re-inspection: 10/28/2009.
Results of re- inspection: Violation remains.
MS. O'FARRELL: Good morning. Susan O'Farrell, Collier
County Environmental Investigator.
Page 33
February 25, 2010
This is in reference to Case No. CEVR20090016165, dealing
with the violation of prohibited exotics on improved property, located
at 7020 Sable Ridge Lane, Naples, Florida.
Service was given on November 25th, 2008, and I would now
like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: B, photos
dated 11/12/08; Exhibit C, photos dated 01/08/2010; and Exhibit D,
property cards showing the property with the addition.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: I move that we accept all presented
exhibits.
MR. LA VINSKI: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Have they been presented to the
respondent?
MS. VINCENT: No.
MS. O'FARRELL: No, Mrs. Vincent has not seen them, so I can
show them to her now.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you could, please.
Do you have any objection to those being entered?
MS. VINCENT: No.
MR. KAUFMAN: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I have a first, I have a second.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MORINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
Page 34
February 25, 2010
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MS. O'FARRELL: I'm just going to follow through a quick
summary of the case and how things have been going up to this date.
On November 12th, 2008 I was on the property of the
complainant, which was her neighbor, Mrs. Vincent's neighbor, and
observed Brazilian Pepper growing over and through the chain link
fence from the Vincent property.
I was unable to serve the Notice of Violation personally, so I
posted the property and the courthouse on November 20th, 2008. The
notice was also sent out certified mail and received by Mrs. Vincent
on November 25th, 2008.
The photographs that I'm showing are of the violation of the
exotics growing through the fence. I also have a photo where saplings
of Brazilian Peppers were actually being grown in pots and then
planted along the fence line.
This is a picture of the Brazilian Pepper that's growing over into
the neighbor's yard. The neighbor's yard is the yard with the fruit
trees growing in the row there.
Mrs. Vincent called me on the 25th of November after receiving
the notice and I explained that her house was built after 1992, and that
was when the Collier County Land Development Code was changed
requiring single-family homes to keep their properties free of exotics
in perpetuity, Section 3.05.08.C.
In addition, the Vincent's added a bedroom and bath to the
residence, which was permit No. 2005094311. It was C.O.'d on June
21 st of 2006. Because of this, her property is governed by the current
exotic removal ordinance.
The case was then handled by a former investigator, and I was
given the case to resolve in August of2009.
On August 24th, I conducted a site visit and determined that no
exotics had been removed from the back of the property.
I spoke to Mrs. Vincent, and because of the number of extensions
Page 35
February 25, 2010
given to her by the previous investigator, I told her that she had 30
days to remove the exotics.
I did a site visit on November 30th, 2009, and as no one was
home I was unable to access the back yard to determine removal. I
left a pink tag with my card asking for a call back so I could do a final
inspection.
There was no response to the pink tag until October 10th of 2009
when Mrs. Vincent faxed me and asked if I could do final inspection
from the neighbor's yard, to which I responded I needed to access her
yard in order to see the exotic removal. There was no response to my
fax.
I began preparations for a Code Enforcement Board hearing, and
on October 28th, 2009 I left a pink tag with a note that I was
recommending the case for CEB.
On October 30th, 2009 I received a fax from Mrs. Vincent saying
she thought she only had to clear the fence line. She asked for
paperwork on the other exotic cases in the neighborhood, which was
sent to her by my supervisor, Cristina Perez.
On December 9th, 2009 I received a call from Mr. Vincent, who
is Mrs. Vincent's son, stating the property is in compliance and ready
for a final inspection.
After several missed unreturned calls, I decided to go ahead and
just visit the site and hope that somebody was home.
On January 8th of2010, I was on-site with investigator Andrew
Kelly and spoke to Dan Vincent, Mrs. Vincent's son. That would be
Exhibit C.
Dan Vincent allowed us into the back of the property where I
observed Melaleuca and Brazilian Pepper in large quantities.
Additionally, the Brazilian Pepper that had been previously removed
was being allowed to re-sprout.
Can you show the picture of the Melaleuca, please.
This is a photo of the Melaleucas that are growing at the back of
Page 36
February 25, 2010
the property.
A picture of their Brazilian Peppers also growing at the back of
their property.
When I questioned Mr. Vincent about this, he said they were
intentionally growing them back in order to create a buffer between
his property and the adjacent neighbor. He stated they had no
intention of removing the exotics because they wanted to create a
buffer between themselves and their neighbors.
I explained the CEB process, and he stated that was fine.
I have had no contact from the Vincent's since that time.
MS. VINCENT: Is that it?
Okay, most of what she says I agree with. Some of it I do not.
We did start to remove all the plants in November. Unfortunately
I got very ill and I was in hospital from February until the end of May.
And then I went back into hospital over the next three months, right
until the end of August. And that was just totally unfortunate.
If anyone wishes to visit the property, all along the front we have
removed it and replanted.
The second section at the side of the house, we have removed it
and replanted with stuff.
When Ms. O'Farrell came and talked with my son, a lot of the
Melaleuca trees have got air plants growing on them, and they are
supposedly a protected species. She was told this, shown this, and
asked what we were supposed to do. Because if we cut those trees
down there and they die, we'll be cited for doing in the air plants. So
we're kind of in the air.
And to be honest, for the last six weeks we've done nothing to
remove it. It takes a long time. And being ill, my son's doing it when
he's not at work, I'm doing it when I can. And I just haven't been able
to.
We need time to do it, one.
Secondly, we need direction. Because if we cut all those plants
Page 37
February 25, 2010
down, you'll cite us for those.
And thirdly, there's loads of Melaleuca next door even, who cited
us in the first place. Why are they allowed to keep it and we're not?
When I go out of my drive and I look at a huge piece of land
opposite, it's covered in red pepper. Why don't they have to remove it?
Why do I have to remove all of mine?
And I know you don't like it, so we are doing it. You can inspect
it yourself. We are doing it.
But why should I when no one else has to in the neighborhood?
It really seems as if you're just picking on us because of one silly
incident, when we have removed a hell of a lot of it.
So one, I need time, at least nine months. And I'm judging that
on my health and just me and my son who live there and doing it
ourselves.
We'll replant as we go, because now all we can see and hear is
Livingston Road, which is a pain, and that's not right, because we had
a good buffer there and it's lovely to live there. And it's now a mess.
We've also lost loads of the fica trees because of this disease, and
we've had to have them sprayed. And where they're dying, we've got
no privacy either there. So it's kind of a mess.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions of the board?
Mr. Kelly?
MR. KELLY: To speak to Ms. Vincent's point, I was wondering
if you could address the air plants and the other properties surrounding
and why hers is different; just the code ordinance that now it changed.
MS. O'FARRELL: Okay. With your first question of the air
plants, they're not an endangered species. So I explained that to her
son and told him that they still needed to cut the Melaleucas down.
MS. VINCENT: Then why -- if I may interrupt, I'm not wishing
to be rude -- did the other gentleman who was with you say they
were? I don't know his name. But you had someone with you --
MS. O'FARRELL: Investigator Kelly was with me.
Page 38
February 25,2010
MS. VINCENT: And he agreed.
MS. O'FARRELL: Mr. Kelly is here, if you'd like to.
MS. VINCENT: I wasn't there.
MS. O'FARRELL: -- have him come up.
MS. VINCENT: But he agreed apparently that they were a
protected species.
MS. O'FARRELL: No, the air plants are not a protected species.
MR. KELLY: So Susan, just for clarification, if she was to cut
down the Melaleucas and chop them up and everything and the air
plants went with it, it wouldn't be a problem?
MS. O'FARRELL: Right.
MR. KELLY: Okay.
MS. VINCENT: Fine.
MR. KELLY: And then why --
MS. O'FARRELL: To your second question as to the other
properties, I'm going to show you Exhibit C.
MR. KELLY: Okay.
MS. VINCENT: Also, I should say, where you said we built a
new bedroom on, we didn't. All we did was extend a room and a patio
out there. The room itself was already existing. So that shouldn't take
it into different time zone for the house.
MS. O'FARRELL: The house is located on Sable Lakes -- I'm
sorry, Sable Ridge. And is three properties away from the Livingston
Road. As you can see from this aerial, she's actually quite protected.
So that is not a reason why we're requiring her to remove the Brazilian
Pepper.
The reason we're requiring her to remove the Brazilian pepper is
because the house was built after 1992. Our code changed in 1991.
The second reason is because they did make an addition,
according to the property card, which I can put up on the scan now.
MS. VINCENT: We extended an existing bedroom.
MS. O'FARRELL: Those would be a bedroom and a bathroom.
Page 39
February 25,2010
MR. KAUFMAN: Does part of that building permit for the
extension require an inspection for exotics?
MS. O'FARRELL: Yes, they are supposed to do a CO for the
exotics. I'm not sure why in the last couple of years the COs weren't
doing -- the building inspectors weren't doing that. But it doesn't
change the code and it doesn't change the requirements.
MR. KELLY: So Mrs. Vincent, from what the investigator is
saying, there may be some properties around you that haven't been
developed yet and they may still have exotics on them.
MS. VINCENT: Correct.
MR. KELL Y: Or they could have been properties that had a
home built on it prior to 1991 where there was no requirement to
remove those exotics and keep them off the property.
Since your home was built after 1991, it is your responsibility to
not only remove them initially, but also to make sure that they don't
come back.
MS. VINCENT: And what about the rest of the houses in the
neighborhood that were built after that time?
MR. KELLY: You have the ability to file a complaint yourself.
MS. VINCENT: I did.
MS. O'FARRELL: Mr. Kelly--
MS. VINCENT: I cited everyone in the neighborhood.
MS. O'FARRELL: Mrs. Vincent did open over 100 cases, all
which were investigated and closed because they were found that they
were not in violation.
MS. VINCENT: Well, I disagree. Because I've been around the
neighborhood in my car. And they are. Not all of them, I agree.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, we're just hearing this case
today, so we can't go into all the other cases.
MS. VINCENT: Everyone else's, yeah.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Can you put up the GIS map
again, Jen? Can you put up the GIS Map, please, or, you know, the
Page 40
February 25, 2010
picture of the house.
MS. WALDRON: This one here?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes.
What area were you in when you took those pictures of the
neighbor? Which neighbor? If you can just kind of point out.
MR. KAUFMAN: She was in a helicopter, it looks like.
MS. O'FARRELL: Yeah, I was up in the helicopter driving
around.
I was here.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, just wanted to clarify where
you were.
MS. O'FARRELL: And that neighbor has given us permission to
access his property, because there was a complaint filed on him for
exotics, and he did work to clear all of the exotics off of his property.
MS. VINCENT: He didn't clear all the exotics off his property.
He still has Melaleuca and pepper there, right in the middle of his
yard.
MS. O'FARRELL: Mr. Vincent pointed out to me what he
thought were Melaleuca. They were actually Laurel Oaks and live
oaks that had been planted in the backyard.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, thank you.
We're not here to hear that case.
MS. O'FARRELL: Right.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions?
(No response.)
MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that a violation
exists, based on the testimony and the pictures that were distributed.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. LA VINSKI: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor of the motion?
Page 41
February 25, 2010
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MORINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
Do you have a recommendation?
MS. O'FARRELL: Well, I was really organized until you asked
me for the recommendation.
Do you have a copy of it in your --
MS. WALDRON: (Handing.)
MS. O'FARRELL: And mine had the --
MS. WALDRON: 80.86.
MS. O'FARRELL: That the code enforcement orders the
respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$80.86
incurred in the prosecution ofthis case within 30 days, and abate all
violations by: Removing the prohibited exotic vegetation as identified
in Ordinance 04-41, as amended, Section 3.05.08.C within so many
days of this hearing or a daily penalty ofa certain "X" will be assessed
as long as the violation persists.
The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator
when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final
inspection in order to confirm the 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 the costs
of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner.
MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question.
Page 42
February 25,2010
Mrs. Vincent, how much time do you think you'd need to remove
those? You had mentioned an amount of days before.
MS. VINCENT: I'd like at least six months. It's only my son
and myself doing it. And I don't see why I should have to employ
gardeners to come in here. It would cost me a fortune.
MR. DEAN: I think that's reasonable.
MS. VINCENT: I'd also like her to come around by appointment
and mark exactly what she wants down, then there's no argument.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Would you need a--
MS. O'FARRELL: I've already been to the site and showed them
exactly what needs to be marked down -- cut down, and also explained
to them the process for doing that. The photo that I showed where a
Brazilian Pepper had been cut down and then was being allowed to re-
sprout, I mean, obviously they know what a Brazilian Pepper looks
like.
MS. VINCENT: Yes, we do.
MS. O'FARRELL: And so, I mean, I'll go out, if that's what you
would like me to do, and mark each tree that needs to be cut down.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is there a chemical that needs to be
sprayed periodically to --
MS. O'FARRELL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- keep these --
MS. O'FARRELL: It's not actually periodically, it's a fresh cut.
It needs to be within 15 minutes of cutting the Brazilian Pepper. It's
called Garlon.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: They have to apply it --
MS. O'FARRELL: Immediately after the cut.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Oh, after, okay.
MS. VINCENT: So if we slash all these trees and just paint that
stuff on them, does that suffice?
MS. O'FARRELL: That's when they don't come back, yes.
Because it's a systemic herbicide which goes into the roots and kills
Page 43
February 25,2010
the plant from the -- all the way down to the roots.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is part of the problem here possibly
the lack of having a professional come in and take care of this, why
they're growing back?
MS. O'FARRELL: No, I think that the problem has been that the
neighbors want to keep a buffer between the two houses.
MS. VINCENT: So can I slash these from the ground up three or
four feet and then just paint them?
MS. O'FARRELL: They need to be removed from the property.
I'm not sure --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, let's just get this order in
place and then you can discuss the finer details of it.
MR. KAUFMAN: Okay, I'll take a shot at the motion. The cost
of $80.86 to be paid within 30 days. Six months seems to be
agreeable.
Susan, you will go out there and mark those Melaleuca trees?
MS. O'FARRELL: Yes, sir.
MR. KAUFMAN: I have a little note here, at nine. Would you
like to make a comment?
MR. KELLY: I don't want to interrupt your motion, but I
remember the respondent saying nine months in her initial testimony.
MR. DEAN: But she just said six.
MR. KELL Y: She said at least six.
MS. O'FARRELL: Do you want an opinion from me on that?
MR. KAUFMAN: Yes.
MS. O'FARRELL: This case has been going since 2008, and
she's been given numerous instructions and numerous extensions. So
give her what you feel is the right thing to do, but I'm not sure that
considering the circumstances of how many times we've asked her to
do it and how many times she's said she has done it and it hasn't been
done, I think six months or nine months would be a lot of time to give.
MR. KAUFMAN: I have one question. Approximately how
Page 44
February 25, 2010
many Melaleuca Trees are there in the back?
MS. O'FARRELL: I would say 10 trees.
MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Then six months I think is more than
sufficient to cut six trees down.
MS. O'FARRELL: There's probably three or four Brazilian
Peppers.
MR. KAUFMAN: And including those.
So court cost of 80.86 paid within 30 days. Six months to
complete it or $100 a day fine would accrue.
MS. O'FARRELL: So we're going to go with 180 days, make it
six months, would be 180 days.
MR. KELLY: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MORINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
Thank you, Mrs. Vincent.
Next case will be Charles Freeman.
MS. O'FARRELL: Mr. Dean, or Mr. Kelly or Mr. Lefebvre,
whoever, what was the daily penalty? We missed that.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: $100.
MR. DEAN: $100.
MS. O'FARRELL: $100?
Page 45
February 25, 2010
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: $100, yes.
Charles H. Freeman, Case No. 2006100546.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. WALKER: This is in reference to Violation of Ordinance
04-41, the Collier County Land Development Code, Section
3.05.01.B, vegetation removal, protection and preservation.
Description of violation: Clearing in excess of one acre without
permit.
Location/address where violation exists: 2860 Eighth Street
Northwest, Naples, Florida. Folio 37641240001.
Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation
location: Charles H. Freeman, 2860 Eighth Street Northwest, Naples,
Florida.
Date violation first observed: October 17th, 2006.
Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: August
12th, 2009.
Date on/by which violation to be corrected: September 12th,
2009.
Date ofre-inspection: September 30th, 2009.
Results of re-inspection: The violation remains.
MS. O'FARRELL: Good morning. For the record, Susan
O'Farrell, Collier County Code Enforcement, Environmental
Specialist.
This is in reference to Case No. 2006100546 dealing with
violation of clearing in excess of one acre without the required Collier
County permit.
Located at 2860 Eighth Street Northwest, Naples, Florida.
Service was given on -- this will be a little confusing for
everybody but we'll all get through it together -- October 20th, 2006,
which was hand delivered to Mr. Freeman February 3rd, 2009 and
August 12th, 2009 by posting of the property and courthouse. The
proof of service was received.
Page 46
February 25,2010
I would now like to present case evidence in the following
exhibits: Exhibit B, photos of clearing taken 10/17/2006. That would
be the date that the violation was observed.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Has the respondent --
MS. O'FARRELL: Mr. Freeman, would you like to see the
photos?
MR. FREEMAN: I've seen them.
MS. O'FARRELL: You have seen them?
MR. FREEMAN: Yes.
MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. DEAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
MS. O'FARRELL: I also have Exhibit C, which are the -- I'm
sorry?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, we'd like a motion to accept
all the exhibits, so --
MS. O'FARRELL: Oh, I'm sorry. Do them all at the same time.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes.
MS. O'FARRELL: Exhibit C, mitigation proposals prepared by
at Turrell & Associates and submitted to Mr. Freeman and to the
Collier County staff on 3/01/07 and 5/04/07.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right.
MS. O'FARRELL: Exhibit D, property appraiser aerials for
years 2005 to 2009.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I don't know if you need--
MS. O'FARRELL: Mr. Freeman has seen the mitigation
proposals. Would you like to see the aerials for the years that we're
talking about?
MR. FREEMAN: Just real quick.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I don't know if you need to amend
Page 47
February 25, 2010
your motion to include all the --
MR. KAUFMAN: I amend the motion to include everything.
MR. DEAN: I second that.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MORINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
Before we start, why the nearly three-year, almost -- well, two
and a half years or so, three years lag period between October, 2006 to
August, 2009?
MS. O'FARRELL: Yeah, I had a feeling that was going to be
your first question.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Just point of clarification.
MS. O'FARRELL: We've had several investigators follow
through on this case. We have had two submittals of mitigation
proposals which were approved. We had extensions of time given in
order to get those mitigation proposals approved and installed. We've
had notices of violation, which was my fault and I take responsibility
for it that there was an error on it, so I had to redo another one.
And I have to tell you the truth, that based on my regard for Mr.
Freeman, although he did what I consider an egregious violation, I
hold him in regard and I did drag my heels in the last year of bringing
it to CEB.
Page 48
February 25, 2010
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good.
MS. O'FARRELL: So I hope that satisfies your question.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Perfectly fine.
MS. O'FARRELL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead.
MS. O'FARRELL: So let's begin with the photographs.
On October 17th, I was called to the site with a report that there
was a line of dump trucks on the street waiting to take fill away from
the subject property.
When I arrived on-site, I observed many dump trucks on the
property and the street. Several were already leaving, loaded with fill.
I also observed large machinery being used to excavate the fill
and to clear and push native vegetation to the sides and back of the
property .
I observed that any remaining vegetation, cypress and pine and
wetland understory, had been damaged by the machinery.
I posted a stop work order in order to prevent more work, as there
were no permits posted on the property.
I researched the case and found that they -- if they were simply
excavating to make the pond larger, they needed to apply for a revised
exempt permit, but that vegetation removal permits would still need to
be applied for.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: One picture I saw a sheriff deputy
there; is that correct?
MS. O'FARRELL: We had the sheriffs deputies there as well.
They were called and then they called our office and asked me to
come out.
MR. KAUFMAN: How large is this folio?
MS. O'FARRELL: Is it 2 -- it's 2.74 acres.
MR. FREEMAN : Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Did work stop at that point?
MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. Work stopped. They -- everyone was
Page 49
February 25, 2010
very cooperative. In fact, one of the laborers who was standing
around, I asked him to start shoveling out one of the culverts that they
had collapsed and so they were, you know, returning the soil and the
culvert to working order. So I didn't have any problems on the site.
On October 20th, 2006 there was a meeting with Mr. Freeman,
Ms. Tammy Freeman, Mr. Freeman's sister, and my supervisor,
Marlene Serrano and I. We discussed the violation and the need for
permits for vegetation removal, including exotics vegetation, if the
material is being removed with machinery.
At this meeting I gave him a copy of the notice of violation. That
would be the hand delivered. Which was then later determined not to
be good service for a CEB hearing, which is why we then had to do
the second Notice of Violation.
On October 2nd, 2006 there was a meeting with Mr. Freeman, his
attorney, Chris Thornton, and Marlene Serrano and I where we
discussed the violation and permits necessary. We concluded that
with one acre allowed for the house and the surrounding areas that
they're allowed, one acre for the pond, which is as large as they can
make the pond, and its size and potential size. There was. 72 acres left
for mitigation. We discussed how the plan is developed and the Land
Development Code requirements.
The original deadline on the NOV of November 11 th, 2006
would not change.
On November 30th, 2006 phone call to Attorney Chris Thornton
for an update with no reply.
On December 27th I received a phone call from Mr. Thornton,
who is the attorney, that they are getting bids for the restoration plan.
On December 27th, 2007, I received a call from Mr. Thornton
that they were working to get me the proposal ASAP. They were
waiting for an approval of a plan that was prepared by Turrell &
Associates from Mr. Freeman.
And on March 1 st, 2007 I received a mitigation plan which I did
Page 50
February 25,2010
not approve due to the size of the trees proposed. I sent an e-mail to
Mr. Thornton with a request for revisions.
On March 15th, 2007, Investigator Jen Waldron, who was
handling the case at that time, sent Mr. Thornton another e-mail
asking for the revisions.
On March 20th 2007 Investigator Gary Crisco, who was then
working on the case asked -- received a plan with the revisions but
was asked by Mr. Thornton if the plan could be revised to reduce the
amount to be mitigated, reduce the amount and size of the trees to be
planted, and to eliminate the need to clump the trees around the pond
area.
Do you want to put up the approved plan? It's the March -- the
May plan.
On April 27th, 2007, Investigator Gary Crisco told Mr. Freeman
that he needed to complete the pond by creating a four-to-one slope
within three weeks. Mr. Freeman said that he would do that and then
begin the planting.
Mr. Grisco (phonetic) determined that he would require 70 trees
at 30-foot centers and they could be 25-gallon size and that he could
plant 954 under-story, which was 75 percent of the original number.
So he did revise the plan and reduce the numbers.
He also asked him to plant spartina grass on the slopes to control
erOSIOn.
The image on the board now is the mitigation plan that was
submitted and approved.
On May 18th of 2007, supervisor Marlene Serrano spoke to Mr.
Freeman who stated he cannot locate lO-foot trees, only three-foot
trees, but that he can get the under-story plants. Ms. Serrano advised
him that she could work with him on the amount of trees planted.
On July 24th, 2007 Investigator Jen Waldron spoke to Mr.
Freeman who said that Ms. Serrano told him he could plant three trees
per month.
Page 51
February 25, 2010
When Ms. Waldron asked if 12 months was enough time to plant
the 71 trees and 954 under-story he said it would be and they would
communicate monthly to update progress.
On August 29th, 2007 Mr. Freeman told Ms. Waldron he was
progressing with the planting.
On February 5th, Mr. Freeman has stated that he has not planted
anything because he is afraid of his well going dry.
Ms. Waldron asked Supervisor Serrano if they could delay until
the rainy season and was told that Mr. Freeman had been given time to
do his planting and needed to start planting as soon as possible.
If this is getting boring to anyone, ask a question, please.
MR. KELLY: The 2/5, is that in 2008?
MS. O'FARRELL: Yes, February 5th, 2008.
MR. KAUFMAN: Did the pond have water at that time?
MS. O'FARRELL: The pond has sort of gone up and down. I've
seen it perfectly dry at times and then fairly full of water. The
pictures that we showed you earlier when I arrived on the scene, there
was water in the pond, but it's not reacting -- I don't believe that
they've hit a spring, so it's not -- you know, it's filling up with water
with the rainy season and then drying out with the drought. So it's not
really acting as a pond, per se.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: How deep is it, approximately?
MS. O'FARRELL: Pardon me?
MR. L'ESPERANCE: How deep is it, approximately?
MS. O'FARRELL: At that time it appeared quite deep to me.
And the limit is 12 feet.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So it's almost like a retention pond.
If it varies in --
MS. O'FARRELL: This should be another picture.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If it varies.
MS. O'FARRELL: Yeah, it's acting more as a retention. I know
that Mr. Freeman had other ideas for it, because one of his neighbors
Page 52
February 25,2010
has a pond that stays full. But I think that that neighbor, he had a
spring somehow or probably hit one of our aquifers or something.
That's where you can kind of get an idea of --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is that the state of it now?
MS. O'FARRELL: No, the -- I haven't been on the site because
Mr. Freeman hasn't been home several times when I've gone out there.
And he has really scary dogs, so I haven't gone to the back of the
property to look at it.
But I did walk the property one time with his father. I was
hoping for natural recruitment. I've been trying to figure out ways to
make this case resolve without coming to this point.
Unfortunately they had been mowing the area, so any cypress or
pines that could have been recruiting were being inhibited in that way.
So really what it appears -- and you can correct me if I'm wrong, Mr.
Freeman, what it is now is understory of weeds and Caesar weed and
things like that. Yeah.
MR. FREEMAN: I don't know what Caesar weed --
MS. O'FARRELL: Well, it's weeds and grasses and dead stuff.
So --
In May of 2008 I again received the case and on May 30th I
made a visit to the site and spoke to Mr. Freeman. He said that he had
been very ill and unable to do the plantings. This is when I inspected
the site with his father, we walked around, hoping for some
recruitment.
I told him I would check back with him after he had recovered.
On August 11 I again visited the site and spoke to Mr. Freeman
who was preparing to enter the hospital. I asked if he couldn't get
someone to start planting in order to take advantage of the rain. I was
just trying to get some kind of planting going on.
And on October 28th I spoke to Mr. Freeman and we discussed
the case and taking it to CEB for hearing so that he could explain his
situation and why he has been able (sic) to comply.
Page 53
February 25,2010
That was when I began the preparation for the CEB, realized that
the Notice of Violation needed to be reissued.
Then unfortunately I noticed there was errors on the second
Notice of Violation that I had posted, so I had to do a third one.
On September 30th, I had not heard -- 2009 I had not heard from
Mr. Freeman, so I made another visit. Mr. Freeman spoke to me about
how he had not been able to do the plantings due to ill health and
financial problems.
I said I would prep for CEB and he really should come to present
his case. So since that time, really, there's been no activity aside from
me calling Mr. Freeman every now and then. And now I'll let Mr.
Freeman talk.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Freeman, go ahead.
MR. FREEMAN: The only thing is with the -- as far as the
planting goes and everything like that, you know, it is due to the
health and everything like that.
I mean, I've been in the hospital for the last three years, in and
out, and it's -- I've got to go in on the 5th of next month and talk --
because of the foot surgery and the issues that I've got with my feet
and everything like that. They're talking maybe amputating and stuff
like that. So it has been an issue.
And as far as work goes, my brother owns an aluminum business,
which that's how I've been getting my help. Right now it's just
nonexistent almost. So as far as help goes with the house and
everything like that and with planting and everything, it's been very
difficult. I haven't had any money or nothing.
And with me going in and out of the hospital and three years
battling my feet and everything like that, it's -- and I do have medical
records to -- I mean, I got my medical records.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you have any pictures of the
property in its current state?
MR. FREEMAN: In the current state?
Page 54
February 25, 2010
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes.
MR. FREEMAN: The property has -- the pond has been
re-sloped.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Did you bring any pictures today to
show us that?
MR. FREEMAN: No.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. That would have been
helpful to show that you're doing -- you know, you're making some
progress on this property. That's basically what we'd be looking for.
MR. FREEMAN: I know. Whoops, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead.
MR. FREEMAN: I know I have checked on trees, you know, as
far as planting trees and everything like that. The underbrush is not
hard to find, but as far as the trees go, they're getting hard to locate,
because a lot of them places have went out of business, too.
And it's harder to find. Because there's only -- I think there's
only three trees that I can plant out there.
MS. O'FARRELL: The cypress, the slash pines.
MR. FREEMAN: And some kind of --
MS. O'FARRELL: Pop ash.
MR. FREEMAN: -- oak. Some kind of --
MS. O'FARRELL: Life oak or pop ash. There's, you know,
various native trees that he could plant. But he was given a --
actually, his mitigation plan.
MR. FREEMAN: Yeah, it has a list on the mitigation.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Now, there's 900 and something
underbrush. What does that consist of? Because that sounds like an
overwhelming number.
MS. O'FARRELL: Well, this was based on the amount. You
know, it's three quarters of an acre that was cleared and they are on
five-foot centers, which is according to -- actually revised from the
LDC requirements.
Page 55
February 25,2010
And the understory on his mitigation plan is sand cord grass,
muhly grass and swamp fern.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is that a plant that you physically
have to dig a hole and plant 900 and something --
MS. O'FARRELL: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It's not like a seed situation?
MS. O'FARRELL: He can get them in -- the unfortunate part is
if he hires an environmental company to do the mitigation plan,
they're more likely to be able to get them in the plugs, which, you
know, just requires sticking them into a very small hole. Ifhe's doing
it himself, the plugs, I know from experience, are hard to find at the
nurseries; you're not going to be able to buy them at a nursery.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Let me ask another question, if! may.
If this property were to be allowed to heal itself, to what degree
would it actually be able to heal itself?
MS. O'FARRELL: Well, unfortunately when a property is
cleared this way and it's disturbed, what's going to start first are the
Brazilian peppers, which isn't a healing process, obviously.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Exactly.
MS. O'FARRELL: And so the mowing, you know, for the first
two or three years really did a lot of detriment to a natural healing
process. That's really what I was hoping for when I went out that day.
To find that they hadn't done anything at all back there and that we
actually had cypress trees and pine trees re-sprouting. But that stage
has sort of passed.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you.
MR. KAUFMAN: Mr. Freeman, other than just leaving it, is
there anything that you can -- or for us that you could do in some
particular time frame that we can hang our hat on to resolve this
situation?
MR. FREEMAN: That's what I'm hoping for. I mean, you
know, I don't want to lose my house or, you know, get it down to a
Page 56
February 25, 2010
point where -- it's been rough, I mean. And my brother, the only thing
I -- you know, the business is starting to pick up a little bit and, you
know, you said he'd be willing to help me.
And it's just a matter of getting the plants and everything like
that. I've got friends that can come over and help me plant them. You
know, they're not--
MR. KAUFMAN: Ms. O'Farrell said that you have a very good
working relationship between the two of you. Is there something that
can be -- that you can agree to whereby you would be able to start to
resolve the situation, albeit slowly, given the economy and the rainy
season and everything else, that you could agree to?
MR. FREEMAN: Yeah. I mean --
MS. O'FARRELL: I think we should phase it out over a year.
Possibly he could, you know, do a certain amount, you know, or just
take the whole year and see what happens with his financial situation.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Would it be better to try to, ifhe
could during the rainy season, make that the primary time that he
plants? Because it sounds like it's probably not -- there's no sprinkler
or any irrigation system here. So make it so he's planting more at --
during the rainy season and maybe less during the off season, or
whatever species survive better when it's dry or dryer, plant those. Is
that possible?
MS. O'FARRELL: I think that the mitigation plan should be
revised again -- he has brought the lake into the four to one, and
there's obviously not an erosion problem going on -- and only require
the trees to be planted at the size of the 10 feet tall, I think we should
stick with that.
I think we should reduce the number of trees from 70 to say 50.
The reason that I'm saying this is because I know Mr. Freeman's
financial situation, and I'm afraid that nothing's going to happen, that
we may force him into a foreclosure situation with his house, because
he's trying to get into compliance. So leniency I think is the best bet.
Page 57
February 25,2010
MR. KELLY: Susan, are you saying that Mr. Freeman did plant
some trees in working towards compliance?
MS. O'FARRELL: No, Mr. Freeman hasn't planted any trees.
MR. KELLY: He hasn't at all.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: He just graded the pond, the lake,
for four to one.
MS. O'FARRELL: Right.
MR. KELLY: Do you have any recent photos?
MS. O'FARRELL: No, I haven't been able to get to the back of
the property.
MR. MORINO: What is the cost ofthe plugs that you were
talking about, compared to what he's actually had to layout as far as
buying the plants and everything else?
MS. O'FARRELL: Well, the cost obviously is dramatically
different between a one-gallon and a plug. I couldn't give you numbers
right off the top of my head.
MR. MORINO: So it would be much more expensive putting the
plugs in.
MS. O'FARRELL: The problem with the plugs is that they need
care in order to survive. And generally they're done on places that are
large developments where they have irrigation. So that's why I'm
suggesting we just forget the understory, the ferns will eventually
come back in the wetland areas, and just go with the trees.
MR. MORINO: Thank you.
MR. KAUFMAN: Well, I guess the first thing we have to do is
find that a violation exists or not. And I think based on the pictures
and the testimony that a violation does exist. So I'd like to put that as
a motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. LA VINSKI: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
Page 58
February 25,2010
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MORINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
MR. KAUFMAN: Now, Susan, if you could give us your
recommendation, it might help a lot.
MS. O'FARRELL: Well, I can't give you a recommendation in
terms of numbers and figures. All I can really do is read to you the
section of the code that requires the mitigation plan, which he has
already submitted. So I guess I'll just read: Must cease all land
clearing excavation and/or fill operations, and must obtain any and all
applicable permits to include vegetation removal or vegetation
removal and landfill permits within "X" amount of days of this
hearing or a daily penalty of "X" shall be assessed as long as the
violation persists.
Or, the respondent must prepare a mitigation plan which meets
the criteria pursuant to 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(E)(3).
MR. KELLY: Susan? I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. Are
you done?
MS. O'FARRELL: Okay.
MR. KELLY: Did you say that there was already a mitigation --
MS. O'FARRELL: The mitigation plan has been --
MR. KELLY: -- approved?
MS. O'FARRELL: So I guess--
MR. KELLY: Did you also say that you would --
MS. O'FARRELL: The only recommendation I can give really is
Page 59
February 25, 2010
that the mitigation that he has submitted be followed through on.
MR. KELLY: But didn't I hear you -- because of the financial
situation, you said you would accept up to 50 percent of what the
mitigation originally called for?
MS. O'FARRELL: Yeah, I did. And then I was told by my
supervisor not to give numbers.
MR. KELLY: Oh.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You said 50 trees.
MR. DEAN: Seventy and reduce it to 50, right?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. And then --
MS. O'FARRELL: It's entirely up to you --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- forget the underbrush.
MS. O'FARRELL: -- how you all decide.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Now, what do you think your
chance are -- what do you think the chances are if 50 trees are planted
and the underbrush is left as -- no underbrush is put in, do you think
that might regenerate and come back?
MS. O'FARRELL: I think that the ferns will come back in the
wetlands areas. As far as the dry areas which are around the lake, no,
I don't think that natives will recur naturally.
MR. KAUFMAN: Mr. Freeman, if -- we're trying to work with
you as best we can. Ifwe were to grant you one year to at least begin
the process of planting, do you think after one year we would see
progress out there? And if you couldn't complete the program by one
year and we saw progress after a year, it could come back and we
could discuss it further, do you think one year would be sufficient for
you to start the plan?
MR. FREEMAN: Yes, sir. I was going to ask if any help that I
can -- from anybody with locating the trees. I'm having a hard time --
I am having a hard time locating the size of the trees. And that's what
I'm running into. I mean, I am -- I did check into that. Of course it's
been a while ago. But any help I can get locating the trees, you know,
Page 60
February 25, 2010
it would be a big help.
Yes, I should be able to plant a couple a month and -- you know,
I should be able to, yeah.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You would have to plant -- if it's 50,
you'd have to plant roughly four a month.
MR. FREEMAN: Four a month. Yeah.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Now, the other thing is, are there
certain species that are more apt to grow in the dry season versus the
wet season?
MS. O'FARRELL: Well, when you're taking a tree that's been
grown in a nursery and it's used to being watered, you know, once or
twice a week and then you're putting it into a dry area with a drought
condition, there -- no, I can't think of any species that would be able to
do that.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. So the worry is that ifhe
does start the four trees now, it's still dry season for the next three plus
months. Chances for survival of those trees are pretty minimal, unless
like you said --
MS. O'FARRELL: Well, he could start closer to his house and
work his way back. And then by the time -- you know, use a hose and
then work his way back so that by the time he was at the back of the
property we'd be back in a rainy season situation.
MR. KAUFMAN: Mr. Freeman, is there any water in your pond
right now?
MR. FREEMAN : Yes.
MR. KAUFMAN: There is. So that you could use some of that
water. Instead of hurting your well, use some of that water to help
you with these trees?
MR. FREEMAN: Yes. When he did the slopes -- when he put
the slopes back in, he did scratch the surface, I guess, and now it does
maintain water.
MS. O'FARRELL: Good.
Page 61
February 25, 2010
MR. FREEMAN: It does maintain a little bit of water.
MR. KELLY: Ijust wanted to throw something out there. You
know, the mitigation plan right now that we have, it is like
quantifiable. There are actually numbers on it. However, Ms.
O'Farrell has suggested that maybe it's subjective in nature. And we
could work with Mr. Freeman because of the situation and because he
has been so cooperative.
So I think that if we work off of the mitigation plan in those
quantifiable numbers and just assign for instance a percentage to it,
like 50 percent of the mitigation plan, and just give Mr. Freeman
ample time, I think that we could all be happy with the resolution
process.
So my suggestion would be op. costs, three-year time frame and
50 percent of the already accepted mitigation plan.
MS. O'FARRELL: Three-year time frame?
MR. KELLY: Yes. Is that acceptable?
MS. O'FARRELL: It's up to you.
MR. KELLY: Well, I mean, it's already been three.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Fifty percent of the trees would only
then be roughly 35.
MR. KELLY: Correct.
MS. O'FARRELL: Thirty-five trees.
And are you including understory as well?
MR. KELLY: Correct. And I threw that out there. I don't know
if you understood that's what I was saying. But you did say 50 percent
would be okay.
If that's okay with everybody. But that cuts it down to 35 trees
and 450 underbrush.
MR. KAUFMAN: I'll second that.
MS. O'FARRELL: We're all good on the three years?
MR. FREEMAN: I would like to put the underbrush in there
anyways, just to keep the slopes from, you know --
Page 62
February 25, 2010
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. What we might want to do
also in the order, before it's first -- I know it's seconded, but maybe
have periodic updates. I don't know if we can do it via e-mail or some
kind of way that we can have updates so we know that's being -- it's
progressmg.
MR. KELLY: It's progressing. For instance, Mr. Chair, would
you rather that the progression be a 33 percent, 33 percent, 33
percent?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That might be a way. So we know
not three years out he comes back and says well, nothing's been done.
Let's tie it in that there's time frames that he has to --
MR. KELL Y: Mr. Freeman, that would be roughly one tree a
month for the next three years.
MR. FREEMAN: That would work. Yeah, that would work out
great.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Now, do you need to attach -- I don't
think you had any fines attached.
MR. KELLY: No, I didn't.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. And it was first and second.
So we do need to have a fine attached. And you might want to attach
it for a third, a third, a third. And if you don't hit those marks then
you'll be responsible for "X" amount of dollars.
MR. KELLY: Sure, sure.
I don't know if it was actually accepted. I think Mr. Kaufman
said he would second if that was --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right, we have a first, we have a
second. But we'd have to amend it.
MR. KELLY: What are the operational costs? I would need to
know those numbers.
MS. WALDRON: Ops costs are 81.15.
MR. KELLY: Okay. I make a motion that the respondent abate
all violations by: Number one, paying operational costs of $81.15
Page 63
February 25,2010
within 30 days.
That the respondent abate all violations by: Adhering to 50
percent of the accepted mitigation plan to be executed over a
three-year period with at least 33 percent success or completion per
year until completed, or a fine of $1 00 per day for each day the
violation remains existing.
Notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement to
perform an on-site confirmation. And if the respondent fails to abate
the violation, the code enforcement department may enlist the help of
the Collier County Sheriffs Department, in which those additional
fees may be assessed against the property owner.
And --
MR. KAUFMAN: Inspections.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yeah, confirmation.
MR. KAUFMAN: On the confirmation, after three years of the
confirmation after each individual year or some particular time?
MR. KELLY: My implication, I implied that it would be done
each year so the 33 percent can be inspected.
MR. KAUFMAN: And I will second that.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you understand what we --
MR. FREEMAN: I understand.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MORINO: Aye.
MR. LAVINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
Page 64
February 25, 2010
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
So you understand that you're going to have to do a third, a third,
and a third.
MR. FREEMAN: A third.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: To be completed within three years
or a fine. If you don't finish the first third in the first year, a fine of
$100 per day, okay?
MR. FREEMAN: Got it.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. Have a great day.
MR. FREEMAN: Thank you.
MR. DEAN: And make sure the dogs don't attack our code
enforcement --
MS. O'F ARRELL: Yes. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We're going to take a break. Let's
come back right around 11 :00; is that okay?
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm going to call the Code
Enforcement Board back to order.
And the next case is Clyde and Susan Bryan, Case No. CESD200
MS. WALDRON: Wait, wait, we skipped one. Number eight
under hearings.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, sorry about that.
Marie L. Gilot, Case CESD20080015112.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of ordinance
Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Buildings and Building
Regulations. Article 2, Florida Building Code, adoption amendment
of the Florida Building Code, Section 22 to 26.B, 104.1.3.5.
Description of violation: Construction remodeling being done to
main house and shed on property without permits.
Page 65
February 25, 2010
Location/address where violations exists: 1707 Sixth Avenue,
Immokalee, Florida, 34142. Folio No. 75212240007.
Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation
location: Marie Gilot, 1707 Sixth Avenue, Immokalee, Florida,
34142.
Date violation first observed: October 9th, 2008.
Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: October
15th, 2008.
Date on/by which violation to be corrected: November 8th, 2008.
Date of reinspect ion: October 9th, 2009.
Results of reinspection: The violation remains.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: May I have the parties sworn in,
please.
THE COURT REPORTER: They are.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: They are. Sorry, missed that.
Thank you.
All right, go ahead, sir.
MR. WALKER: Yes. Again, this case was initiated as an
observation on 10/9/2008.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you could just state your name for
the record.
MR. WALKER: Oh, I'm sorry, excuse me. Investigator Weldon
Walker, Collier County Code Enforcement.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you.
MR. WALKER: As I stated, this case was initiated as an
observation on 10/9/2008. I observed an addition which appeared to
be attached to the rear of the main structure and a shed that was being
constructed.
I researched the property J.D. cards, CWHIPP, CD plus and 0
permit books. I found a permit for an addition/alteration, bedroom
and bath, but none for the shed.
A notice of violation was posted on property, as well as mailed
Page 66
February 25, 2010
registered.
I spoke with Mrs. Gilot on several occasions, of which she
indicated that she did not get a permit. And the violation remains.
I have some exhibits, 1 through 11.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Has the respondent seen the
exhibits?
MR. WALKER: Yes, she has. She was actually in my office
two days ago.
MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is that correct, you've seen the
exhibits?
MS. GILOT: Uh-hum.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I hear a motion. Do I have a
second?
MR. LA VINSKI: I'll make a motion we accept the exhibits.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MORINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MR. KELLY: Investigator Walker, did you say that the permit
that you did find for the addition is part of what's listed here in the
violation, or is that an older permit versus now newer additions to the
main house?
Page 67
February 25, 2010
MR. WALKER: No, this was the actual permit taken out in 1991
for additions done to the property.
In my research I found that there was permits. This was one of
the permits that was listed which dealt directly with the addition.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But it was never C.O.'d?
MR. WALKER: It was never C.O.'d. It went through a series of
inspections. Which one of the exhibits could basically give an
indication of which ones were and which wasn't.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay.
MR. WALKER: The first one is the actual permit. The permit
number of course is 900001146. The date that it was applied for was
in 3/15/1990. Again, the addition was for an addition/alteration.
The next exhibit, which is the history of inspection sheet,
indicates that the property was inspected on several occasions.
Certain things passed, certain things failed.
What remained was one of the final inspections that had not been
completed.
I asked Mrs. Gilot in reference to it. She said that she did not
pull the permit; she did not have plans.
In the research of the actual file, the next exhibit shows the actual
plans and layouts that was -- that's the first one. The second one that
was submitted and signed off on.
The next exhibit I have is what I found in WHIPPS, which is an
indication that a permit was pulled and what that permit was pulled
for.
I also included the property appraiser's card which gives an
indication that there was a permit in 1991, one that is acknowledged,
but it was never finaled.
And in my research I also found that there was another permit
attached to that addition, which was in 1977. I'll be getting to that.
But that actual permit was an enclosure screen porch.
So initially the addition was there, it was a closed in screen porch
Page 68
February 25, 2010
was the permit. And then after that the property changed hands.
And both that front card and the second card gives you an
indication of the property owners.
I also put down there the actual sketch. The sketch indicates
where it is in relationship to the house, to the rear of the house. And
that's just basically for your information as well.
This particular one I'm going to give you to see, it was kind of
big and it -- permit-wise. But it also draws reference to the permit that
was actually pulled in 1977, which gives an indication that the permit
was actually for an in-screened porch.
And also too on the books, which is another exhibit that I have --
yeah, that's the one. Because those are kind of together, I think. That
gives an indication of the first permit that was pulled in 1977, Surrell
Jay (phonetic) was the actual individual. At that time there was no
specifics in reference to it, but I did pull that particular sheet out of the
file that we have in records that indicated that there was a permit taken
out and it was for a screened-in porch.
MR. KAUFMAN: Could I stop you for one second? I have one
question.
MR. WALKER: Yes.
MR. KAUFMAN: On -- because I'm getting confused with
going back so far.
The violation that exists that is being cited today is for a
violation. Is it for that permit that you showed that failed the hot
water heater and final inspection?
MR. WALKER: Exactly.
MR. KAUFMAN: That's the one.
MR. WALKER: That's the one. What happened was, was that
my initial inspection I saw what appeared to be an addition. In my
research I indicated -- or I actually became aware that there was an
actual permit for it but it was never completed.
MR. KAUFMAN: Okay, I understand now.
Page 69
February 25,2010
MR. WALKER: There's also a couple of photo exhibits that I
have there. The first one is the addition that is attached to the rear of
the house. As you can see there, that's the actual addition.
The next couple photos actually are just entrances and exits to
that particular end of the addition and a side entrance to that addition
on the side of the house.
Also attached to the case is a failure to have permits for a shed
that I had talked to Ms. Gilot about. I hope I pronounce your name
right, I'm sorry if I don't. But the shed was in that condition and it was
being built.
When I researched it, there was no indication that there was a
permit for that, and included that as also a violation attached to the
property .
MR. KAUFMAN: What's that in front of the shed that I see?
MR. WALKER: That's actual litter, of which she's satisfied the
abatement to that case. So that doesn't remain anymore. But the
structure itself does.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Do we have any more recent photographs
of the current state of the property?
MR. WALKER: No, I don't have any -- I have them, but I don't
have it here. The conditions of the property hasn't changed at all. The
shed has -- the shed has actually -- has stuff in it now, but she's almost
completed with that.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you.
MR. WALKER: I have nothing further.
MR. KAUFMAN: So the county case is the building permit back
in the seventies was never completed and the shed, a permit was never
pulled.
MR. WALKER: The building permit in '77 was pulled. And
there is really no way to indicate whether or not it was finaled. All it
shows is that at that date and time the permit was pulled.
What we have is that permit in '77 being pulled for an
Page 70
February 25,2010
in-screened porch.
What the permit that she has for 1999 is for additions done to that
porch, which changed it from an in-screened or enclosed screen porch
to a bedroom and bath.
MR. KAUFMAN: I understand.
MR. DEAN : You said 1999?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: '91.
MR. WALKER: '91, I'm sorry.
MR. DEAN: Okay, thank you. I thought there was another date.
Thanks.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead, ma'am.
MS. GILOT: My name is Marie Gilot. And I have a survey of
the land where one pictures the house in 1988. The owner, which is
Mrs. Sorrell (phonetic), she already have the addition there.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Ma'am, would you like to enter that
as an exhibit?
MS. GILOT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Have you seen the survey?
MR. WALKER: No, I haven't.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Would you show it to the
Investigator, please.
And do you have any other exhibits that you're going to enter?
MS. GILOT: Those two sheds already in the back.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Hold on.
What we're going to do is take that and put it up on the monitor.
But I want to first find out, do you have any other documents that you
want to have us see?
MS. GILOT: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. What we're going to do, just
like we did with the county, they entered it in as evidence. And if I'm
not mistaken, you are going to need the -- the court reporter's going to
need all these documents.
Page 71
February 25, 2010
So would you -- can you just explain what you want to enter as
evidence, what you're going to use to explain your case.
MS. GILOT: Okay. I have a couple neighbors, because when I
first move it was a lot. It's three of us is old in the neighborhood. And
they sign some papers for me in the leverage (phonetic) about what
was there.
And I didn't do nothing to it. The only thing I did, after
Hurricane Wilma, the addition, the people put there on the back which
is like a screen porch. I stucco it. It was stucco-ed.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You stucco-ed.
MS. GILOT: When I went to the building permit, I asked for a
permit. Jack told me the -- if it's already there, if you only going to
stucco it, it is okay to stucco it.
I asked about the shed in the back, because this is the shed,
there's two shed on the back --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What I'm going to do --
MS. GILOT: -- I asked him if! need a permit for it.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm going to stop you for a second
and we're going to take a vote to enter your exhibits into evidence,
okay?
Do I hear a motion?
MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
Page 72
February 25, 2010
MR. MORINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
Now you can explain what we're going to put up on the screen.
MS. GILOT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And Investigator, have you seen --
MS. GILOT: It there was already there, and which is those two
metal shed. When the inspection in 1987, before we purchase the
house, the two shed was already there.
The only thing I did to the shed is repair them after Hurricane
Wilma.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, and --
MS. GILOT: Because there was a mess. It was like metal and
the metal was all over the place. And I just re-done it. And it was
already there.
When Mr. Walker came over, at that time I was unable, my
cousin called me -- but it would it take too long. When I went over to
them and I told him and I told him the other property is like it is
because I didn't do nothing. It's a mess after Hurricane Wilma, but
now everything is in place.
But for the water heaters outside, the water heater used to cover
with board and everything then.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: A little roof?
MS. GILOT: Yeah, a little roof over it.
But when I purchase the house it was already there. I don't know
what Mr. Sorrell done, but whatever is in there, that's what I -- I don't
have money to repair to do nothing.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So you're saying that the addition,
the -- is it a bedroom, is that what it is?
MR. WALKER: Yes.
Page 73
February 25,2010
MS. GILOT: I didn't put no addition to the house. It was already
there. Because the people has a permit for it.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. When did you purchase the
house?
MS. GILOT: 1988.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: 1988. But there's a permitted pulled
for 1991, correct?
MS. GILOT: The 1991 permit, I could explain a little bit if you
allow me.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Because that's basically --
MS. GILOT: My husband and I, we was having problems. And
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: This isn't divorce court.
MS. GILOT: No.
We came to court for domestic violence. I have the case number
in 1993. He might done that. I agree with Mr. Walker, he might done
that just to put me in trouble. Because he wanted me to sell that
house. I told him I'm not going to sell it. If he wants to buy my share,
you buy my share. But for me to sell it, I'm not going to sell it. And
he died a year and a half ago, now I'm on code just for what he done.
There was nothing done in the house.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, there was inspections that
were done, so something had to be done in that period.
MS. GILOT: He might call. He might call. I agree, he might
call the inspector to come and inspect because he want me to sell -- he
want me to lose the house.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay.
MR. DEAN: Can I ask a question? If the permit was pulled in
1991 and you didn't act on it, what would happen? Would it just go
by the wayside or would somebody pursue it from the county?
MR. WALKER: If there was a permit pulled and all the
inspections weren't completed, that permit would sit there until a
Page 74
February 25,2010
certain period of time before it expires. And then that permit has to be
re-app'd.
MR. DEAN: But, I mean, it just goes by the wayside, basically
is what you're saying.
MR. WALKER: For all intent and purposes, yes.
MR. DEAN: Okay. Makes sense. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead, ma'am.
MS. GILOT: Yeah, he might done that, I agree. I agree with Mr.
Weldon, because I didn't know about it. And like I told him when I
went over there on Monday, I said, my husband will do something.
But if! didn't spend the money, nothing will get done. Because I was
the only one working. And he might have done that just for me to lose
the house or for the inspector, for something was done, because he
don't want me to live in it. But I'm the one who paying the mortgage.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you live there now?
MS. GILOT: Yes, sir.
He might done that, I agree, he might done it.
MR. DEAN: In 1991 you never pulled that permit, you?
MS. GILOT: No, no.
MR. DEAN: You didn't, okay.
MS. GILOT: No.
MR. DEAN: Okay, good, thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Anything else?
MS. GILOT: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other questions of the board?
MR. KAUFMAN: Could you put the building permit up from 19
-- I think it was the third sheet. The inspection card. Yeah.
So if I understand this, there was a building permit pulled for an
alteration and an addition. It says bedroom addition and bathroom.
Then it says slash, existing. So I guess the bathroom was existing?
MS. GILOT: Yeah, it was -- everything was already there, sir.
MR. KAUFMAN: And then in 1992 it passed some of the
Page 75
February 25,2010
inspections and failed some. It failed the final, it failed the water
heater. Actually, your re-inspection fee was even paid.
So it doesn't look as though somebody was doing this just to
cause you problems, it looks like this was done because it was --
MR. DEAN: Being done.
MR. KAUFMAN: -- being done.
MS. GILOT: Sir?
MR. KAUFMAN: Yes.
MS. GILOT: We been having problem right after '89 after we
purchase the house.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Were you living at the house at the
time of this --
MS. GILOT: I been living in the house all my life. Well, from--
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Since 1988.
MS. GILOT: Yes, in '88, 22 years.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But during this time that this permit
was pulled, did you live there at that time?
MS. GILOT: Yeah, but we was having marital problem.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The question I have, when this --
MS. GILOT: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- permit was pulled -- you were
living there when this permit was pulled on December 2nd, 1991?
MS. GILOT: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay.
MR. MORINO: It looks like the permit was pulled by her
husband; am I correct?
MS. GILOT: Yes.
MR. MORINO: Contractor was her husband.
MS. GILOT: He put himself as the contractor.
MR. KELLY: I just wanted to point out, so it looks like they had
the original screen enclosure back in '77 and now they're enclosing
that and making it part of the main home. Because there's no
Page 76
February 25, 2010
foundation work on this inspection card, so the foundation was already
there.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay.
MR. KELLY: And they failed a couple inspections, probably
didn't want to go through the hassle and here we are today.
I'll make a motion that a violation does exist in this case.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. KAUFMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MORINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
Do you have a recommendation?
MR. WALKER: Yes, I do. That the Code Enforcement Board
orders the respondent pay operational costs in the amount of $80.29
incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days, and abate all
violations by: Obtaining valid Collier County building permit or demo
permit for all unpermitted constructions and improvements to house
and shed, and get all inspections through certificate of completion
within "X" amount of days of this hearing or a fine of "X" amount of
dollars will be imposed.
The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator
when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final
Page 77
February 25,2010
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.
MR. KAUFMAN: I want to be a little bit clear on something,
and it goes to what the specific violation is. In other words, you put
up a permit that was done in the Nineties, which has probably expired.
MR. WALKER: Correct.
MR. KAUFMAN: So the scope of the work that was done in the
Nineties, is that what you're referring to that needs to be re-pulled and
re-inspected and a certificate of completion?
MR. WALKER: That's correct, everything attached to that
permit.
MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Just that permit.
MR. WALKER: That permit in reference to that addition.
MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Then we have the other issue of the --
MR. WALKER: Of the shed.
MR. KAUFMAN: Maybe we'll treat that separately so it's less
confusing?
MR. WALKER: Sure.
MR. KAUFMAN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, since you asked the question,
do you want to put together an order?
MR. DEAN: Can I ask a question first?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sure, absolutely.
MR. DEAN: On that original permit there was probably six
items. And I think four of them passed and three of them did not. But
the ones that did not wasn't as severe as the ones that passed. So I'm a
little confused with that. Oh, here we go.
MR. KELLY: Mr. Dean, if you look, it was the--
MR. DEAN: I looked. I looked, sir.
Page 78
February 25, 2010
MR. KELLY: -- final electric failed.
MR. DEAN: Yeah, in 1992.
MR. MORINO: It looks like it failed for a ground fault fixture.
That's the only thing it failed for?
MR. KELLY: And then finally passed.
MR. DEAN: So just for clarity then, this is what I'm after. We're
going to go back and say that these three items that failed is the ones
we're going to address, correct? You're not going to address
something that passed, passed, passed, you're going to address
something that failed, failed, failed, right?
MR. KELLY: Correct.
MR. WALKER: My response would be anything that's attached
to that permit that needs to be addressed will be addressed.
MR. DEAN: Even though it was passed?
MR. WALKER: I'm not sure how permitting would address that.
All I know is in the violation the permit is not active now, so they
wouldn't have to need to reactivate the permit. And if I guess they felt
that it was necessary to do everything, then they would. I don't know
if I could tell them.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay.
MR. SNOW: Excuse me for interrupting.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We need to swear you in again.
(Speaker was duly sworn).
MR. SNOW: For the record, Kitchell Snow, Collier County
Code Enforcement.
Investigator Walker is correct, what can happen, one oftwo
things: They can do a permit by affidavit, which would allow -- an
engineer's going to have to certify that was up to code of that
particular time. Or they can permit it up to today's code.
Now, to answer your question, Mr. Dean, anything -- that
permit's null and void. It's going to be up to the building department
to determine if the inspections are valid or not valid. They're going to
Page 79
February 25, 2010
have to make that determination.
But I think her best bet would probably be a permit by affidavit,
since it's back in the Nineties and we do have evidence that the permit
wasn't finalized.
MR. DEAN: I guess I'm really looking to make sure we help this
lady in any way we can.
MR. SNOW: Sir, we'll do everything we can for this lady.
MR. DEAN: Not giving away anything, I'm just saying that--
you know, addressing it appropriately.
MR. SNOW: Sir, we'll make sure that she gets taken care of.
MR. DEAN: Thank you.
MR. KELLY: May I go along with Mr. Dean here and further
investigate this permit card and take it line by line. Because I think
the only thing she may be missing is the C.O.
If you look, let's start at the bottom, because it's easier to read
that way. You have the C.O. issued without a date. I think that's why
it's still showing up as not completed.
The next line up, re-inspection fee paid.
Next line up, line 30, $16 on April 13th, '92. Failed.
The next line up, another failure. And specifically the GFI in the
bathroom for the hot water heater.
But then if you look at 5/02 which is the final electrical, the
inspection did pass.
So these 20, 30, 50 underneath the final were various inspections
for that electrical final, but then the final did pass.
Go up to the top now. See where it says 115, final building?
Well, it did fail. And you see the 20 underneath it, that's a code
meaning that the inspector says that it failed, not to plans on the 13th.
But then he came back and on the 15th it passed.
So I think the only thing -- it looks like all the inspections have
passed. I don't see any that have failed. Looks like all she needs is a
C.O. Maybe the county could just write that off.
Page 80
February 25,2010
Because you know how it works, you have to call these in -- you
used to have to call these in, now once it hits the 30-day mark, Susan
just goes in and clears it off. It automatically files a C.O. But they
didn't used to do that.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What does no SD mean on number
20?
MR. KELLY: I'm not sure what SD is, but I know ground fault
interrupter is GFI.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right, right.
MR. KELLY: I'm not sure, maybe Investigator Snow is more
familiar with these permit cards and how to read them.
MR. DEAN: Yeah, he was around then, wasn't he?
MR. SNOW: I think probably what we'll do, Mr. Kelly, is take a
look at this and if -- I'll talk to the building department, if all she needs
is a final C.O., see if we can get that done for her. We just want to
make sure it gets done. Gets done and it's off the record and then we
address the shed and then she's good.
MR. KELLY: Either way, Mr. Chair, it doesn't affect what we've
already voted, because there is no C.O., therefore it's still an open
permit. So a violation does exhibit, obviously.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right, correct. Well, we -- but Mr.
Kaufman's point to break it down I think is a good idea. It's two
separate items, the shed and this.
So back to Mr. Kaufman, do you want to --
MR. KAUFMAN: I'd almost like the county to -- we found it in
violation, is somehow withdraw this until that can be done and that
takes care of half of it. Is that possible?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It's all one case. I'm wondering if
you can withdraw just the building permit issue but then find in
violation for the shed. Is that possible, Jean?
MS. RAWSON: Well, that's going to amend, you know, the
Notice of Violation and make it like a different case.
Page 81
February 25,2010
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right.
MR. SNOW: Mr. Chair, if! may, before we progress, just offer a
little bit of clarity. Whether we found that they're in violation, if you
go ahead and give her a specific amount of time to get the C.O., that's
not going to change anything. So if you give 30 days to get the C.O.
or however long you give it and then you give a time frame to get the
shed C.O.'d, that's going to cover it. You don't need to withdraw it.
There still is a violation, it's not C.O.'d, so we go from there.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yeah.
MR. DEAN: Good point. Thank you.
MR. KAUFMAN: Okay, I'd like to make a motion that the cost
of $80.29 be paid within 30 days; the respondent given, knowing how
it is to deal sometimes with the bureaucracy, 90 days to get all the
permitting, C.O. or whatever is required done. That should be, I
would think, sufficient time. And that after 90 days a fine of $150 a
day be imposed.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right, how about -- is that for
both the shed and the --
MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. Based on what Supervisor Snow said,
yes.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So you're going to lump it all
together.
MS. GILOT: Excuse me, what do you mean by getting C.O.'d?
I don't know anything about that. Because my husband is the one who
pulled it and I don't know --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: A C.O. is certificate of occupancy,
which means you have to have the building department come out and
do a final inspection. And that's what -- you have not had that done
yet.
And then now with the shed you have to get that corrected --
MS. GILOT: But the shed was already -- but the survey I give
you. The shed was already there, it already exist.
Page 82
February 25,2010
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I understand.
MS. GILOT: I don't understand that.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You have to either -- you have to get
that permitted also.
MR. KELLY: I didn't see --
MS. GILOT: He's on the survey.
MR. KELLY: I didn't see --
MS. GILOT: -- from '87.
MR. KELLY: -- that on the survey. All I saw was the addition.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Well, I don't want to rehear
the case. I mean, we have closed the case and we found a violation for
both, so -- Jean?
MS. RAWSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Are we rehearing it? I mean, she's
stating that at this point that it's on the survey.
MS. GILOT: Yeah.
MS. RAWSON: Well, but here's the thing. I think your motion
which passed was that she is going to obtain any and all required
permits and certificate of completion within 90 days. So that ought to
cover everything.
MR. SNOW: Just one -- just this is the last point, I'm sorry.
The respondent admitted making additions to the shed, she
admitted repairing the shed. You saw the shape the shed was in. I
seriously doubt that that's going to be issued a permit. I mean, it's not
in very good shape. I think that's a health and safety issue, if anything
is, on that property.
And a survey may have showed it, but it's since been -- as she
testified, it was damaged in the hurricane, severely damaged. And as
you can see from all the litter and everything else, I have severe
doubts of the structural integrity of that shed.
MS. RA WSON: Your motion didn't include getting a demolition
permit, I might add.
Page 83
February 25, 2010
MR. KAUFMAN: And ifpermits cannot be ascertained, then a
demolition permit be issued and the language with the County
Sheriffs Department to help in remediation, if necessary.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I have a motion. And a second?
MR. MORINO: Second.
MR. KELLY: I'm a little worried that 90 days is not quite
enough time. Even if she did have to demo the permit. Let's say it
takes 30 days to get the first part cleared up, and while she's in there,
you know, now she gets a demo permit. That's only leaving her 60
days and probably a good five grand in cost, so --
MR. KAUFMAN: How about I amend my motion to 120 days?
MR. KELLY: Well, I was opening for discussion. IfI'm the only
one, then never mind. But if there was someone else that felt the same
way, that --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: First is to amend the motion to 120
days. Do I have an amendment on the second? Second agree to
amend?
MR. MORINO: I'll agree --
MS. GILOT: But the problem is --
MR. MORINO: I'll agree to the amendment.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The hearing's closed, ma'am.
So we have a first and a second.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MORINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
Page 84
February 25, 2010
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
You have 120 days.
MS. GILOT: Sir, 120 days won't be enough. The problem is I'm
the only one who's working and my husband pass away, I don't have
no income at all but I'm working for.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, this is what you can do: Get
with the county and find out how you can get it taken care of. Now,
there's a lot of times that people come in front of us after the 120 days
and say listen, I need another 60, I need another, whatever it may be.
And as you saw, you were here at the beginning of the day, we had
three requests for extensions, okay, and you can do that.
Now, what we want to do is we want to see that you have tried
and you're working on correcting this issue. That's what we're going to
look for. So ideally we'd like to see it fixed within 90 days. If it -- or
120 days. If it is not, then you can come back in front of us and at that
point you can ask for an extension of time. Thank you.
MR. WALKER: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you.
All right, we should be moving on to old business. Motion of
imposition of fines and liens.
Clyde and Susan Bryan, CESD20080014486.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you can state your names for the
record, please.
MR. RANKIN: I'm Douglas Rankin. I'm the attorney and the
Durable Power of Attorney for my surviving client, Mrs. Susan Bryan.
Mr. Bryan passed away on May 16th, 2009. So that should have been
corrected a long time ago.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good.
MR. KEEGAN: For the record, Thomas Keegan, Collier County
Page 85
February 25, 2010
Code Enforcement Investigator.
MS. SORRELS: For the record, Azure Sorrels, Collier County
Code Enforcement Investigator.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you.
MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violations of Collier
County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Buildings and Building
Regulations, Article 2, Florida Building Code, adoption and
amendment of the Florida Building Code, Sections 22 to 26-B,
104.1.3.5, and 22-26-B, 106.1.2, and Collier County Ordinance 04-41,
the Land Development Code, as amended, Section 1O.02.06(B)(I)(a).
Location of violation: Fifty-four Morehead Manor, Naples,
Florida. Folio 60583200008.
Description of violation: Unpermitted enclosure of carport to
include decking and screening.
On November 19th, 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 5416, Page 1,
for more information.
The respondent has not complied with the Code Enforcement
Board orders as of February 25th, 2010. The fines and cost to date are
described as the following: Fines at the rate of $200 per day for the
period between January 19th, 2010 to February 25th, 2010, 38 days,
for the total of $7,600. Fines continue to accrue.
Operational costs of $80.29 have not been paid. The total amount
to date is $7,680.29.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Has any work been done on this--
MR. KEEGAN: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- to correct the problem?
Any questions of the board?
MR. RANKIN: I would like an opportunity to speak, sir.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Absolutely.
Page 86
February 25, 2010
MR. RANKIN: Thank you.
First of all, I would sug -- I didn't know anything about this
matter until I got the notice of this hearing. Mr. Bryan is dead. Mrs.
Bryan has been severely ill for a very long time through and including
the time period prior to her husband's death.
Basically now that I know about this, I went over to code
enforcement, I went over to permitting and reviewed this matter. And
I also saw a letter that's in their files which was not brought to your
attention on November 19th, 2009 when this hearing was held. And
basically that -- based on that letter and what I also know of Mrs.
Bryan's health at the time, holding that hearing on that date without
her present or having an opportunity to be present was a gross
miscarriage of justice.
On that day, Mrs. Bryan had been out of the hospital one day and
was very, very severely ill. I understand that they told you they'd
received a letter from her, but I don't think they told you what was in
it.
Also, the way we ended up in this little mess is my client had a
couple of caregivers helping her. They got -- she got so disabled and
so did her husband that they needed a way to get in and out of their
mobile home, which is about this far off the ground. And the only
way in and out is this way.
So they hired -- the caregiver hired a friend of theirs, which my
client did not know was not licensed and didn't pull a permit to build
this deck and ramp. It's not just a deck. And the carport's already
there. All they did was put a deck on their outside the door, screen it in
and put a ramp in so you can get a wheelchair in and out of here.
My client had no idea that these people were unlicensed or
unpermitted. The only contact, if you look at the code enforcement
file, is with these caregivers, who I -- when I got in charge of this
matter I fired because they were financially and otherwise not looking
after the best interest of my client.
Page 87
February 25,2010
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I don't want to go into hearing--
MR. RANKIN: Anyway, going further, complying with this
order of November 19th, until Mrs. Bryan was finally in the hospital
and now in a nursing home, would have been a direct detriment to her
health and safety.
The only way in and out of this mobile home is through here.
And if they had torn down this ramp and platform, she would have
been trapped in her mobile home. She had to go to the doctor two or
three times a week, she had to regularly be hauled out of there by
ambulance to the hospital, and was.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Rankin --
MR. RANKIN: And if she had torn down this ramp, it would
have taken several days to repair it and she would have been trapped
in her mobile home to the detriment of her health. We're talking a
lady with 30 percent lung function --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm going to stop you right there.
MR. RANKIN: -- has to trail around an oxygen --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm going to stop you right there.
MR. RANKIN: -- and a wheelchair.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Number one of the order of the
board says, by applying for and obtaining Collier County building
permit and bringing property into compliance, or a demolition permit.
So there was an option to go to the county and go ahead and get a
permit for this property.
MR. RANKIN: She tried. I now find that she didn't do anything.
The caregivers tried, who were trying to cover up for their friend who
was the unlicensed contractor. They -- the permitting required them to
demo the ramp. So she would have been trapped in her mobile home.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Was there any contact, the
caregivers -- after this case was heard in November by this board, was
there any contact with the caregivers, and were they told that they had
to demo versus getting a permit for this property?
Page 88
February 25, 2010
MR. KEEGAN: There was two -- there were two permits that
was applied for. One was the demo of the wheelchair ramp, which the
building department told them they would have to do that because the
way it was built. It was --
MR. DEAN: Unsafe.
MR. KEEGAN: Yeah. It was flimsy, everything.
And then the other permit was for the actual enclosure of the half
of the carport itself: The screens, the footings underneath, the whole
thing.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead.
MR. KELLY: Investigator Keegan, would you like to respond to
Attorney Rankin's accusation that this particular respondent was not
noticed properly?
MR. RANKIN: Well, they were probably legally noticed, but
from a human standpoint, you've got a lady that's been out of the
hospital for one day, has 30 percent lung function, has to cart around
oxygen behind her, has to be transported in a wheelchair by
emergency van. And yeah, they probably sent her legal notice, but,
you know, if that's the way we're running things, you know, I don't
know what to say.
Now, I -- as soon as I found out about this, which is when I got
this notice just a few days ago, and all of her mail's been forwarded to
me ever since she put me in charge of things, which she can no longer
handle anything. She's now been in the hospital, she's been in the
nursing home over off Creech, she's almost died three or four times in
the last few weeks. And the only reason I can even do this now is
because while she's in the nursing home I don't have to worry about
her being trapped in her mobile home while they -- as you heard, they
have to demo the ramp, which is her only access in and out of this
home.
And they agreed to give me 120 days to get it done. I had a
contractor in here this morning that I've hired in the last couple of days
Page 89
February 25, 2010
to do it, and it can be done now. But, you know, if we're going to fine
her for the fact that -- and if you check -- I suggest that you ask him to
give you their complete log for all their conversations on this matter.
There has not been one real conversation with my client.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Attorney Rankin--
MR. RANKIN: They're all with the caregivers who are fired for
good reason.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Let me ask you this: When were
you retained by Susan Bryan?
MR. RANKIN: I became her Durable Power of Attorney to
handle matters on December 10th, 2009. And immediately thereafter,
that very next day I put a forward into the mail. And within two days
I had fired the caregivers and brought in a professional care giving
group. Within a few days after that she got so I ill she had to go into
the nursing -- into the hospital and then the nursing home on and off,
mostly nursing home and hospital now.
I had been working on and off for other matters prior to that date,
but I had no idea about any of this.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. What are her chances of
going back to this mobile home?
MR. RANKIN: It depends. You know, quite frankly, three
weeks ago on Friday I was at a trial next door and I got a call from her
doctors that said she would not live the day. She was back in the
nursing home on Monday, the following Monday. So there's no
telling.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. What are -- we're at the point
of imposing the fines. Ultimately we want this to be abated.
MR. RANKIN: It will be abated as quick as I can get a
contractor out there to do that. Because like I said, at the moment
she's not there.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right.
MR. RANKIN: So I can go ahead and tear out the only access to
Page 90
February 25, 2010
this mobile home and replace it.
And quite frankly, even if she'd have known about this, what
could she have done while she was still living there? This is the only
way in and out and it's two feet off the ground.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I understand.
Are you going to rebuild it or are you just going to demo it and --
MR. RANKIN: Well, as I under--
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- return it to the original state?
MR. RANKIN: As I understand it, based on what I've seen here,
what the contractors talked to them about, what I talked to them about
yesterday -- not them but building -- it appears that the only thing
that's really structurally unsound in their opinion is the ramp. But it's
not really that structurally unsound, it just doesn't meet code. You
know, it's not flimsy. I've walked up and down it. She's obviously
been wheeled up and down it a bunch of times.
The actual platform, there is an architect that has prepared a set
of plans and sealed them and says it's fine. But then he's disappeared
now. I guess he probably went out of business, like so many others,
and we can't find him to do the -- at least as of this morning, my
contractor couldn't find him to do the affidavit on the permit.
So if I have to, I'll just rip the stupid thing down and just put in a
ramp --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Ultimately--
MR. RANKIN: -- because the carport itself has always been
there.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Kelly, go ahead.
MR. KELLY: Mr. Rankin, we're now at this point, this
imposition of fines, and because we as a board do not have any chance
to reduce operational costs and because they have not been paid in the
-- the issue has not been abated, we have to rule to impose those fines
at this point.
But this argument is perfect. You could come back or just maybe
Page 91
February 25, 2010
even write a letter and remind us of everything you've stated here
today. Because believe me, we're all sympathetic, I'm sure, to it. And
then we have the ability later to go ahead and reduce or completely
abate all the finds.
MR. RANKIN: Thank you. I'll intend to be filing a motion of
that. I understood one of the conditions for that was having abated it.
And in the few days I've had notice of this I couldn't possibly go abate
it that quickly.
But there's got to be something wrong. You know, this
procedure, you know, we have many people in this county that are in
her state that have darn good reason to not come to a hearing.
MR. KELL Y: Mr. Rankin, the other option here would be to
plead to the county to have this taken off of our agenda today and
maybe if it was abated by next month we would never see it again.
MR. RANKIN: All right. Do you have any problem with that?
MR. KEEGAN: Nope. No, sir.
MS. FLAGG: We would be happy to withdraw the case.
MR. RANKIN: Thank you.
MR. KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Rankin.
MR. RANKIN: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next case should be Southern
Development Company, Inc. CEVR20080014785.
And is he still present or did he leave?
MS. O'FARRELL: He waited all this time. I'd be amazed ifhe
just left.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Maybe he's in the men's room.
MS. O'FARRELL: Here he comes.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay.
MS. WALDRON : You want to do number three and then we can
go back to number two?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes, I think we'll do that.
Celik. Case No. 200711 --
Page 92
February 25, 2010
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Nice try, Mr. Chair.
MR. DEAN: Let's go back to this one.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right, we're going to go back to
-- you waited this long, we won't have you wait anymore.
MR. CURIALE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Back to Southern Development
Company, Inc. Case No. CEVR20080014785.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of Collier
County Land Development Code, as amended, Section 4.06.05(1)(2).
Location of violation: 13245 Tamiami Trail East, Naples,
Florida. Folio No. 00726000009.
Description of violation: Property has fallen below required
landscaped standards set by approved SDPA 2007-AR-l1210.
On May 28th, 2009, the Code Enforcement Board issued a
finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was
found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct
the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4460, Page
2932 for more information.
An extension of time was granted on September 24th, 2009. See
the attached Order of the Board OR 4499, Page 2114 for more
information.
The respondent has not complied with the Code Enforcement
Board orders as of February 25th, 2010.
The fines and cost to date are described as the following: Fines
at the rate of $200 a day for the period between January 25th, 2010 to
February 25th, 2010, 32 days, for the total of $6,400. Fines continue
to accrue.
Order item number three, fines at the rate of $200 per day for the
period between January 25th, 2010 to February 25th, 2010, 32 days,
for the total of $6,400. Fines continue to accrue.
Operational costs of $87.29 have been paid. The total amount to
Page 93
February 25,2010
date is $12,800.
MR. KELL Y: I have a question real quick about what you had
just read in.
Did this come into compliance and then has now just failed to
keep up with it, or was it never in compliance?
MS. O'FARRELL: Parts of it came into compliance, and parts of
it have never come into compliance.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you remember, this property is
just east of 951 on 41 on the north, northeast corner.
MS. O'FARRELL: Northeast corner, right.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's been -- almost corner. It's not
the --
MS. O'FARRELL: Right.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- hard corner. That's been in front
of us multiple times.
MR. KELLY: Right, the Falling Waters folks.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. It's right in--
MS. O'FARRELL: Adjacent to Falling Waters.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes, exactly.
MR. DEAN: By the CVS?
MS. O'FARRELL: Yes.
MR. DEAN: Behind the CVS.
MR. KELLY: I remember that. I was just curious like where we
are on the case.
MR. DEAN: I remember this one.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yeah, and it's been --
MS. O'FARRELL: The case was -- they were asked to come into
compliance with their SOP that had been approved by Collier County.
And he came into compliance in certain areas but not in others.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And he's developing the property in
phases.
MS. O'FARRELL: Yes.
Page 94
February 25, 2010
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. And is there a reason why
you haven't come into compliance?
MR. CURIALE: Personally, I have -- right now I have no idea
what kind of a compliance we're talking about.
I was here, I don't know, it was about 90 days ago. And 90 days
ago we went over there and we really worked our tail off to make
those people happy. I've spent over 10 grand to put a whole sprinkler
system in there and I plant all the trees in there.
And when I came back here, if I remember, I think I even
showed you guys a picture how wet the place was. I nearly lost my
machines in there.
To make a long story short, I request a time for extension of time
which is somewhere around 90 days. It was granted. And it was
supposed to be finished somewhere by the end of January or February.
During that time, which we actually did all of the side, clean all
that. We had some kind of really weather problem, rain. And I didn't
realize that the weeds were growing. I figure that was the complaint I
thought was here today, that the weeds were tall or whatever.
So as soon I heard from code enforcement I said the weeds were
tall, immediately I went over there. I said how could these weeds
grown like this? So I had a little guy, a landscaper, go over there,
weed all of that down. And I think -- I don't know if you guys went
back there, I have no idea, to take a look at it.
It so happened that not only it was wet, we had a very unusual
cold weather, okay, and the only thing was left at that time for me to
be fine with the compliance, to put a few shrubs around the trees,
which a good thing I didn't do it. Because if I would have it done,
they would all been dead because of the cold weather we've been
having.
Furthermore, it was not really any my intention not to comply
and follow through, because I already knew that. And when I say
something, I do something; nine out of 10 I do it, okay? And it's been
Page 95
February 25, 2010
like that all along. So I'm not going to walk away from anything.
And now that we have complaints over here, which I had no idea
that we so persistent. The fact is that $200 a day from January what
which I really don't know what was the other violation for. I have no
idea what it is. I replace some of the trees in the parking lot. There
was couple tree Sable Palm were dead, you know, I replace them. I
did plant all the trees in the back what is supposed to be planted. And
I think I did a fairly good job.
So I really don't know what I am standing here, really. And
specifically right now that there is no time for money to waste right
now. I don't really have a dime to go over there. I finally shut down
my store in Naples, after I tried three different times. And we're
completely out of commission. I have no workers anymore, I only
have one or two. And the only thing I have left is store in Marco.
And I'm the only work 16, 17 hours to staying alive.
So supposedly what we doing here, if we have an arbitrarily
complaints, which is a persistent same person who in turn calls the
code enforcement periodically on me -- this is not about the planting,
this is not about the trees, this guy has something that is just like
irritating me as much as he possibly can.
If we have a problem and we need to finish up a minor item, I'm
here to go ahead and do it. The time has not been correctly, the
weather is not been working cooperative with us. And if it's a time
that we need to do -- comply that any little minor thing left, then I
would suggest you guys give me a longer duration extension the way I
be do that on my own, because I have no way to sub anybody out to
do the little minor --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: This was originally from a case back
in May. May 28th, 2009. And at that time we gave you a period of
90 days to correct the problem. And then you came back in front of us
in September and you asked for 120 days, which we granted, which
would take you to January 25th to come in compliance.
Page 96
February 25,2010
So it wasn't like you weren't aware of things that had to be done,
because each time you came in front of us to tell us -- or for us to tell
you that you haven't been in compliance, so what else -- what has to
be done?
MR. CURIALE: Excuse me.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Hold on.
MR. CURIALE: I was going to reply what you said.
What you said is correctly. My reply, exactly what you told me
to do when Mr. Kelly was asking for 120 days, we increase the 90
days, I went to work over there. I did the stuff in there. I put the
sprinkler system in, I put the trees in there. What else do you want me
to do, dance over there? I have no else what to do.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Susan, what else has to be done?
MS. O'FARRELL: The required landscape around the building
has had trees, palm trees and shrubs, die. The retention area, which is
also a conservation easement, has not been maintained. Trees have
died along the -- I actually have some pictures, if I can -- do we show
those as an exhibit?
MR. KELLY: The original case was the wall.
MR. CURIALE: Yeah. How--
MS. O'FARRELL: No, the original case was to bring it to the
standards on the landscape plan ofSDPA-2007-AR-11210, which was
the whole property, not just the wall. So that's why he has been out of
compliance.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yeah, I don't know if I want to see
pictures, because then we're rehearing the case.
MR. CURIALE: Yeah, but the pictures --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The pictures are how recent?
MS. WALDRON: Just for clarification, too, the original order
did say that existing or future landscape will be maintained within 90
days. So any landscape that was already there needed to also be
maintained within 90 days.
Page 97
February 25,2010
MR. KELLY: So he has 90 days from the date ofthe freeze to
fix those trees.
MR. CURIALE: And I think I did that. I don't understand what
the problem is.
MR. LEFEBVRE: The date from the original order was 90 days,
correct?
MR. KELLY: Well, that's my point. I just try to look at it from a
logical standpoint, okay? The extension of time was given until
January 25th. January 25th you went out and performed another site
inspection --
MS. O'FARRELL: Right.
MR. KELLY: -- and found that there were deficiencies.
MS. O'FARRELL: Right.
MR. KELLY: Did you notify the respondent that there he had
problems still and needed to fix them?
MS. O'FARRELL: No, I don't believe I did call him.
MR. KELLY: So you just decided to, you know, let's go ahead
and start charging him a fine, knowing that if he came in for --
MS. O'FARRELL: Well, I mean, I'd follow the procedure for the
-- you know, the imposition of fines. He knew he had until the 25th in
order to come into compliance. He was not in compliance. He had
the irrigation put in and the trees put in which at the time I visited
appeared to be dead. But he had not finished the landscape plan that
was ordered with the shrubs and the other trees that had died on the
property .
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: When's the last date you were there
on the property?
MS. O'FARRELL: I was there on the 12th to post the property,
and then Inspector Keegan was there yesterday and found --
MR. KELLY: Excuse me. When I asked you earlier what the
problem was and then I asked to make sure that Jen reread it, she said
that the property had fallen below required landscape standards. And
Page 98
February 25,2010
I asked you about that and you said no, he did come into compliance,
but it's no longer in compliance.
MS. O'FARRELL: Well, the wall, he put the trees in at the wall.
MR. KELLY: Okay. And that--
MS. O'FARRELL: So in that -- that's why when you asked me is
he in compliance or not, partially he came into compliance and
partially he did not do anything.
MR. KELLY: Right. But you just said the reason why he's not
in compliance now is because of a freeze or something has happened
to where those trees have now died.
MS. O'FARRELL: No, I didn't say that, he said that. I said that
he's never come into compliance, because he's never been up to the
standard of his Site Development Plan that was approved.
MR. KELLY: Well, that's not what it says in the imposition of
fine. The imposition of fine says property has fallen below required,
meaning that it was at one time and has now fallen below those
standards.
MS. O'FARRELL: Well, if they were --I'm sorry, what page are
you looking at?
MS. WALDRON: The original order. We take that directly off
the original order, that wording, as the violation.
MR. KELLY: Okay.
MS. WALDRON: So if you look at the original order that was
recorded in May of2009, that's what it states, property has fallen
below required landscape standards.
MR. CURIALE: Yeah, but I'm kind of confused. Can we take
one violation at a time, to know what we talking about? Because I
really don't know what we talking about right now.
MS. O'FARRELL: Well, they're all one violation, and that is that
the property has a Site Development Plan amendment, and that he has
never been in compliance with it from the very beginning.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What I think is -- to clarify this, is
Page 99
February 25, 2010
when you -- you have a Site Development Plan, you plant the trees
and all of -- everything needed to get past --
MR. CURIALE: To code.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: To code.
MR. CURIALE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You have to maintain that. You can't
just plant them and if all 50 trees die, they die.
MR. CURIALE: That's not the case.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You have to replant those trees and
maintain based on what the Site Development Plan is.
MR. CURIALE: I agree with you 100 percent. Can you show
me the picture from the area you're talking about, please, Susan?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: When was -- I don't want to rehear
the case. So when were these pictures taken?
MS. O'FARRELL: They were taken on the 12th when I was
there.
MR. KELLY: Mr. Chair, I would need to see pictures to know
that this is still in violation.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good.
Do I hear a motion to -- well, first of all, has the respondent --
MS. O'FARRELL: May I show it to the respondent first?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes, please.
MR. CURIALE: Well, can I direct -- say a couple of words,
first. Collier County is very strictly when it comes to get a C.O. and
to get a final approval on the SOP.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Correct.
MR. CURIALE: Before I got the final approval for the property
on 41, I had people from Collier County, from environmental in there
walking every day telling me what kind of plant -- the shrubs to plant.
Otherwise they would never sign off on the --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. But once you sign off, it has
Page 100
February 25, 2010
MR. CURIALE: Let me finish.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- to be maintained.
MR. CURIALE: Let me finish, okay.
I did all kind of mitigate, all kind of work possibly can. And
believe me, there was two or three trees that actually died of all the
trees we planted, which is about 250 of them. And only tree out of
that, I mean, it's a very -- a great number to keep.
Now, those three trees that was dead, which happen to be in a
parking lot, I did replace those trees. Now, if in fact another tree may
die during from the time of 120 days agreement to that because we
had such a cold spell, I mean, you don't be pointing to me for that. If
you take a look at it, show me what it is and I will make some kind of
arrangement, the time frame for me to replace the trees.
My main concern was, this is what I know all along, was that
behind the wall there was a complaint from people in Falling Water
that they claimed that I have not continued my landscaping there,
okay?
And when I was here, I strictly said I'm going to go ahead and get
these things done and get it over with, okay? I went over there, I put
the sprinkler system in, I spent five grand for the sprinkler, I spent
another seven, 8,000 for the trees. I personally plant the trees myself,
which is what, about almost 100 trees, okay?
Now, we could not refinish the remain (sic) the work, which is
about another two or 300 shrubs to be planted, five shrubs on each
tree, because it was so wet to do that.
And then everything happened to fall all at one time. My
business went kaput. I had shut down the store down in Naples. So
my time got a little more restraint to do what I was going to do to
worry about those couple shrubs out there.
Besides all that, thank God I did not plant those few shrubs that
would need be planted. Otherwise they would be all dead today.
Because we had such a major cold spell. And I don't have to tell you
Page 101
February 25,2010
that, you wore a jacket for about three months. So the new little
shrubs, they be all dead.
So now I'm here, and I hear all these things, the fine and fees and
all that. I mean, this is get astronomical for me to understand what we
do in economy environment that we in right now. We try to be little
nitty picky for something that it should work for somehow to help
things out the best what we can.
It's not life-threatening. My property on 41, it looks darn good.
It's well maintained by a landscaper company who maintain the
shrubs, who maintain the plants, who maintain the grass.
Mrs. Farrell (sic), she's talking about the retention area. I cannot
touch a retention area. That's strictly a retention area that has to be left
alone.
I'm wait -- when I was here three months ago, we discussed that
was at the final phase to get it approved from site water management
(phonetic). I thought it was another 30 days. But guess what, 90 days
went by and I still don't have a final approval site water management,
because that retention has to be filled.
And the retention has been transferred towards CVS Pharmacy. I
cannot bring machinery over there, I can do nothing there, because
that's the SDP guideline from the code of Collier County.
Now, I'm doing good on one side and I mess up on other side.
I'm in the middle. I don't know what else to do, okay. So if you guys
can figure out what to do --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's why we're --
MR. CURIALE: -- work right along with me and I'll do
whatever I can to eliminate this. Because over here, this is like a
second home from home here. I've been here a lot of times.
I got -- right now I have all by myself to run a store and I have to
be there. As a matter of fact, I've been on the phone every five
minutes -- every half hour to find out what's going on. So let's see
what we could do.
Page 102
February 25, 2010
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you have pictures?
MS. O'FARRELL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you show them to the
respondent and then we'll make a motion.
MR. CURIALE: Don't be scared, I won't bite.
Where did you get this one here? Is it dead? It's got a branch in
there.
MR. DEAN: One branch.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Dead trees have branches.
MR. CURIALE: This one here, I'm going to charge for those
trees. They cost me $180 apiece, you made me plant them in the
wintertime.
MS. O'FARRELL: These are along the retention line.
MR. CURIALE: Which site?
MR. DEAN: We need to hear what's going on.
MR. CURIALE: I want to mention something. What was the
other guy that was --
MR. DEAN: I'd like to make a motion to accept the--
MR. CURIALE: Keegan was the Code Enforcement. He called
me about three weeks ago. Was he here? And he mention, he say,
hey, Mr. Curiale, your weeds growing tall. I says, where?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But that's a separate--
MR. CURIALE: No, no, it was over there behind the wall,
okay? And I --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is that part of this case?
MS. O'FARRELL: No.
MR. CURIALE: I immediately take care of the problem. Am I
right? Did you --
MS. O'FARRELL: That's a separate --
MR. CURIALE: -- check it out?
MS. O'FARRELL: That's a separate case.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Separate case.
Page 103
February 25, 2010
MR. CURIALE: Separate case?
MS. O'FARRELL: Yes, it was a separate case.
MR. CURIALE: How many cases do I have?
MS. O'FARRELL: Two.
MR. CURIALE: One is the wall and one is --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, we have a motion to -- do you
agree that those pictures are of your property, correct? Okay, we have
a motion to accept the respondent's exhibits. Or sorry, the county's
exhibits.
Do I hear a second?
MR. KAUFMAN: Second.
MR. MORINO: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MORINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MS. O'FARRELL: That is a dead sable palm that's been on the
property since I opened the case. And the branch that he's referring to
is actually a seed pod that is just sort of hanging there. But that tree
has been in every single picture that I've taken of the property from
the beginning. So it's dead.
These are trees that are planted along the retention area. They're
not part of the wall. These are separate that were planted in order for
him to get his C.O. And they have all died.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: These are all part of the SDP.
Page 104
February 25, 2010
MS. O'FARRELL: Yes.
MR. KAUFMAN: That second tree is dead?
MR. CURIALE: Those trees were alive 90 days ago I think,
right? They were all alive.
MS. O'FARRELL: When I was out there on the 12th, they were
dead and dying.
MR. CURIALE: Twelve now. But 90 days they were all alive,
those trees --
MS. O'FARRELL: I don't --
MR. CURIALE: -- because I planted three years ago.
MS. O'FARRELL: The LDC requirement is that when a plant
dies on a property like this, they have 30 days to reinstall it, to replace
it.
This -- I can't see it because of the glare.
MR. CURIALE: Well, that's the outside of the wall.
MS. O'FARRELL: This is the wall that has not been finished.
Still hasn't been finished.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But that section that's not finished
on hasn't been developed; is that correct?
MR. CURIALE: I can do nothing--
MS. O'FARRELL: No, this was--
MR. CURIALE: -- with the wall.
MS. O'FARRELL: -- this was supposed to have been finished.
MR. CURIALE: Can I reply to that on the wall?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You need to get access to the back
of the wall.
MR. CURIALE: Not only that, I can't do anything from the
point A all the way to CVS. I don't have the SDP approval. I can't
touch that area from the end of the wall, what do you call it, north,
east, west, all the way --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: West.
MR. CURIALE: -- to CVS. I cannot touch--
Page 105
February 25,2010
MS. O'FARRELL: Well, now we're rehearing the case--
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right.
MS. O'FARRELL: -- where it was already decided that he had to
finish he wall in order to come into compliance.
MR. CURIALE: How am I going to go in there, with a
helicopter to go back in there?
MS. O'FARRELL: So this is one of the dead trees behind the
wall that was put in. And then this is the wall as it appeared on the
12th.
The second case, the weed case, was brought in because he was
not maintaining the property, as you can see from the weeds, on the
12th. And that is -- was also part of the order, to maintain the
property .
He has since then, according to Investigator Keegan, mowed that
property and maintained that site, or has started to maintain that site.
MR. KAUFMAN: Does the property where the light poles are, is
that part of the property that he has to maintain, or is that maintained
by the power company?
MS. O'FARRELL: The power company. Which actually you
can kind of see where -- there's a swale there where the trees are -- the
hedges, you know, the weeds are pretty high.
And then up towards the wall is where he should be maintaining.
So that is where the trees were planted and the other shrubs were
supposed to have been planted.
MR. MORINO: So those are weeds and trees that we're looking
MS. O'FARRELL: Yes.
MR. MORINO: -- at now?
MR. CURIALE: That was the picture she took January 10th.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is that it?
MS. O'FARRELL: January 12th.
MR. CURIALE: You don't have no present picture right now on
Page 106
February 25, 2010
you?
MS. O'FARRELL: I'm sorry, February 12th. February 12th.
Because that was when I posted the property for the hearing.
MR. CURIALE: Yeah, but you don't have no recent picture after
that date, right?
MS. O'FARRELL: Mr. Keegan can testify to the condition of --
MR. CURIALE: Yeah, maybe you can have him come over and
approach the podium and let him explain what he had found.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No, because this is the case back
from last year. But Investigator Keegan's going to -- are you going to
testify on -- we want to keep this specific, not to the weeds but
specific --
MS. O'F ARRELL: Yeah, these pictures -- I'm sorry to interrupt,
but these pictures were taken on 2010. So it was two weeks ago.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: February 12th.
MS. O'FARRELL: 2010, right.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right.
And Investigator Keegan, you were on site.
MR. KEEGAN: Yes, sir.
THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Keegan?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You need to be sworn in.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And when were you there at the
site?
MR. KEEGAN: Yesterday.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yesterday.
Now, I just -- I don't want to hear about the weeds, because that's
not --
MR. KEEGAN: That's good. Sounds good.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, the weeds--
MS. O'FARRELL: The weeds were part of the original order.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It's part of the original SDP.
Page 107
February 25, 2010
MS. O'F ARRELL: Well, it was part of the original order to
maintain the property with the original and future installation of
plants. So maintenance-wise, mowing, weeding, you know --
MR. KELLY: Is there another case then?
MS. O'FARRELL: Well, he wasn't maintaining that other side of
the wall, so there was a weed case opened. Which was Inspector
Keegan's case.
MR. KELLY: So but are (sic) the weeds just happened to be
overlapping then?
MR. KEEGAN: We got a complaint, the weeds were high. I
called Mario. Within four, five days, weeds were cut.
MR. KELLY: Okay. So they are kind of the same then. It was
just that you had to respond to this and open up some number to it.
MR. KEEGAN: Exactly. Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But can you attest to any of the trees
-- did it you look at any of the trees while you were there?
MR. KEEGAN: I went out, I took pictures. I'm a city boy, I
can't even tell you about the trees, to be honest with you. I just shot
away, gave the pictures to Susan.
MS. WALDRON: Mr. Chair, we do have the pictures on the
computer from yesterday, if you would like to hook -- we can hook
those up.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Now, if you enter them as an exhibit
you have to supply them --
MS. WALDRON: We can supply them to the court reporter.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. All right. We can't close our
eyes, because the respondent has to see them first.
MS. WALDRON: Well, she can show them to him and then we
can hook the computer --
MR. CURIALE: That's all right, put them on.
MS. WALDRON: -- up, if you'd like.
MR. CURIALE: Don't worry about it.
Page 108
February 25, 2010
MS. PEREZ: I'll show.
MR. CURIALE: Just show them.
MR. KELLY: I think it's important.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right, to see what it looks like
yesterday, most up to date. I agree with you.
MR. KELLY: And to let him know what he needs to do.
MR. CURIALE: That's fine. Go ahead, show them. There you
go. Show them. This was yesterday, right?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion to --
MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: County's exhibits.
MR. KAUFMAN: County's exhibits.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: More photos. B, C, whatever we're
at now.
MR. MORINO: Computer image.
MR. DEAN: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MORINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
MR. DEAN: It's out by my house. I have to check it out.
MS. O'FARRELL: That would be the retention pond. So that's
one of the trees on the east side of the retention that's dead. Can you
go back up to that one?
And then those are the trees in the background along the wall.
Page 109
February 25, 2010
So this is one of the landscaped trees that's in the parking lot that
is supposed to be alive.
This is the section of the wall that is going towards the CVS.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But that doesn't look maintained.
MS. O'FARRELL: No, it doesn't.
MR. CURIALE: We can't touch that. That's the next phase,
Phase III.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, how can you not touch that
and how could you not have a SDP on that property but you already
have a wall up?
MR. CURIALE: That's a long story. The SDP is not fully
complete unless you receive a final approval from South Water
Management (sic), okay?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I don't want to go into it, but --
MR. CURIALE: And that's a long story. We would be here for
days if we were to discuss this. I don't know how--
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We've already been here for days.
MR. CURIALE: All I know, I should not be -- I can't touch that
area from where the opening from the wall is all the way to CVS,
unless I have a signed and sealed SDP plan from the county. That, I
cannot touch that.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Then I don't know how you can
build on it, but that's okay.
MS. O'FARRELL: The SDP should be for the whole -- the wall
up to the edge of the retention pond, which includes this open area,
this open section.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next photo, please.
MS. O'FARRELL: Dead trees.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is that -- which side of the wall?
That's on the --
MS. O'FARRELL: That's on the--
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- development side.
Page 110
February 25,2010
MS. O'FARRELL: -- side of the wall of the development, of the
Falling Waters development.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Oh, of the Falling Waters
development.
MR. DEAN: So it's on the north side.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And this -- was this weed infested
just two weeks ago?
MS. O'FARRELL: Yeah. Mr. Keegan was very diligent in--
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay.
MS. O'FARRELL: -- getting compliance from Mr. Curiale.
MR. KAUFMAN: Those trees are alive there; is that correct?
Or am I --
MR. CURIALE: They better be alive.
MS. O'FARRELL: Some of them are alive and some of them are
dead.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It looks like the first two trees --
MR. MORINO: Are dead.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- are dead.
MR. KAUFMAN: Are they deciduous, or --
MR. CURIALE: Those, I put that 90 days ago, they better be
alive.
MS. O'FARRELL: No, they're not deciduous.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: They don't look too good.
MR. CURIALE: That's scary. I think they're shocked from the
cold weather. Maybe they can come back in spring. That's what I
was told from a landscaper. And they better go back, for what it cost.
MS. O'FARRELL: That's what I'm hoping too.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Let's go through these pictures. I
mean, I think we're spending way too much time on this.
Same thing, pretty much.
Is that the same palm that's been there for five years?
MS. O'FARRELL: Yes.
Page 111
February 25,2010
MR. CURIALE: She likes that palm.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: He does too, obviously.
MR. CURIALE: I don't even know which one it is, that's the
funny part of it all. It looks like a bird nest on top.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right. Okay, anymore testimony
or evidence?
MR. KAUFMAN: I have a comment to make, for whatever it's
worth.
It appears to me, and I've been here long enough that we have
heard several cases regarding this, that the respondent has always tried
to do the right thing. Maybe not in a timely fashion, according to what
was set forth, but as far as putting the sprinklers in, as far as the
planting; and he responded to the property maintenance issue
immediately.
I would like to see some means of accepting that he has been
working in good faith and I would ask Susan if -- has he been
cooperating over the period of time?
MS. O'FARRELL: Yeah. Mr. Curiale has been very
cooperative.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And that shows that, you know, he
did take care of the weeds and everything in a relatively quick fashion.
But we do need to have this property maintained, and that's why we're
here.
MS. O'FARRELL: And have the SDP--
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's what I'm saying.
MS. O'FARRELL: -- finished.
MR. DEAN: One question is, does he have to maintain this for
how long? Over what period of time? Forever, right? Does he get
paid for that?
MS. O'FARRELL: As long as he owns it.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: He's getting paid by getting the
leases.
Page 112
February 25, 2010
MS. O'FARRELL: He owns the property.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Getting monies from the lease.
MR. DEAN: Gotcha. Thank you.
MR. CURIALE: That was not the original agreement, that's all
mess-up too.
MR. LA VINSKI: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead.
MR. LA VINSKI: What concerns me is that yes, he's responding,
but it seems he doesn't respond until code enforcement calls him and
says you've got six foot of weeds and he comes out and mows them. I
don't think that's the way it should work. I think he ought to be
maintaining, he ought to be monitoring that place, and it shouldn't
look like that until another code enforcement officer has to go say,
yeah, he cut it down.
I think this is the third time we're hearing this. And I think -- this
looks like in perpetual motion that we're going to keep doing this. I
think we ought to just bite the bullet.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you make a motion?
MR. LA VINSKI: I make a motion we impose the fines as
presented by the code board.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. DEAN: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
MR. KELLY: Could we come up with some way to notice the
respondent when these deficiencies happen? Because when Mr.
Keegan noticed the weeds, he makes a phone call and it's taken care
of. And I think there was a lot of clarity in that situation because it
was easy to identify what the problem was.
In this case, you know, we had a cold spell. So it's very possible
that some of these trees have recently died. And without notifying the
respondent, we just automatically set this for CEB and start, you
know, charging him fines. I'd rather him at least have the opportunity.
Page 113
February 25,2010
And I agree with you, Jim, I don't think that we should be the
police in this situation. I don't think we should have to send an
investigator every month.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right.
MR. KELLY: But if this is truly an open case, well, we're going
to be doing that anyways. Let's -- you know, let's continue to work
with the respondent and try to get it taken care of before we go ahead
and fine him. I mean, he's showing willingness, that's what I'm
saymg.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. MORINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And nays?
MR. KAUFMAN: Nay.
MR. KELLY: Nay.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It passes.
You've been through this before, but we have found that -- we
imposed the fines, basically.
What you're going to need to do is ultimately come into
compliance. And the best way of doing that is get with Susan, find
out exactly what you have to do to get into compliance. Replace the
trees, replace the palms, so the next picture she takes will be a live
palm, not a dead palm. And replace the trees, get it in compliance.
Once it's in compliance, you then come back in front of us. And
you've done this before, you can ask to abate the fines.
MR. CURIALE: Well, right now you impose the $12,000 fine?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's--
Page 114
February 25,2010
MR. CURIALE: So where am I going to get the money for that?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm not saying you need the money.
You need to get it into compliance first and then you can come back to
us.
We've been through this before, so it's not like we haven't
explained this to you before. We just want to see you get it --
MR. CURIALE: I'm going to say two things and very clear all
these things today. Do me a favor, why don't you guys drive in front
of the property and see how the property is maintained.
Honestly speaking, okay? Because you make me feel like I have
a place like ajunkyard, which is actually is my place is one of the
cleanest place in the whole stretch of 41.
Now, if one tree has actually died or year or whatever, I replace
the trees when I was here last time. Now the trees, when I was here 90
days ago they were all alive around the well. Now we'll going to be
filled up as soon as I get the final. Those trees are going to have to be
removed anyway.
Now, the question is, there has to a way of a common sense how
this whole thing work. To reframe (sic) what James said over there, I
actually went ahead and did hire a landscape company to make sure
we maintain those weeds over there.
But besides all that, Falling Waters have been responsible for
past seven years to do it, they fired the maintenance guys and let one
guy go through the archives and find out I'm the bad guy.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right. Thank you very much for
your time.
MR. CURIALE: Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next case.
MR. CURIALE: I'm done? I'm ready to go, right?
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You're all set.
MR. CURIALE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Please get with --
Page 11 5
February 25, 2010
MR. DEAN: Pay the operational cost.
MS. RAWSON: He did.
MR. DEAN: He did?
MR. KELLY: Yeah.
MR. DEAN: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next case, Celik. And it is Case No.
2007110592.
MS. O'FARRELL: Mr. Celik had to leave. He had his daughter
with the babysitter and he kept checking his phone and the phone kept
ringing and the babysitter had to go to their other job. But he wanted
to be here and he felt horrible leaving, because he wanted you guys to
know that he was a standup man who was willing to take
responsibility for his issues, but then his daughter had to come first.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Should we -- well, yeah, we need to
swear her in.
But do we want to withdraw this case and have it next month
because he couldn't be here, or -- we need to have you sworn in, so
let's have you sworn in first.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MR. KELLY: Mr. Chairman, if this is not in compliance and he
hasn't paid the operational cost, we would --
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Impose the fines.
MR. KELLY: Right.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Has he done anything to
correct it?
MS. O'FARRELL: No, he hasn't.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion?
MS. WALDRON: Would you like me to read the--
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That would be nice.
MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of Collier
County Ordinance 04-41, Land Development Code, as amended,
Section 3.05.01.
Page 116
February 25,2010
Location of violation: 1645 17th Street Southwest, Naples,
Florida. Folio 45970600003.
Description of violation: Property has been mechanically cleared
in excess of one acre without required permits. And berm was created
with the addition of fill.
On July 31 st, 2008 the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding
of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in
violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the
violation. See the attached Order ofthe Board OR 4385, Page 0707,
for more information.
An extension oftime was granted on January 22nd, 2009. See
the attached Order of the Board OR 4425, Page 0502, for more
information.
The respondent has not complied with the Code Enforcement
Board orders as of February 25th, 2010. The fines and cost to date are
described as the following: Order item number one and four, fines at a
rate of$50 per day for the period between January 23rd, 2010 to
February 25th, 2010, 34 days, for the total of$I,700. Fines continue
to accrue.
Order item number two and five, fines at the rate of $50 per day
for the period between January 25th, 2010 -- sorry, that should be
January 23rd, I believe. January 23rd, 2010 to February 25,2010,34
days, for the total of$I,700. Fines continue to accrue.
Operational costs of $87.11 have not been paid. The total amount
to date is $3,487.11.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And no work's been done?
MS. O'FARRELL: It's one of those sad stories. You know, the
house is going into foreclosure, he's living there as long as he can, and
I don't anticipate it being abated by him. More likely by the bank
when they finally foreclose.
MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion we impose the fines.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
Page 117
February 25, 2010
MR. LA VINSKI: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MORINO: Aye.
MR. LAVINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes.
Consent agenda's all set.
Any reports, besides the -- well, I guess we're forwarding the
cases to the county.
And any other reports?
MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir. As of February 21st the banks have
expended $1,335,000 in Collier County to abate code violations. The
banks have abated a total of 973 code violations.
This past week the banks expended $24,293, just in this past
week. And they're averaging about $20,000 a week in abating code
violations.
This past week also 100 -- (Microphone feedback.)
MR. LA VINSKI: Excuse me. I don't have one of those little
rubber doobies.
MR. DEAN: Rubber doobies.
MS. FLAGG: I was just looking for someone on the floor.
MR. DEAN: A rubber doobie?
MS. FLAGG: This past week we opened 198 new cases. So just
in one week 198 new cases came in.
Page 118
February 25, 2010
And the good news is 109 cases were closed this past week with
voluntary compliance.
There were 539 property inspections done last week, and there
were 108 lien searches completed this past week.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other reports?
MS. FLAGG: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any comments?
MR. KAUFMAN: Can we for the next meeting update our
board, since we've had a lot of changes since the last time?
MS. WALDRON: We can e-mail it to you. We do have it on
file.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I just want to make a comment to
Diane and her staff. It's pretty amazing that 198 cases, I think is what
you said, last week were opened. And of that 198, we see an absolute
probably not even one percent come to us. I don't know how many go
to the magistrate. But it's really phenomenal that -- I mean, you would
think 198 cases, 100 have been taken care of or so, that you would see
a huge percent of those cases come in front of us and that's not the
case.
MS. FLAGG: Less than five percent of the total cases come to
the board and the special magistrate.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, I mean--
MS. FLAGG: The vast majority are closed.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- even if their cases -- I'm sure
there's a lot of cases regarding banks and so forth, and those cases are
almost nonexistent. I mean, the last one I think I saw was probably
about four or five months ago that were here, and probably even
further back than that.
So it's just pretty amazing that they're not making it to us and
they're being taken care of before coming to us. So I just have to give
you a lot of --
MS. FLAGG: It's a good team. And they are very committed to
Page 119
February 25, 2010
helping the community members. And sometimes it doesn't appear
that way at the board meeting, but you will notice that after each case
the supervisor within the district that the case occurs, they are going
outside again meeting with the respondent and seeing what they can
do to assist them.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next meeting date will be March
25th, 2010. And that should be it.
MR. DEAN: Motion to adjourn.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second?
MR. KAUFMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor?
MR. DEAN: Aye.
MR. KELLY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye.
MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye.
MR. KAUFMAN: Aye.
MR. MORINO: Aye.
MR. LA VINSKI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No nays, I'm sure.
*****
Page 120
February 25, 2010
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:31 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 Reporting Service, Inc., by
Cherie' R. Nottingham.
Page 121