Loading...
CEB Minutes 03/25/2010 R March 25, 2010 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida March 25,2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Gerald Lefebvre/Kenneth Kelly Larry Dean Edward Larsen Lionel L'Esperance Robert Kaufman James Lavinski Tony Marino (Alternate) Ron Doino (Alternate) ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director Jen Waldron, Code Enforcement Specialist Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA Date: March 25, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. Location: 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Building 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. 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - A. February 25, 2010 Hearing 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. MOTIONS B. STIPULATIONS C. HEARINGS I. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TlON ADDRESS: 3. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO.: VIOLA TlON ADDRESS: CESD20090015555 MATEO A Y ALA & MATEO F. AYALA INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2004 EDITION, CHAPTER I PERMITS, SECTION 105. I FAILURE TO OBTAIN A COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT FOR IMPROVEMENTS OF PROPERTY. 56200003 918 MIRAHAM TERRACE IMMOKALEE. FL CESD20090018220 EDWARD M JR. & TAMMY HARRIS INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(I)(a) ADDITION OF FENCE, 4 SHEDS, METAL CARPORT, CANOPY, LANAI WOODEN DECK AND POOL WITH NO PERMITS 41882320006 6121 SHADY OAKS LANE NAPLES, FL CESD20090016327 MARCOS RUIZ & MARIA HORTENCIA RUlZ INVESTlGA TOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPEMT CODE 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(I)(a) A CARPORT, SHED, ROOF OVER RV ERECTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A BUILDING PERMIT 30681640008 1418 ORANGE ST. IMMOKALEE, FL CESD20090002717 KARLA P. ABDALA INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(I)(a) GARAGE CONVERSION WITH ADDITION OF ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING AND ADDITION IN THE REAR OF THE HOME WITH NO PERMITS 36320520001 5436 27TH PLACE SW NAPLES, FL 5. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TlONS: FOLIO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 7. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TlONS: FOLIO: VIOLA TlON ADDRESS: 8. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: CESD20090009814 CIRINO MUNOZ & INOCENClA MUNOZ INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION IO.02.06(B)(I)(a) REAR ADDITION ATTACHED TO PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE, SMALL DWELLING UNIT WITH KITCHEN AND 3 FIXTURE BATHROOM, OPEN CARPORT, METAL STRUCTURE 30681000004 1416 APPLE ST IMMOKALEE, FL CENA20090018355 JULIUS & HELEN KRAUS TRS, UTD 6-27-96 INVESTIGATOR SUSAN O'FARRELL COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LA WS & ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 54 ENVIROMENT ARTICLE VI LITTER & EXOTICS, SECTION 54-I 85(C) OBSERVED EXOTICS INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, BRAZILIAN PEPPER GROWING WITHIN 200 FEET OF IMPROVED PROPERTY FROM UNIMPROVED PROPERTY 00163720007 NAPLES, FL CEPM20090009462 RONALD M. MEDEIROS INVESTIGATOR AZURE SORRELS COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22/231 (12)(m) AND 22-23 I (12)(b) PROTECTIVE COATING OF EXTERIOR WALLS ON SECOND FLOOR IS PEELING AND CHIPPING. WALLS HAVE SEVERAL HOLES IN THEM AND IT APPERARS THAT A PEST IS EATING A WAY AT THE WOOD 52340400004 8 PELICAN STREET WEST NAPLES, FL CESD20090010223 PEDRO BAIGORRIA INVESTIGATOR JOSEPH MUCHA COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(I)(a) UNPERMITTED GARAGE CONVERSION AND LANAI. ORIGINAL PERMIT 2002012152 FOR IMPROVEMENTS MADE WAS NEVER INSPECTED OR RECEIVED A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION/OCCUPANCY AND PERMIT IS NOW VOIDED 35742520004 2197 45TII ST. SW NAPLES, FL 5. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens I. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TlONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO: VIOLA TlON ADDRESS: 4. CASE NO. OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: CESD200900J5436 ANNE JULES DELVA INVESTIGATOR AZURE SORRELS COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22, BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULA TlONS, ARTICLE II, FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, ADOPTION AND AMENDMENT OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, SECTIONS 22-26(b)( I 04.5. I .4.4) PERMIT #2008051265 EXPIRED ON MA Y 4, 2009 WITHOUT COMPLETING THE WORK 744 I 1360006 3404 SEMINOLE A VE. NAPLES, FL CESD20090012965 JEFF B & TREASURE AHLBRANDT INVESTIGA TOR RENALD PAUL COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION I 0.02.06(B)( I )(a) OWNER ENCLOSED THE PORCH AND ADDED A WOODEN SHED WITH NO PERMITS 38163480005 6090 PAINTED LEAF LANE NAPLES, FL CESD20090000849 RAFAEL SANTOS & ZONlA BARGINER INVESTIGATOR JOSEPH MUCHA COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION I 0.02.06(B)( I )(a) AND COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES SECTION 22-26(b)(l04.5. I .4.4) RECURRING VIOLA TlON OF LETTING PERMIT EXPIRE FOR ADDITION MADE TO THE STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY 22622600002 3705 THOMASSON DR. NAPLES, FL CESD200900J296J J. PEACEFUL, L.C. INVESTIGATOR RON MARTINDALE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION I 0.02.06(B)( I )(e) AL TERA TlONS TO STRUCTURE WITHOUT OBTAINING REQUIRED PERMIT, SUBSEQUENT INSPECTION, OR ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY/ COMPLETION 68391446166 7770 PRESERVE LANE NAPLES, FL 5. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 7. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TlONS: FOLIO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2007060101 ISRAEL & DELMA GALLEGOS INVESTlGA TOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 10.02.06(B)(I)(a); 10.02.06(B)(I)(e); AND 10.02.06(B)(e)(i) MULTIPLE ADDITIONS BUILT ON TO STRUCTURE WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING PROPER COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS 30731280004 13 I 8 PEAR ST. IMMOKALEE, FL 2006020354 ADAN J. & NORMA M. CONTRERAS INVESTIGATOR ED MORAD COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-4 I, AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 2.01.00(A), 5.02.00, 5.02.02, 5.02.03, 2.02.03 AND COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 2005-44 THE LITTER, WEEDS AND EXOTICS ORDINANCE, SECTIONS 6,7 AND 8 RECURRING VIOLA TlON OF OPERA TlON OF A VEHICLE REPAIR SHOP WITH EXTENSIVE AMOUNT OF UNLICENSED/INOPERABLEVEHICLES BEING TOWED TO PROPERTY. LITTER CONSISTING OG, BUT NOT LIMITED TO VEHICLE PARTS, TIRES, METAL PLASTIC, GENERAL TRASH. THERE HAVE BEEN 7 PRIOR CASES ON THIS PROPERTY WITH THE SAME VIOLATION 00 I 19640005 602 DELA WARE AVE IMMOKALEE, FL 2006110568 MFC INVESTMENTS, LLC. INVESTIGA TOR TONY ASARO COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-4 I, AS AMENDED, SECTION I 0.02.06(B)( I )(a), 10.02.06(B)( I )(d) AND I 0.0206(B)( I )(d)(i) UNPERMITTED SHED 39658640003 2095 47TH AVE. NE NAPLES, FL B. Motion for Reduction of Fines/Liens C. Motion to Amend Order 1. MFC Investments, LLC. 2006110568 6. NEW BUSINESS A. ELECTIONS 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens B. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. 8. REPORTS A. David & Juana Carrillo CESD200900 1 0456 9. COMMENTS 10. NEXT MEETING DATE - APRIL 22, 2010 11. ADJOURN March 25,2010 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board meeting to order. Notice: The respondent may be limited 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. Roll call, please. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Ken Kelly? MR. KELLY: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Robert Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LA VINSKI: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Tony Marino? MR. MARINO: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Larry Dean? MR. DEAN: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Ron Doino? Page 2 March 25, 2010 MR. DOINO: Here. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And there's several changes on the agenda, if you could please go through them. MS. WALDRON: Under number four, public hearings/motions, letter A, motions, we do have an extension of time motion. This will be number one, CESD20090011000, Agathonicos G. Pamboukis. Under letter B, stipulations, we do have three stipulations. The first one will be item number one under hearings, Case CESD20090015555, Mateo Ayala and Mateo F. Ayala. The next one will be number three from hearings, Case CESD20090016327, Marcos Ruiz and Maria Hortencia Ruiz. Next will be Item No.5 from hearings, Case CESD20090009814, Cirino Munoz and Inocencia Munoz. Letter C, hearings, number four, Case No. CESD200900027l7, Carla P. Abdala has been withdrawn. Number six, Case No. CENA20090018355, Julius and Helen Kraus, Trust, UTD, 6-27-96 has been withdrawn. Number eight, Case CESD20090010223, Pedro Baigorria has been withdrawn. Under number five, old business, letter A, motion for imposition of fines/liens, number one, Case CESD20090015436, Anne Jules Delva has been withdrawn. Number six, Case No. 2006020354, Adan 1. and Norma A. Contreras has been withdrawn. And number seven, Case No. 2006110568, MFC Investments, LLC has been withdrawn. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further changes to the agenda? MS. WALDRON: (Shakes head negatively.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The elections, did you mention that? MS. WALDRON: Well, we're going to do the elections for chairman, so if you want to take over. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, exactly, but-- Page 3 March 25, 2010 MS. WALDRON: We're going to put that under approval of agenda. We'll move that from the end of the agenda. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right, okay. Any -- do I have a motion? MR. KELLY: I have a question real quick. Under consent, I didn't see anything forwarded to the Collier County Attorney's Office. Were there no -- MS. WALDRON: There are none this month. MR. KELL Y: Great, thank you. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I move that we accept the agenda as amended. 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. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. And next we're going to do elections. Do I hear any nominations for -- we'll start off with chair. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I have a nomination, Mr. Kenneth Kelly for chairman. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KAUFMAN: I second that. Page 4 March 25, 2010 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? MR. DEAN: Well-- no, I don't have any. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: I should have asked if you'd like to accept the nomination, but too late. All right, and for vice chair, do I hear any nominations? MR. LA VINSKI: I'll make a motion we nominate Bob Kaufman vice chair. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll second that, since I'm not a chair anymore, correct? I'll second that. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? Page 5 March 25,2010 (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. And-- MR. KAUFMAN: Congratulations. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- do you want to switch chairs or do you just want to work from there? MR. KAUFMAN: Just move the name tags. MR. DEAN: Nice transition. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All right, with that being done, we'll move to public hearings. A, motions/extension of time. Pamboukis. MS. WALDRON: We have to do approval of the minutes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oh. No problem. Approval of the minutes for February 25, 2010. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to approve. MS. WALDRON: Hold on, we have -- we do just have one change. Mr. Marino noted that his name was spelled incorrectly throughout the entire minutes. It should be spelled M-A-R-I-N-O. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, note those changes. Any other changes? (No response.) MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: We have a motion, do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Second by Mr. Lefebvre. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 6 March 25,2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it passes. Now we go on to public hearings. Motions/extension of time, Pamboukis. MR. SMITH: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. SMITH: Reggie Smith, Code Enforcement Investigator. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All right, has everybody had a chance to look at Pamboukis's letter? MR. DEAN: What's the number, please? CHAIRMAN KELLY: That would be -- MR. DEAN: We're having trouble down here trying to find it. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: It's towards the back of our public hearings. MR. DEAN: Okay. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Can they put it up on the screen, perhaps, to have it available? MR. SMITH: If you don't mind my notes that I've scribbled on there. MR. LEFEBVRE: Are you looking for the letter? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Have you had contact with the Pamboukises, and would you concur with what was written in the letter about the permit situation and the contractor? MR. SMITH: I have had contact through e-mails, and I can concur on some of his points. However, the county does object to his second continuance. MR. KAUFMAN: Are there outstanding building permits currently? MR. SMITH: There is one active building permit, which was applied for on the last due date for the initial Code Enforcement Board Page 7 March 25, 2010 hearing. Contractor has been hired as of the 10th of March. Has only conducted site cleanup work. And I did speak with that contractor/site manager, Dave Diamond, who did state that only the prep work had been done. No actual permitted work had been done. Actually, hearing Mr. Pamboukis's letter on his second continuance request, which was sent on the 18th of this month, he states right there that Cupid Construction has completed all preliminary prep work. Doesn't state that any actual work has been done. The county feels that since this is multi-family housing, we do have electrical, structural and plumbing improvements there and we need to move forward with this one. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Just on a side note real quick, we have three screens that are not visible up here; if there's any way we can call IT, see if they can help out. MS. WALDRON: I can, if you want to take a short -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, we can probably finish this, since we did have a copy of the letter in our packet. But just for future. Getting back to that, so your feeling is that the time that he's asking for would perhaps possibly be a delay just to try to recoup the 2,000 from the other contractor or -- MR. SMITH: Not dealing with any monies whatsoever. But actually in this continuance request here, he's not asking for any specific date here, so -- and he was advised to state his reasons why he would like his second request of extension of time and also specific dates, and he hasn't done that in my mind. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: I see that he's an absentee --looks like he's an absentee owner. He lives in Ohio, is it? MR. SMITH: Correct. MR. KAUFMAN: Do you know whether he's been in town or -- MR. SMITH: From what he has stated to me, he has not. Page 8 March 25, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other comments? (No response.) MR. KAUFMAN: Based on the county's feeling on this, I'd make a motion we deny the extension of time. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: We have a first and a second. Any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. So therefore we will deny the request for extension of time. Thank you. Moving on to stipulations. First one, Ayala. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Kaufman, when you speak, could you just make sure your microphone's pulled up? They can't hear you in the back. Thank you. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Collier County -- Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Pay operational costs in the amount of $80.29 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 Page 9 March 25, 2010 demolition permit and request required inspections to be performed and passed through to 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. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 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 KELLY: Thank you. Sir, could you state your name for the record, please? MR. AYALA: Mateo F. Ayala. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Great. And have you -- you've read through this and agree with everything? MR. AYALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Without getting into the details, do you feel as 120 days will be enough time to complete this? MR. AYALA: I think it will be. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, very good. Are there any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: I have one question. The overhang, is that safe enough to stay up without it falling down and possibly hurting somebody? MR. A Y ALA: The overhang. Oh, on the one -- I don't think so. There's one person there, but he's going to be gone within two weeks, because the state was paying for him to stay there. But I already notified him that, you know, he's got to -- they've got to find them another place. And then I'm going to shut the power down and probably rip everything up. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd make a motion that we accept the Page 10 March 25, 2010 stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any comments or questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Your stipulation agreement has been accepted. You have 120 days or a fine of $200 a day. If you have any problems in the meantime, try to get to us beforehand, let us know what those issues are to request an extension, if you need to. MR. AYALA: I'll give them a ring. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Okay, next stipulation's going to be Ruiz. MS. WALDRON: Actually, Mr. Chair, we do have an interpreter coming for that later this morning. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: So do we need to push that back? MS. WALDRON: Yeah, please. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Where would you like to put it? Or do you just want to call it back whenever? MS. WALDRON: We'll just come back when the interpreter Page 11 March 25,2010 arrives. Usually they're here at 11 :00. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Do we need to amend the agenda for that, or we just postpone it? MS. WALDRON: No, I don't think we need to amend the agenda, we just postpone it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, moving on to the next one, which would be Munoz. THE COURT REPORTER: Do we have an alternate voting today? CHAIRMAN KELL Y: That's a good question. There is -- well, we have two alternates and one of the alternates is absent because he has not been approved by the board yet as a full-time member; is that correct? MS. WALDRON: Well, we have a full-time member that was just approved this week, which will be here next meeting, so we have the two alternates here. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And since one full-time member is absent, that means one will have voting rights and the one with the most seniority is the one who gets the voting rights, correct? MS. WALDRON: Right. Which I believe Mr. Marino was here before. CHAIRMAN KELLY: There you go. I don't think that's what they mean by that. But okay, so you will have voting rights. But also keep in mind that you'll have the opportunity to participate in all discussions. MR. DOINO: Thank you. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning. For the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Pay Page 12 March 25,2010 operational costs in the amount of $80.29 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 KELLY: Thank you. Ma'am, could you state your name for the record, please. MS. MUNOZ: Yes, sir. My name is Inocencia Munoz. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Cherie', did you get that? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And do you agree with everything that was just read? MS. MUNOZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And 120 days will give you enough time to convert that? MS. MUNOZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have any questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: In that case, I'll entertain a moment to accept or deny. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. Page 13 March 25,2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second. Any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: And it carries. So you have about four months. If you run into any problems, please let us know ahead of time. MS. MUNOZ: Okay, sir. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Moving on to public hearings. First one is going to be Harris, CESD200900 18220. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of Ordinance Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 1 0.02.06(B)(1 )(a). Description of violation: Addition of fence, four sheds, metal carport, canopy, lanai, wooden deck and pool with no permits. Location/address where violation exists: 5730 Cedar Tree Lane, Naples, Florida, 34116. Folio No. 38228880003. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Edward M. and Tammy Harris, 5730 Cedar Tree Lane, Naples, Florida, 34116. Date violation first observed: December 1 st, 2009. Page 14 March 25, 2010 Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: December 7th, 2009. Date onlby which violation to be corrected: January 7th, 2010. Date of reinspect ion: February 22nd, 2010. Results of the reinspection is the violation remains. I'd like to now turn it over to Investigator Renald Paul. MR. PAUL: Good morning. For the record, Renald Paul, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20090018220 dealing with the violations of Collier County Land Development, Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02. 06(B)(1 )( a). Additions of the fence, four sheds, metal carport, a canopy, lanai, wooden deck and a pool without permits. Service was given on December 7th, 2009. I'd like to present some case evidence in the following exhibits: B-1 through 4 and C-l through 6. And as she puts them up, I'll explain what they are. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Has the respondent seen these photos? MR. PAUL: Yes, I have shown it to him on prior meetings. MR. LA VINSKI: Make a motion to approve. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any further comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? Page 15 March 25, 2010 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: And Investigator Paul, could you slow down just a little bit for Cherie'. MR. PAUL: Oh, sorry about that. MR. KAUFMAN: Mr. Chairman, do you want to wait until we get the other screens up because a lot of this is going to be visual? CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have one that we can on-look that way. And if you don't mind, Jim, until we do, can you look over on either side? MR. LA VINSKI: Yeah. Or I can use the monitor, yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, good. They're not going to -- apparently we're going to have to live with that. MR. PAUL: Bring it down just a tiny bit. All right. Now, what you're looking at is a 1983 floor plan of the home when I guess the original permits were pulled. And the important part that you would be looking at is the top part by the master bed. Right here. As you can see, there's nothing there. He has a lanai there as of today. And it's an unpermitted lanai, as you see in the picture. It's not there. On the next photograph, which is a more recent survey, it actually shows where there is a lanai that's there. It's a 2003 survey. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Can you magnify that slightly for us, please. MR. PAUL: See the part that says covered screen? MR. HARRIS: That's the '03, Renald? MR. PAUL: Yeah, that's the '03 survey. MR. HARRIS: It doesn't show it. MR. PAUL: Yeah, it says covered screen lanai in that same slot. MR. HARRIS: Okay. MR. PAUL: Go ahead with the next one. And the next photograph shows an aerial of what his house Page 16 March 25, 2010 looked like in 2004. As you can see, the important part is the back part back here. As you can see, there's nothing back there. Go ahead for the next one. And as you see in the 2009 aerial, there's a deck and a pool back there which are unpermitted. And that's just I believe an '05 aerial, it just shows. Between '04 and '05 that deck and pool was put in. And this is a photograph of the front yard of the property. As you can see, that's one of the unpermitted sheds off to the left side of the house. MR. HARRIS: Doghouse. MR. PAUL: And this shows a picture of the fence on the property. That is also unpermitted. MR. HARRIS: Disgusting looking. It should be destroyed. MR. PAUL: And this just shows a picture of the front of the house. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Mr. Paul, that previous photo, the picture of the front of the house, the front lanai part was part of the original construction, correct? You're just showing this as a general -- MR. PAUL: Right, I'm just showing this as a general photograph, just the front of the home. This is off to the right side of the home. As you can see, those are the remaining three sheds, the metal carport and the canopy. MR. HARRIS: Renald, can I address these one at a time? I mean, I'm not trying to be confusing here. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: No, we'll do, Mr. Harris, is let the county do their thing and then we can go back through each one of them, if you'd like. MR. HARRIS: Sure. No, that won't be necessary. MR. DOINO: Mr. Harris, are all those new sheds? MR. PAUL: They seem pretty new. MR. HARRIS: About four years ago, I think. By Ted's Sheds. MR. PAUL: The next photograph shows a picture of the deck in Page 17 March 25,2010 the back of the home. And the last photograph shows you the pool. We received an anonymous complaint sometime around 11/30 of 2009. Because of how many complaints there were, I did some research, and I pulled some information. I pulled some old permits. After research found that there was additions that were on the property as the fence and the sheds and so on, and that they were unpermitted. I actually spoke with the owner on 12/7 of2009 over the phone and at that time we had sat up an appointment to meet at the Horseshoe address. On 12/7 I met with Mr. Harris at the office. We spoke about all the violations, ways to correct. He explained to me his financial situation and so on. And at that time he signed the Notice of Violation. On 1/7 of2010, after research, I found there was no permits that were applied for, and all the items were still on the property. On 2/11 of2010, after research, found that the violation remained. On 2/22 the violation remained. At that time I prepped the case for CEB hearing. On 3/10 I posted the notice of hearing at the courthouse and the residence. As of today, all these things are still at the property. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Very good. Any questions for the county? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All right, Mr. Harris, your turn. You can ask if you want any of those pictures brought back up. MR. HARRIS: Yes, and that's fine. I'm Ed Harris, and Renald's -- Mr. Paul's been just fine. You know, we got along just fine during this. We only met one time. We spoke one time on the phone -- MR. PAUL: Correct. MR. HARRIS: That's it. He's not been hounding me about this, Page 18 March 25, 2010 nor should he have to hound me about this. I was under the impression, I apologize, that when we spoke on 12/7, we both agreed to move the date up to 2/7 as a date to even reinspect or worry about it, because there was so much. And I told him the situation, which is foreclosure, the standard talk of the day, I'm sure, that is going on. Trying to save my home. It is in foreclosure, and we've been trying to get a modification with an attorney or his representative for months now. And you know, every day it's maybe, maybe, maybe. Every day I'm living on the edge my seat. Along with my wife, my mother-in-law lives with me, my sister lives with me, my two sons live with me. Bankruptcy on top of that. We're trying to fight off bankruptcy with everything we've got. I've got another lawsuit that I had to, you know, go after this year. I spent $20,000 on attorneys fees on that and the modification together. Because a gentleman I bought a business from breached the contract. He's a local contractor. And I won the case, finally. I laid out over $150,000 over a two-year period that I didn't have to spend and I spent $20,000 in attorneys fees. I won 32. And it's supposed to be settled, and I'm not done. But anyway, I'm broke, you know, and I'm packed out. And I'm trying my hardest to just survive and rebuild my business on a daily basis. So with that said, you know, my wife is working full-time doing -- you know, we're both doing all we can. And as I said, I haven't spoke to Renald. I haven't tried to make any excuses for this. Ted's Sheds put in all the sheds at the same time, except for the doghouse, that little plastic thing my son and I put up on the weekend. The notorious thought they permitted it, thought it was all set. You know, thought it was a good, you know, 30, $40,000 for the sheds and the carport. They're done right, they're anchored, they're Page 19 March 25, 2010 good for probably 180 mile an hour winds. I find out they can't be there in that location, so they'll be moved. If I can save the property or if! can -- you know, regardless, they need to be moved, I'm sure, by me or Wells Fargo, if they take possession of the property. I would make every effort to get that done. I've made calls; for six weeks it took me to get two different guys out there that supposedly can move sheds. The guys move for Ted's Sheds. And finally one of them gave me a firm answer that said yes, they can be moved. You know, short of just taking a stick of dynamite and blowing them up, I wanted to know what we could do to salvage them. They're big. They're, you know, 15 by 30 sheds. They're heavy, they're very heavy well-built sheds. So not only are they expensive, but it's not like I can go out there and throw them on my back and move them to another spot either. So, you know, I will go ahead and apply for the permit for those, you know, immediately, find out where they can be on the property, you know, pick some places that I would like to put them, you know, away from the property line more. And they can be nowhere near where they are, because if I move them in eight or 10 feet, you know, I won't have a driveway left. But we'll move them somewhere. I can't throw them away. And that or sell them. Or if I get forced out, I would take them to my new location, if I could afford it. So, you know, that's what's going on with the sheds. The fence, the deck, weekend projects for me and my buddy that's a contractor now, a general contractor in Collier County now. They're all built to exceed standards or code. I was not aware, again, the permit of -- and that's no excuse, ignorance of the law, I know that. I've been in Collier County for 45 years now. I know there's strict laws on a lot of permitting. But a wooden deck out there on that property, when I'm doing it myself, I thought that was the key thing, and I'm wrong. So I tried to get a permit on that without tearing it up. You know, Page 20 March 25,2010 obviously you apply for permits for all these things and see -- that's the main thing is what will the code officer insist on to sign off on it. Will he sign off on it or does it need to -- something just need to be destroyed? I mean, I hope not. The deck's a $25,000 deck. You know, there's materials and paying a guy to help me with my -- and a lot of my sweat in there. It's all done right. You know, you see the property, it's not bothering anybody. And there's not been multiple complaints from multiple people. It's one person. Correct? MR. PAUL: That's correct. MR. HARRIS: It's not my neighbors. It's not bothering anybody. It's the gentleman I sued. It's a vengeance thing. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: I understand. MR. HARRIS: From the property there's a 10 to 12-foot hedge all the way around the entire 660- foot property line. Besides, I'm a landscape contractor here in Collier County. It's beautiful. It's done right. You cannot see this. It does not harm anybody. There's no danger to anyone. No roofs going to collapse on any of my children. There's no -- you know, none of this stuffs going to blow away in any storm. It lasted through the hurricanes. Everything's that there was through the hurricanes. It didn't move. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Yes. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Investigator, are there any health or safety concerns that you're aware of? MR. PAUL: None that I'm aware of. But, you know, there was a lanai that was installed. I don't know if there's any electrical in there. Plus you have the pool that's been installed also. So these things do need to be inspected to make sure -- MR. HARRIS: Absolutely. MR. PAUL: -- they were done up to code. Those are the two Page 21 March 25, 2010 that are most concerning. MR. KAUFMAN: Well, I guess the first thing we need to do is find out if a violation exists. And it appears from the photos, the evidence, that a violation does exist, so I'd like to make a motion that a violation does exist. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LA VINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Second. All those in favor -- or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed? MR. KAUFMAN: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Now, to put the baby back together. MR. HARRIS: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: Do you have a feeling for how long it will take to work through your issues with the bank? Have they given you any promises, do you have any feeling for it? MR. HARRIS: I wish, sir. And that's a big part of this. If! wasn't in foreclosure, and especially if I didn't have any -- if it was just a regu -- you know, if this was years ago, you know, even if! were just doing okay with the business, these would have been corrected within 60 days, probably. You know, money was -- you know, this kind of money wouldn't have been a big issue five years ago. It's just Page 22 March 25, 2010 we've lost 60 percent of our business when the economy collapsed in the last two years. I've got -- you know, my landscape business, I bought an irrigation company that was doing very well, I built it up to do very well, and this gentleman walked out and I lost all the income that I built on that. So -- but I have no idea on the bank issue. They don't dare tell you that. It's a daily thing of calling my attorney and him saying it looks good, Ed, it's positive, it's what they negotiated. They might give you a home modification loan, they might not. Every day they ask for recent check stubs and such. I don't think this is something -- if I knew I owned the home and finances where they are, I would ask, beg for six months, because there's so much. There's no health hazard, there's no neighbors. It's not my neighbor saying get this off my property, there's nothing like that. The fence that's put up, I approved with my neighbor, I talked to my neighbors. I maintain all my neighbors' properties. They're all just as nice as mine. They love us. We all get along very well. Across the street, next door, everything. So this complaint's coming from spite. And you can't see this stuff, you know, from the road unless you look hard in, you might see sheds. But I would hope, sir, that -- you know, what's going to happen is I'm going to have to file bankruptcy, you know, if the bank doesn't approve this, probably within 60 days. So either something comes to a head in 60 days I think and then I can say -- because the shed's going to be thousands and thousands of dollars to move. You know, thousands. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is your house for sale currently? MR. HARRIS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Harris, let me explain a little bit about our board and -- MR. HARRIS: Sure. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: -- what we have to do. Page 23 March 25,2010 We technically are kind of the public end of this whole thing, and we try to help enforce the county ordinances to the best of our ability. One of the things that we've seen in the past is situations very similar to yours. As you know, in the town -- this whole country's affected with it right now. MR. HARRIS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: One of the problems that we have is whenever a violation occurs, it does not go back to the previous owner, it stays with the property. So let's hope that this doesn't happen, but if for chance your home does go into foreclosure and the bank retains ownership of it, well, then the bank would be responsible -- MR. HARRIS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: -- for fixing these problems. MR. HARRIS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: And as a board we typically -- or as the public representing the public as a board we typically don't like to see those problems transfer over to the next person. In this situation it's a bank and I'm sure we probably feel less than sympathetic. However, if that was another homeowner that ends up getting -- MR. HARRIS: Of course. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- a short sale -- MR. HARRIS: I wouldn't pass that along to them. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: So we have to take that into consideration as well. MR. HARRIS: Yes, they would not. It can't go to another homeowner. You know, it's -- I've got -- this mortgage no one would assume. On this property, no one would buy me out. And I -- short selling would not be a choice. If they said we're foreclosing tomorrow, yeah, we'd pack our bags, I'd drag the sheds out of there somehow with, you know, this Page 24 March 25, 2010 guy that will supposedly move them. I don't know how (sic) kind of notice he needs, but I would move them with me so they wouldn't be left as a problem. The fence on my one side, the neighbor is basically -- it's on his property we believe on one side, because I approved it with him. So he's probably going to pull a permit with me and say, you know, let's get it approved. Every post is concreted. I put it in with my meticulous mechanic who's just anal about perfection. There's not a section that's not perfectly -- every post is concreted. You know, it's not going anywhere. But I would make as many corrections as I could immediately. I would ask for six months, you know, and that's -- CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Mr. Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Does the county have a position of what they would recommend? MR. PAUL: We don't have any position. Anything you'd recommend. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: What about a recommendation from the county? MR. PAUL: Okay. We ask that respondents abate all violations by: Respondents are required to obtain any and all permits as required by Collier County for any and all improvements to this residence, or obtain permits for removal of all unpermitted improvements to the property and obtain all required inspections and certificate of completion within "X" amount of days of this hearing or be fined "X" amount of dollars for each day that the violation remains unabated. Respondents must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement. And all Page 25 March 25,2010 costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Can we put your recommendation up on the screen, please. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Did you say operational costs in there, Mr. Paul? MR. PAUL: No, I didn't. Oh, I'm sorry. The operations costs are $80.57. Sorry about that. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Mr. Harris, I'll comment real quick on the operational costs. $80.57 is imposed by the county. Those are usually to be paid within 30 days, and we cannot waive those in any way. MR. HARRIS: No, sir, I understand that. I mean, he spent the time on this and that's county taxpayer money. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Mr. Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to take a stab at coming up with a recommendation. I'd like to fill in the blanks on your suggestion that the 80.57 be paid. MR. HARRIS : Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: A fine of $200 a day be imposed after 180 days. Which, if I have my calendar straight, is about six months. MR. HARRIS: Yes, sir, I-- MR. KAUFMAN: And I would, just as a side comment, think that at that time things would be worked out in one way or another so that -- MR. HARRIS: They're going to be. They have to be. MR. KAUFMAN: And ifneed be, you're certainly welcome to come back and -- MR. HARRIS: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: -- we can discuss this further. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I apologize, Mr. Harris, it was my fault; just taken over chairmanship today. I should have closed the public Page 26 March 25, 2010 hearings. I apologize. So at this time let me do that, I'll close the public hearings, and then any questions that the board asks you can address directly. MR. HARRIS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'm sorry, Mr. Kaufman, go ahead. MR. KAUFMAN: And that's my motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: I'll second. MR. DEAN: Can I ask one question? CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Please. MR. DEAN: My main concern is the fact -- my main concern is the permit for the pool. MR. HARRIS : Yes, sir. MR. DEAN: You know, you have children, it's electrical pump and things like that. And that's what concerns us as a board is the last four years that I've heard cases, our concern is that it's improper electrical, there could be a problem. And that bothers me the most. And to me that should be a permit now and inspected so we know that we're okay before I give six months -- MR. HARRIS: Absolutely. MR. DEAN: -- to something like that. MR. LEFEBVRE: Mr. Dean, I concur with you. I think we should break this down into possibly the lanai and the pool, maybe give it a shorter period of 60 days to get the permits for the lanai and the pool and then 180 days for -- I think the other outstanding violations would be the wooden deck and the sheds and so forth. But I think the electrical should be done -- MR. DEAN: Yeah, that's the main thing-- MR. LEFEBVRE: -- in a shorter period of time. MR. DEAN: -- I'm concerned about. CHAIRMAN KELLY: As you know, newer codes require some Page 27 March 25,2010 kind of barrier to prevent drowning as well. So I would agree with that as well. And, you know, with your wooden deck railings, perhaps you can just fence that off completely with some kind of -- MR. HARRIS: The entire property's fenced, but yes, sir. I mean also. But yes, around the back. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is it above ground or in-ground pool? MR. HARRIS: It's barely this much. It's an above ground-- MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay, that's all-- MR. HARRIS: -- weekend project pool, you know, that-- CHAIRMAN KELLY: So we technically do have a first and second on that. So we do need to call a vote on it on this particular motion. So let's go ahead and do that. Is there any further comments before we do? MR. KAUFMAN: Could I modify the motion that I made to include the two parts? CHAIRMAN KELL Y: If we can get a modified on the second, sure. MR. HARRIS: Mr. Kelly? MR. MARINO: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: You have a question? MR. HARRIS: Yes, sir, Mr. Kaufman. I totaled a truck. I had a seizure a few months ago, totaled my truck. I'm standing here on swollen ankles. I have physical therapy and such five days a week and in extreme pain in my lower back and both ankles. This is just one more thing that I'm battling right now for time, trying to run my business. I've cut so much staff that I'm the office manager, the crew leader, the foreman, the employee, the everything right now. So time is also an issue. The electrical was done professionally. It wasn't permitted I Page 28 March 25,2010 guess for the pool. It was installed by Dan House Electric, that one outlet covered and everything. I'll assure you, there are no extreme health issues. The pool needs to be enclosed in the back. It's four feet above ground level. I think that's the -- I think that's the requirement for anything -- that fence would have to be four foot. The pool itself is four feet. There's a railing all the way around the fence. So-- MR. KAUFMAN: I guess the question-- MR. HARRIS: -- mayor may not pass now. MR. KAUFMAN: -- the question is, on the electrical-- I'll ask the question. The electrical involves an outlet that is out by the pool? MR. HARRIS: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: Is it also -- and in the outlet is the pool pump and the rest of the electrical that is required? MR. HARRIS: Just the pool pump's all that's there, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. And we certainly don't want to have a pool pump not filtering the water so it turns green. MR. HARRIS: No, sir, but-- MR. KAUFMAN: Let me just ask, is it possible for you to get somebody out there to take a look at that -- MR. HARRIS: Yes. Get a permit. MR. KAUFMAN: -- one outlet and get that permitted. MR. HARRIS: Yes. Immediately I'd have that done. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. So can I have permission from the second to change my motion? MR. MARINO: Yes, you do. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to split the motion into two parts. The electrical part will be permitted and inspected within 60 days. MR. HARRIS: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: And the remainder of the items will be 180 days. MR. HARRIS : Yes, sir. On the lanai -- Page 29 March 25, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's a motion -- MR. HARRIS: I'm sorry, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have to do our part now. We have the motion. Do you agree with the revision? MR. MARINO: I agree. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And we have the second. Any comments to the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So now that is official. You now have 60 days to get that electrical component permitted. I don't know what else they're going to require you to get that. They might actually encompass the pool as part of it, but we'll see what happens. And then 120 days for the remainder items. MR. HARRIS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Okay? MR. HARRIS : Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Good. Thank you very much. MR. HARRIS: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Have a good day. MR. HARRIS: Thank you, gentlemen. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Chair, just for clarification, both sections are $200 per day? Page 30 March 25, 2010 MR. KAUFMAN: That's correct. And if you have any questions that you can't meet a date or whatnot, don't wait till after it happens, come back before. MR. HARRIS: Thank you, gentlemen. THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Kaufman, I think you still need to -- could you put your mic on the other side of you? Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Jen, we're still waiting on Ruiz? MS. WALDRON: Excuse me? I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We're still waiting on Ruiz, the translator? MS. WALDRON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We'll go ahead and move on to the next case, which is going to be -- is it Medeiros? MS. WALDRON: Yes. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of ordinance Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article 6, Section 22-23(12)(m), and 22-231(12)(B). Description of violation: Protective coating of exterior walls on second floor is peeling and chipping. Walls have several holes in them and it appears that a pest is eating away at the wood. Location/address where violation exists: 8 Pelican Street West, Naples, Florida, 34113. Folio No. 52340400004. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Ronald M. Medeiros, residing at 306 Winthrop Street, PMB-119 Taunton, Mass., 02780. Date violation first observed: May 22nd, 2009. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: August 7th, 2009. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: August 31 st, 2009. Date of reinspect ion: February 5th, 2010. Results of the reinspection: The violation remains. Page 31 March 25,2010 At this time I'd like to I'd present Investigator Azure Sorrels. MS. SORRELS: Good morning, gentlemen. For the record, Investigator Azure Sorrels, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to case number CEPM20090009462, pertaining to the violations of the exterior wall -- excuse me -- protective coating of exterior walls on second floor is peeling and chipping. Walls have several holes in them and it appears that a pest is eating away at the wood. Violation location is 8 Pelican Street West. Folio No. 52340400004. Service was given on August 7th, 2009. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: B-1 through 8, pictures all of the same day. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Entertain a motion to accept. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Motion and a second. Any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And motion passes. MS. SORRELS: A complaint was made on this property and I had made a site visit on May 22nd, 2009. And the photos that we're Page 32 March 25,2010 going to review is concerning the second floor of this two-story home, single- family residence. As you can see in this picture, this is one of the exterior walls facing the street. And it's -- the chip -- paint is chipping and peeling away. You can see some types of wood anchored to the exterior wall trying to cover up the holes. And if you look closely, you can see actually other holes have been done since the patchwork. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Would you guess there's a possibility that woodpeckers could be a part of the situation going on here? MS. SORRELS: Sir, that is definitely a possibility. That's why I stated that it was -- appears to be a pest. I'm not sure what the pest is. Another exterior wall, street side. And again, patchwork, and other holes have appeared since the patchwork had been done. More chipping and holes in the wood on the second floor. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is this structure occupied? MS. SORRELS: No, sir, it is vacant and is in lis pendens. There's a foreclosure process. There is a lis pendens filed on it. Our foreclosure team was handling the case, have made several attempts in contacting and working with the bank. The bank has not responded, so the case was given back to me to follow through with the hearing. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. MR. MARINO: That last picture also looks like there's some rotten wood, the wood is rotting on the building also. MS. SORRELS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Azure, is this a repeat violation? MS. SORRELS: No, sir, it's not. And this is just down the side of the house, more of a general VIew. And this would be the other side of the house, down the side. This would be the east side. MR. DOINO: Azure, is the whole entire house like this, then, all Page 33 March 25, 2010 four -- MS. SORRELS: Only the second floor, sir. The bottom floor is concrete with stucco on it. So only the second floor is like this. MR. MARINO: Does this look like this portion of the building was added after the house was built? MS. SORRELS: I'm sorry, sir? MR. MARINO: Does it look like this part of the building was built after the house was built? MS. SORRELS: No, sir, no. This was all -- MR. MARINO: It was built as a two-story house? MS. SORRELS: Correct, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions as to whether or not a violation exists? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: If not, I'll entertain a motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion that a violation does exist. MR. KAUFMAN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And there is a violation. Do you have a recommendation? MS. SORRELS: I do, sir. The county recommends the Page 34 March 25, 2010 respondent to pay operational costs in the amount of $80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Respondent must obtain all required building permits and replace or repair all exterior walls on second floor of residential dwelling that have holes or are loose or have rotting material within an "X" amount number of days of this hearing or an "X" amount of fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains. Property owner -- excuse me, respondent must properly coat with protective covering all exterior walls on second floor as needed to prevent infestation and deterioration within "X" number of days of this hearing or an "X" number fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains. Respondent must properly rid the dwelling of any insect infestation and prevent the reoccurrence of an insect infestation within "X" number of days of this hearing or "X" number fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains. Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation or request the investigator to perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. KAUFMAN: Do you have a demo provision in this motion that you're proposing? MS. SORRELS: No, I do not, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to try-- CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Well, I have a comment first. Azure, I have a question for you. MS. SORRELS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: In the charging documents it talks about the exterior holes, the peeling, the chipping, but it doesn't talk about Page 35 March 25,2010 any insect infestation. But the recommendation does. And I was wondering if we could ask them to do something we didn't charge them with. I mean, it specifically -- MS. SORRELS: Not following you, sorry. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: In your recommendations it specifically states, must properly rid the dwelling of any insect infestation and prevent that occurrence of an insect infestation within so many days or so much per day will be fined. But yet the charging documents doesn't mention insect infestation, it only talks about holes and paint peeling and pests. MS. SORRELS: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So I was just -- maybe just a general thing if you know something, or procedural issue. MS. RAWSON: Is a pest an insect? CHAIRMAN KELLY: It could be, but we're specifically saying he can't have any insects on his property. That's almost impossible to enforce or to possibly abate. That's the only thing I'm saying. MS. SORRELS: I understand what you're saying. Yes, I should have been a little more specific at what I was asking as insect. I'm assuming they're termites, but the point was very well made that it could be woodpeckers. Being that I'm not an expert, I can't determine one way or the other what is actually causing the holes. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I think we go back to the original charge where you simply used the word pest, that might be all-inclusive enough to include a pest, or rather an insect, or if it's a bird, a bird. MS. SORRELS: Understood. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Well, why don't we just keep that in mind then when we talk about what the actual motion is. MS. SORRELS: My apologies for the -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: No, I just wanted to know where you were coming from. Maybe you knew something we didn't. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to preface my -- can you hear me? Page 36 March 25, 2010 Can you hear me now? Sounds like a Verizon commercial. One of the things I think that I have in mind in making the motion is first of all that it would be a quick motion, not to extend this too far out. If this is in lis pendens, sometimes this -- and the banks are not cooperating, if you will, this sometimes would be a lever to motivate them. So with that in mind, the operational costs of $80.86 to be imposed within 30 days; that the violation be mitigated within -- and I can -- I'll ask for some help on the board here. I originally had put down 60 days, but I'm more inclined to put down 30 days. So I will make it 30 days, or a fine of $200 a day be imposed. And I would like to add to this that should they -- the county has the right to demolish the building as one of the -- the onus to have the ability to demolish the building, as we do in many other motions, if they choose not to mitigate the situation. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I do have one other question. You told me this building is not occupied? MS. SORRELS: That is correct. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is it secure? MS. SORRELS: Yes, it is. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second. Any comments? MR. LEFEBVRE: I think 30 days is a short period of time due to the fact that you really haven't had any discussion with the bank. Once they do find out that potentially they have 30 days, it might take some time for them to work through their avenues to get this corrected. So I think 30 days is a short period of time. MR. MARINO: I have a question. Page 37 March 25,2010 CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Go ahead, sir. MR. MARINO: When was the last time you had any contact with the bank or with the owner? MS. SORRELS: I have not speaken (sic) with the owner. A certified Notice of Violation was sent, it was signed for, but no contact has ever been made. I have attempted phone calls from an out-of-state number that I obtained over 4-1-1, and I have not been successful in contacting anyone. As for the bank, the foreclosure team, their last attempt was -- give me one second here to read through the notes. It appears that the foreclosure team made one more attempt on the 19th of January, 2010, with -- they abbreviated here, I'm believing there's two investors in this, or two banks in this -- and was unable to locate a servicer for property. They had sent out an e-mail and no response was given back. MR. LEFEBVRE: Now, once there's a violation and there's an order, the bank gets noticed on that too, correct? MS. FLAGG: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay, thank you. MR. KAUFMAN: One more comment. The reason I wanted to use 30 days, you've already tried for 60 days to get the bank. And I don't think waiting an additional 30 days will matter at all except the violation will be there for another 30 days. So I think I'd like to reemphasize my 30 days. MS. SORRELS: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: I actually have a comment about the demo portion. Since it's not an unpermitted structure issue, I don't think it's an issue where they should have the opportunity to revert back to whatever it was. It's an okay structure, it just needs to have maybe some maintenance work done to it. MR. KAUFMAN: I was just giving that as an option to the owner or to the -- current owner, or if the bank takes it over, as an Page 38 March 25, 2010 option to remove the violation. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: It would certainly send a message. Okay, any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? MR. LEFEBVRE: Opposed. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: One opposed, Mr. Lefebvre. And motion carries. MS. SORRELS: Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Okay, next case, if I'm on here, it would be Jeff and Treasure Ahlbrandt. MS. WALDRON: Can we skip down to the next imposition of fines/hearing, please? CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Okay. And Ruiz is not available yet? MS. WALDRON: Not yet. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next one then would be Rafael Santos and Zonia Barginer. (Speakers were duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please. MR. SANTOS: Rafael Santos. MR. MUCHA: Good morning. Investigator Joe Mucha, for the record. This is in reference to CEB Case No. CESD20090000849, Board of County Commissioners versus Rafael Santos and Zonia Barginer. Page 39 March 25, 2010 Dealing with violations of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). And Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Section 22-26(B), Subsection 104.5.1.4.4. Location is 3705 Thommason Drive. Folio number is 22622600002. Description of the violation is recurring violation of letting permit expire for addition made to the structure on the property. Past orders: On July 23rd, 2009 the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4481, Page 718 for more information. An extension of time was granted on October 22nd, 2009. See the attached Order of the Board OR4506, Page 2546 for more information. The respondent has complied with the CEB orders as of March 23rd,201O. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order item number two, fines at a rate of $250 per day for the period between December 8th, 2009 through March 23rd, 2010, 106 days, for the total of $26,500. Order item number one, operational costs of$85.86 have been paid. Total amount to date: $26,500. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Thank you, sir. The information in the packet, we had a noncompliance, but you're saying it is complied with? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. Let me just kind of give you a little background on this here. Mr. Santos actually got his final building inspection on October 22nd of 2009. And I think he was under the impression that he was done. And he needed to submit a 10-day spot survey. And that's what Page 40 March 25, 2010 was holding up his certificate of completion. And I just had a hard time getting ahold of him. I couldn't get ahold of him on the phone. And when I actually met with him earlier this month, I explained to him, it was like, you know, you need to provide this survey to get your certificate of occupancy for the addition. And he got that completed on the 23rd of March. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Very good. Do we have any questions for the Investigator? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, do we have any questions for the respondent? (No response.) MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we abate the fines. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Mr. Santos, thank you for volunteering to take care of this problem for us. Thank you for coming to us and requesting an extension of time, knowing that you were going to need Page 41 March 25, 2010 more of it. And thank you for getting it taken care of. MR. SANTOS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next case? MS. WALDRON: Mr. Chair, if we could go back to number two under imposition? CHAIRMAN KELLY: So we're back with Jeff and Treasure Ahlbrandt. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. LEFEBVRE: Mr. Paul? MR. PAUL: How are you doing? This is in reference to CEB Case No. CESD20090012965, Board of County Commissioners versus Treasure B. and Jeff Ahlbrandt. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location: 6090 Painted Leaf Lane, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 38163480005. Description: Owner enclosed the porch and added a wooden shed with no permits. Past orders: On January 28th, 2010, 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 OR4537, Page 1725 for more information. The respondent has not complied with the CEB orders as of March 25th, 2010. The fines and cost to date are described as the following: Order item number one and two, fines at a rate of $200 per day for the period between March 1st, 2010 and March 25th, 2010, 25 days, for the total of $5,000. Fines continue to accrue. Order item number five, operational costs of $81.15 have not been paid. Total amount to date, $5,081.15. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Paul, have you had any further Page 42 March 25, 2010 discussions with the respondent since this? MR. PAUL: No, I've never had any discussion with these property owners. They've never called me or anything. I'm unable to get ahold of them whenever I go to the house. MR. L'ESPERANCE: You've made an attempt by visiting and -- MR. PAUL: Yes, I have. I've made several attempts. No one comes to the door. I can just hear their dogs barking. MR. KAUFMAN: So the residence is occupied. MR. PAUL: Yes, it is. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to impose. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Motion and a second. Any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: We'll impose the fines. MR. PAUL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Thank you. Okay, next on imposition of fines, we have 1. Peaceful, L.c.; is that correct, Jen? MS. WALDRON: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And we do have a public speaker. (Speakers were duly sworn.) Page 43 March 25, 2010 MR. CHAMI: Good morning. THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please. MR. CHAMI: George Chami. C-H-A-M-I. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Chami, just so you know, because you were privy to this case, you're a registered agent for the corporation, correct? MR. CHAMI: Exactly. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: You will get the opportunity to speak. You didn't need to fill one of these out. MR. CHAMI: Thank you very much. MR. MARTINDALE: Good morning. This case is referenced n I'm sorry, Investigator Ron Martindale, Collier Code Enforcement. This is reference CEB Case CESD20090012961, Board of Collier County Commissioners versus 1.c. Peaceful, L.c., respondents. Violations of Collier County Land Development Code 01-41, as amended, section 10.2.6(B)(1)(e). Location is 777 Preserve Lane, Naples, Florida. Folio 68391446166. Description of the violation: Is alterations to structure without obtaining permits, subsequent inspections or issuance of certificate of compliance or completion of occupancy. On October 22nd, 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 OR4506, Page 2540, for more information. The respondent has not complied with the CEB orders as of March 25th, 2010. The fines and costs are described as follows: Order item number two, fines at a rate of $100 per day for the period between February 20th, 2010 through March 25th, 2010, 34 days, for the total of$3,400. Page 44 March 25,2010 Fines continue to accrue. Item one, operational costs of $86.14 have been paid. Total amount due to date, $3,400. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sir, if you'd like, you can explain what's going on and what we can do to help. MR. CHAMI: Frankly, I'm a little bit lost what's happening here. It's the second time I'm coming with my tenant. It's my tenant who was supposed to do all the work. The second time -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you'd like, if I can interrupt you, I'll just explain the procedural process and maybe that will help clear some of this up. Since there was an original order, meaning that we found there was a violation and we agreed on a certain amount of time to take care of those issues, because that time has expired, now we are at a point where fines have started to accrue. However, just because they've been accruing day after day doesn't mean that any type of lien has been placed yet against the property. Today we are here to decide whether or not it's time to put those liens against the property. And then in true fact you have since elapsed your time without having proper extension. If that's what we find today, those leans will then be filed against your property. MR. CHAMI: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. CHAMI: Just let me explain myself a little bit what happened here. During the last hearing in fact my tenant was supposed to come in and present some document to show that we applied in fact for a building permit. And unfortunately the administrator at that time, Mr. Joe Schmitt, was in a position that there was no permit ever being submitted to the county. And this is why we find ourselves in front of your board, to be able to justify ourselves. Page 45 March 25,2010 And we had absolutely no document. My tenant, who was supposed to be with me at that time, left before, a half hour before we were to be in front of the board. Same thing happened today. So I don't know what's happening here. I know that we have some -- these issues between me and my tenant. Nevertheless, after Mr. Schmitt left the county, we were able to find that the permit was being submitted to the county on May 14 -- my apology, May 14,2009. It was being submitted. How this permit disappear, nobody can understand. But I'm not opening what happened in the past. The past is history. Now, after Mr. Schmitt left, the new administrator, Mr. Nick, talked to my tenant a few times. And to my understanding everything was being resolved. Basically there was no need to have anything to be submitted. This is what my tenant told me on few occasions. Now, Mr. Martindale came to -- in fact called me one day before the end of the 180 days I believe period we had, and he informed me at that time that unfortunately nothing was being submitted and no agreement yet what happened between myself or my tenant and the county. So I talked to my tenant. My tenant assured me again that it was being discussed in discussion between him and the administrator, and basically it should be resolved and basically we have to submit some, what do you call it, SDPI to show basically that it was some ramp was being added. Now, I received the drawing from my tenant. I received them around 10 days ago, 12 days ago for -- but unfortunately these drawing, they're not really in line with my lease. So basically we're trying to refine the small detail right now before resubmitting them to the county. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: If you don't mind, let me interrupt you. Because at this particular point we really can't get into hearing more about the case. Page 46 March 25,2010 What it boils down to is we agreed on a certain amount of time. That time has elapsed, without any type of request for continuance. And unfortunately today our board is faced with either a yes or a no to impose these fines: Yes, we impose them because the violation has not been corrected or no we don't because it has been corrected and we feel as though it was done so to where we could possibly abate some of these fines. It's a yes or no situation, unless the county decides to withdraw this from us today. Unfortunately it's almost too late now to ask for any continuance in time. We have to make a decision based on what we have here. MR. CHAMI: If I can ask you, and really -- to give me 60 days. In fact, I can really live with 30 days to resubmit everything to the county. If it's not submitted by my tenant, I will be submitting them myself. From this particular point on I cannot anymore count on my tenant to do it. I cannot count anymore -- I was being assured by my tenant that he had discussion with the administrator two days ago about having some 30 days extension to this particular issue and the county will be agreeable to it. I'm by myself, I don't even know what I'm talking about. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We're talking about two different things. Weare the Code Enforcement Board. That would perhaps be Collier County Community Development that handles permitting and so forth. Just submitting an application is not receiving. A permit is not doing work and is not receiving a final on that permit. Mr. Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. Just to refresh the board, this is regarding a deck in the front of your building, correct, leading up to the store front for a pool company? MR. CHAMI: Basically it's to have a door installed, as well as to have pavers or pass-through or a ramp or what it is. MR. LEFEBVRE: It's the responsibility of the landowner in Page 47 March 25, 2010 your particular -- business owner or the actual owner of the property to make sure that permits have been given and you have a certificate of completion or a CO or whatever the case may be. And in this particular case we're coming to you and ultimately it falls on your shoulders. You've had cases before us before so you know the process and so forth. What you do have is an opportunity, just like when you were here previously with your sign, to correct the issue and then come back to us. And I think we're at that point now that we need to have some kind of resolution to this. And what I'd like to do is make a motion to impose the fines. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I believe county wants to speak to it real quick. We do have a motion. I'll put that on hold because there is a motion. MS. FLAGG: If it please the board, we would not object to withdrawing this, bringing it back in 30 days and giving him the opportunity to get his permit. MR. LEFEBVRE: What's the 30 days going to resolve? Is he going to have -- is that being fully permitted? I mean, I want to make sure that's not just a permit submitted. MS. FLAGG: We will ask him to have it fully permitted. Not submitted, he'll need to have a permit. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Sir, just so you know what's happening here, so that we don't have to make an up or down vote today, county is nice enough now to withdraw this from us. That means we don't have to take that vote. However, the discussion that was just made was hoping to clarify to you that this 30 days is a very generous thing that we're providing you. It does not matter how many applications you submit, it doesn't even matter if you get your permits. Those permits had to be completely CO'd or you have to get a certificate of completion or a certificate of occupancy, that means completely final, within the next Page 48 March 25, 2010 30 days or it will be brought back again and at that time there we will be even more fines. Okay? We don't necessarily need to hear about your tenant, unfortunately. It is your property and ultimately you're the one that's responsible, I'm sorry to say. MR. CHAMI: No, you're absolutely right. It's not my first experience in the -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll remove my motion from the table. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, and we have the motion withdrawn. Thank you, County. MR. CHAMI: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, sir. Weare running short on time for the interpreter. Looks like we only have a case left. So we'll move -- MR. DEAN: Put it on next month. MR. LEFEBVRE: We could have elections now. MS. WALDRON: I think we've got a couple things we can do to try and get some time. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next is going to be Gallegos. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. Case No. 2007060101, Board of County Commissioners versus Israel and Delma Gallegos. Dealing with violations, Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 1 0.02.06(B)(1)( a), 1O.02.06(B)(1)( e), and 1 0.02.06(B)( e )(i). Location: 1318 Pear Street, Immokalee, Florida. Folio No. 3073128004. Description: Multiple additions built onto structures without first obtaining proper Collier County permits. Past orders: On September 25th, 2008, the Code Enforcement Page 49 March 25, 2010 Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinance and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR4398, Page 3863 for more information. An extension of time was granted on June 25th, 2009. See the attached Order of the Board OR4470, Page 2693 for more information. On January 28th, 2010, an extension of time was denied. See the attached order of board OR4537, Page 1740. The respondent has not complied with the CEB orders as of March 25th, 2010. The fines and cost to abate are described as the following: Order item number one and three. Fines of a rate of $100 per day for the period between December 2nd, 2009 through March 25th, 2010, 114 days, for the total of 11,400 fines continued to incur. Order number -- item number six, operational cost of $86.45 has not been paid. Total amount to date, $11,486.45. CHAIRMAN KELLY: For the record also, it's part of our packet, I see here that there was also an order to delay the imposition of fines and to extend time. So there was actually two extensions; is that correct? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. I didn't know if you had said two. I -- sorry, I only heard one, but okay. Mr. Gallegos, is it true that the -- this particular case has not been abated yet? MR. GALLEGOS: Correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And you have not paid the operational costs of $86.45? MR. GALLEGOS: As of this morning, yes. Because Freeman and Freeman Construction Company is doing this work for me -- or for my father. He paid the -- well, the permit fee was $7,853.75, Page 50 March 25, 2010 which he's with my father right now down there taking care of that. They paid $86 as well. There was an extension, which is true, but I've been up here for a couple of cases for my father now. The reason -- we were 15 minutes late the last -- on January 28th, and then that's when, you know, she said try to take care of it as soon as you can and you come back before the board. I just want the board to know, back in -- if I'm not mistaken, it was either August or September, we had to demolish a home, which cost I think it was like $6,500, which set the whole -- this whole project back. So my dad has been working on a daily basis, as well as me, trying to gather up as much money as we could to pay the fine. And I did have -- I did -- in January 28th, I wanted to request another 60 days, because we were within $1,500 away. Freeman and Freeman had offered to put the $1,500 in, but he was -- it's just like anything right now with the economy, everybody's tight. Well, we finally come up with the money the last couple of days, actually. So he -- today right now as we're speaking, they're pulling the permit. I mean, I can bring the permit within the next 30 minutes. I just got texted from Freeman and Freeman that they've paid the $7,853.75, along with the operational costs. So, I mean, it will be a burden if my -- I mean, I don't know how my dad can pay the 11,400 something if we go back to -- I mean, he can, but it will take a while. But, I mean, I think I've said -- he's tried his best to do what he can with the board demolishing one home. We dealt with Mr. Kitchell Snow. We did that in a timely manner as soon as he could, and we're trying to take care of this matter. The only thing that Freeman and Freeman did tell me, it was that the only delay will be -- is it a -- I think it's an environmental hazard where they have to go check the property for the landscaping. Page 51 March 25, 2010 But the other thing, because it's a permit by affidavit. The other signatures he's getting signed right now. We're going to the permit. So they're in the process of doing that now. MR. LEFEBVRE: Would this be a case to withdraw? CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'll leave that to county. MS. FLAGG: Due to the extensions and people living there, he has the opportunity, once he comes in compliance, to request waiver of the fines. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Let me explain what county's just said. Basically county's unwilling to withdraw this case; therefore, we have to again give that up or down vote, okay? In this case, since there is no compliance yet, we typically vote in favor of imposing the fines. Now, there is a small delay just in process and procedure from the time this goes to an imposition of fines before it's forwarded to foreclosure office of the County Attorney's Office. Okay? During that time, if you were able to come into compliance by getting those permits, making sure that all the inspections were final, get back with code enforcement, then you can come back in front of us and say hey, is there any way that maybe you can reduce or possibly abate, which means completely get rid of, those fines that you imposed. Okay? But there is a narrow window procedurally. I don't remember exactly how long it is, but it has to happen quickly. MR. GALLEGOS: How could I find that out? Who would-- MS. FLAGG: We can review the process with him. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to impose the fines. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. KAUFMAN: I second it. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: We have a motion, we have a second. Any comments? (No response.) Page 52 March 25, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, so we did impose them. That means that there will be some language going against the property in the form of a lien. But you have that narrow window, and I would try, if you can get it in that window, please. MR. GALLEGOS: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. So should we go back to Ruiz? MS. WALDRON: The interpreter is not present yet at this time, but we also have a motion to amend order. I can go over that. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: That sounds like a good one. We'll go to that one now. MS. WALDRON: It would be letter C, number one, MFC Investments, LLC. Case 2006110568. This case was brought before you in 2007 to impose a fine. I believe you have that order in your packet. What happened at that time was -- do you want to swear me in? (Ms. Waldron was duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: It was brought to you for imposition of fines and at that time the respondent had a permit applied for. Therefore, the fines were not imposed at that time. What happened after that was the permit was never issued and was never picked up. No inspections were done, no C.O. was Page 53 March 25,2010 obtained. The property was then foreclosed on by MFC Investments, LLC and they did correct the violation by obtaining a demo permit and getting the certificate of completion on February 10th, 2010. So we would like to have the original imposition of fines order amended to reflect the new fine amounts. And I can go ahead and read that executive summary, if you'd like. CHAIRMAN KELLY: How does that work procedurally, Jean? I mean, is that something we can do? MS . RAWSON: Yes, we can do it. We can do it one of two ways: I can just issue an amended order and you can sign it effective, you know, this date, or we can amend the order nunc pro tunc and it goes back to the original date. Whichever the county requests. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: I would leave that up to you then. MS. WALDRON: Well, I think I would prefer the first way so -- MS. RAWSON: Right. MS. WALDRON: -- it looks like we're capturing all the fines up until February 10th. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, very good. Do we have any questions or comments from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question on something that's similar to this, not in particular for this one. But often we find that when a property is taken over by somebody else for whatever reason, could be a bank, could be a company or whatever, that the -- I think they are rewarded, the people who are taking it over, for the fine amounts. In other words, if! have a piece of property and I have a $10,000 lien on it and the property is worth 300,000, they would sell it for 290. In other words, they would get credit for that 10,000. On a case similar to this -- I mean, this is -- basically if you add up all the fines, I came up to somewheres around -- it could be as high as five, $600,000 for a shed that wasn't removed. This company had the ability to buy that piece of property, based Page 54 March 25, 2010 on the huge fines that were sitting there, for a much lower price. And then they come to code enforcement to ask for the fines to be mitigated, reduced or whatever. I just bring this up for discussion purposes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you think that's the intent, or are we -- or is the intent to impose these and then collect on them? MS. WALDRON: Well, the intent on this case is to impose the fine. There's no one here to rebut it at this time, so -- CHAIRMAN KELL Y: We'll keep that in mind if they try to come back for abatement. MR. LEFEBVRE: What do we have for dollar amounts? MS. WALDRON: We have fines at the rate of$100 per day for the period between June 6, 2007 to February 10th, 2010, 967 days, for the total of $97,800 plus operational costs of357.80 that have not been paid. The total amount a $98,157.50. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Jean, did you get all that? MS. RAWSON: I do. That's a lot of money for a shed. But yes, I got it. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: In that case, we'll entertain a motion to do something with it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is it imposing a fine or -- MS. WALDRON: Yes. Amend the-- CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Amend the original. MS. WALDRON: Amend the original imposition of fines order. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to amend the original imposition of fine. MR. KAUFMAN: I second that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second. Any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. Page 55 March 25, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Great, that one is amended then. Thank you, Mr. Keegan. MS. WALDRON: And we do have the interpreter here now. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Excellent. Good timing. Mr. Ruiz. Going back to public hearings. Mr. Interpreter, you'll have to be sworn in separately. THE INTERPRETER: Okay, sure. (Speakers were duly sworn.) (Interpreter Eduardo Triana was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sir, if you'd like to step over to the microphone. And I just want to confirm that this is Mr. Ruiz. THE INTERPRETER: Yes. THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please? THE INTERPRETER: Eduardo, E-D-U-A-R-D-O. Triana, ll-Fl-I-J\-N-J\. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Triana, since you're actually doing the speaking, if you could pull the mic. right close to you, that would be great. Thank you. Okay, Jen, you want to read this one? MS. RODRIGUEZ: It's a stip. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oh, it's a stip. Great. MS. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. Page 56 March 25, 2010 It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Pay operational costs in the amount of $80. THE INTERPRETER: Excuse me, this is my first time interpreting here. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's okay, go ahead, take your time. THE INTERPRETER: Should I tell him in his ears what she's saying or in the mic? Because I -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: You're going to actually translate directly to him. Very good, 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: Applying for and obtaining 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. Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. If you would, ask Mr. Ruiz ifhe understands and agrees to what was just read. INTERPRETER: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Just because there's an interpreter now and this is a stipulated agreement, I wanted to make sure that he understood back then when he signed it. Are there any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: I have one question. Page 57 March 25,2010 Is 120 days sufficient time to get the work done that this stipulation calls for? THE INTERPRETER: I have done everything I've been told to. I got all the plans here for the permit that was granted to me. I mean that I've been working at this and I'm -- and I just expect this to be resolved soon. MR. KAUFMAN: So 120 days would be sufficient time? That's a question. INTERPRETER: I believe so. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, any other questions from the board? (No response.) MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that we accept the stipulation as written. MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second by Mr. Dean. Any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you'd let Mr. Ruiz know that he has 120 days to get his permits, and get all the inspections for those permits. After all are complete, he needs to call code enforcement and Page 58 March 25,2010 let them know that everything is finished. If he does not comply within that 120 days, there would be fines placed every day against the property. Ifhe runs into problems, please come back to us before the 120 days to request an extension of time. Okay? And it's important for us that we see that progress is being made. THE INTERPRETER: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Great. Thank you for interpreting. Thank you, Mr. Ruiz. Gracias. Okay, onto reports. David and Juana Carrillo. MS. FLAGG: Good morning. This is the -- Diane Flagg, for the record. This is the case that you all had asked for a building inspector to go out and verify that there was no dangerous structure. They have done that and there is no dangerous structure. Also, through last week -- just an update on the foreclosure teams' progress. The banks have paid 1.4 million, 200 -- one million, 422 dollars to abate violations. The banks have abated 1,023 violations. For last week it saved the county $20,157. To give you some code stats from the past two weeks: Last week there were 195 new cases opened. There were 528 inspections last week completed by the code investigators. There were 63 cases closed with voluntary compliance. And the number of lien search requests and payoffs was 197. The week prior there were 200 new cases open that week. There were 589 inspections done by investigators that week. There were 147 cases closed with voluntary compliance, and there was 151 lien searches and payoff requests. I also wanted to let the board know, and I have letters, copies of letters for you. This is a letter from the Chair of the Board of County Commissioners, Commissioner Coyle, that was sent to the House and Senate members in regard to foreclosure bills that are going through Page 59 March 25, 2010 the Florida legislature right now. House Bill 1523, sponsored by Representative Grady and Senate Bill 2270, sponsored by Senator Bennett, are requesting the laws in the State of Florida be changed to change it from a judicial foreclosure process to a non-judicial foreclosure process. This will have a significant negative impact on our community members. The reason being is that if you take it to a non-judicial foreclosure process, that the safeguards that are afforded our community members for due process will be eliminated. The mandatory mediation was just approved by the Supreme Court. That won't get an opportunity to take place. The neutral oversight by the judicial system will be eliminated. The shifting of the burden of proof onto the borrower and making the borrower file suit to stop the non-judicial foreclosure process is actually a true elimination of due process. The gentleman that you saw earlier with this case, he would be -- this would give the banks basically 90 days to send the homeowner notice to say move out. After 90 days the sheriff shows up at their front door and they're forced to leave. In order for the borrower to fight that, they would have to prove that they're the homeowner, that they're homesteaded. And as the gentleman said, trying to contact the banks, 90 days is a very short time frame to try to make contact with bank contacts. So the Board of County Commissioners has submitted a letter to each House and Senate member requesting that they do not pass this legislation that allows to move the foreclosure process from the current judicial process which allows due process for our community members. They're requesting that they not move it to a non-judicial process. I would tell you time is very short. The session is due to end early next month, and these bills are moving very quickly through the House and Senate. Page 60 March 25, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELL Y: I can tell you from my experience on the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee that one of the tactics that banks are currently trying to use with great success is to allow people to stay in those homes, even though they're foreclosed and owned by the bank, because it prevents blight. When people have a home and that is their home, they generally take care of it rather than it sitting empty and the weeds and everything else that happens, including theft, security, vandalism and so forth. So I could see where that would have some negative impact for sure. Any other comments? MS. RAWSON: Well, I just have one for Diane. Does the Collier County Bar Association and other members on the foreclosure task force know about this? MS. FLAGG: The foreclosure task force team does know. Actually, members of the team put together the recommendations for the Board of County Commissioners after reviewing the legislation, which resulted in the Board of County Commissioners submitting this letter to the House and Senate members in the Florida legislature. MS. RAWSON: Perfect. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Diane, what are the current stats for foreclosure rates in Collier County, roughly? MS. FLAGG: There's over 17,000 since January, 2008. MR. L'ESPERANCE: That's on top of the 25 we had last fall, or MS. FLAGG: Seventeen thousand -- there's more than 17,000 total at this point. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions? MR. KAUFMAN: I have one comment, that I'd like to extend our thanks to Gerald Lefebvre for being the chairman for the past two years, and he has written that statement out for me to -- no, he's done a great job. I appreciate it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Thank you. He abbreviated it, but -- thank Page 61 March 25, 2010 you. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Thank you, Gerald. MR. LEFEBVRE: Congratulations to Ken. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Thank you. Thank you. Well, seeing how's there no further comments, next meeting date is April 22nd, 2010. And with that, I'll entertain a motion -- MR. DEAN: Motion to adjourn. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: We'll see you next time. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:44 a.m. Page 62 March 25, 2010 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD KENNETH KELL Y, 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 63