Loading...
CEB Minutes 04/22/2010 R April 22, 20 I 0 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida April 22, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the 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: Kenneth Kelly Larry Dean Robert Kaufman Herminio Ortega James Lavinski Gerald Lefebvre Lionel L'Esperance 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: April 22, 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 VERBA TIM 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. l. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES- A. March 25, 2010 Hearing 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. MOTIONS B. STIPULATIONS C. HEARINGS I. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOl.A TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOl.ATION ADDRESS: 2. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOl.ATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOl.A TION ADDRESS: 3. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOl.A TlONS: FOLIO NO: VIOl.A TlON ADDRESS: 4. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOl.ATIONS: FOLIO NO.: VIOl.ATION ADDRESS: CESD20090010223 PEDRO BAIGORRIA INVESTIGA TOR JOSEPH MUCHA COl.LlER COUNTY l.AND DEVEl.OPMENT CODE, AS AMENDED, 04-4 I, SECTION I 0.02.06(B)( I )(a) UNPERMITTED GARAGE CONVERSION AND l.ANAI. ORIGINAl. PERMIT 2002012152 FOR IMPROVEMENTS MADE WAS NEVER INSPECTED OR RECEIVED A CERTlFICA TE OF COMPl.ETION/OCCUPANCY AND PERMIT IS NOW VOIDED. 35742520004 2197 45TH ST. SW. NAPl.ES, Fl. CESD20090001803 FEl.IPE & ISABEL CRISTINA RAMIREZ INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ COl.LlER COUNTY l.AND DEVEl.OPMENT CODE, 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(I)(a). OCCUPYING A PROPERTY AND Pl.ACING MOBIl.E HOME ON SAID PROPERTY BEFORE OBTAINING A COl.LIER COUNTY BUIl.DING PERMIT. 71120003 3503 WESTCl.OX ST. IMMOKAl.EE, Fl. CESD20090017445 EMMA HOUSTON INVESTIGATOR ED MORAD COLLIER COUNTY l.AND DEVEl.OPMENT CODE, 04-4 I, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(I)(a) AND 10.02.06(B)(I)(e)(;). A SINGLE WIDE MOBILE HOME CONVERTED FROM A SINGLE DWELLING UNIT INTO TWO DWELLING UNITS AND AN ADDITION ADDED WITHOUT OBTAINING BUILDING AND l.AND ALTERATION PERMITS, INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AS REQUIRED 126960008 415 3RD ST., IMMOKAl.EE, FL CESD20090016332 LUIS & ARMANDO VALTIERRA INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVEl.OPMENT CODE, 04-4 I, AS AMENDED, SECTION 1O.02.06(B)(1 )(a). AN UNPERMITTED ADDITION WITH ELECTRIC ATTACHED TO THE MOBIl.E HOME WITHOUT A BUILDING PERMIT 30681800000 1410 ORANGE ST. IMMOKAl.EE, FL 5. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5. OLD BUSINESS CESD200800I6673 LOUISE D & DENNIS J. LUNSKI TR. INVESTIGATOR AZURE SORRELS FLORJDA BUILDING CODE, 2004 EDITION, CHAPTER I, SECTION 105. I, COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-4 I, AS AMENDED, SECTION JO.02.06(B)(I )(a) AND COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22, ARICLE II, SECTION 22-26(b) 0072]360003 1057 I KEEW AYDIN ISLAND NAPLES, FL A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens I. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLAT]ON ADDRESS: 2. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: CESD200900IIOOO AGATHONICOS G, PAMBOUKIS INVESTIGATOR REGGIE SMITH FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2004 EDITION, CHAPTER I, PERMITS, SECTION 105.1 & THE COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 04-4 I, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 1O.02.06(B)(I)(a). STRUCTURAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING IMPROVEMENTS MADE TO STRUCTURE WITHOUT FIRST APPLYING FOR AND OBTAINING ALL REQUIRED PERMITS TO PERFORM SUCH IMPROVEMENTS. 46573004801 201 SANTA CLARA DR. UNIT 9 NAPLES, FL 2006080127 MARY EDWARDS INVESTIGATOR AZURE SORRELS COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-4 I, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(J)(a) AND 1O.02.06(B)(I)(e)(i) AND THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2004 EDITION, SECTION 105.1. ENCLOSED LIVING SPACE ATTACHED TO MOBILE HOME WITHOUT F]RST OBTAINING ALL REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. 68341680008 47 MOON BAY ST. NAPLES, FL CESDZ0090015245 ZONIA Z. LAMBERT, ZONIA Z. LAMBERT REV. LIV. TRUST INVESTIGA TOR AZURE SORRELS COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LA WS & ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, BUILDINGS & BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 11, FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, SECTIONS 22-26(b)( I 04.5. 1.4.4). PERMIT # 930000827 EXPIRED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION 74413960006 3450 CHEROKEE ST. NAPLES, FL B. Motion for Reduction of Fines/Liens 6. NEW BUSINESS 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens B. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. 8. REPORTS 9. COMMENTS 10. NEXT MEETING DATE - May 27'h, 2010 I1.ADJOURN April 22, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the April 22nd meeting of the Code Enforcement Board for Collier County. Notice: The respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation, unless additional time is granted by the board. Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes, unless the time is adjusted by the Chair. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Robert's Rules of Order and speak one at a time so the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any persons who decide to appeal a decision of the board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which records include the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. May I have roll call. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Ken Kelly? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Robert Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LA VINSKI: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Tony Marino? MR. MARINO: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Larry Dean? MR. DEAN: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Herminia Ortega? Page 2 April 22, 2010 MR. ORTEGA: Here. MS. WALDRON: And Mr. Ron Doino? MR. DUANE: Here. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. We have full active member board participation. The alternates will be available to participate in any discussions, along with asking questions, but will not have voting rights for today's meeting. With that, I'll entertain an approval of the minutes from last month, March 25th, 2010. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to approve. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Now for the agenda. You have some changes? MS. WALDRON: We do. We have two additions under stipulations. They will be number four from hearings, CESD20090016332, Luis Valtierra and Armando Valtierra. And number two from hearings, Case CESD20090001803, Felipe and Isabel Christina Ramirez. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: The agenda that we received in our packet did not have the motions. MS. WALDRON: There are no motions. Page 3 April 22, 20 1 0 CHAIRMAN KELL Y: There aren't? I have two that were placed up here for continuance. MS. WALDRON: They will be heard at the time of the case. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Okay, very good. We don't put those up in motions? I mean, we could if -- MS. WALDRON: The time frames weren't met. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I see. Very good. Thank you. With that, any other changes? MS. WALDRON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'll entertain a motion to accept the agenda. MR. DEAN: Motion to accept the agenda. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: And 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. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Carries. Okay, moving on to stipulations. First one is going to be Valentina (sic), is it? Valtierra. (Speakers were duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please. MR. VALTIERRA: Armando Valtierra. MS. VALTIERRA: Jennifer Valtierra. MS. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier Page 4 April 22, 2010 County Code Enforcement. It is agreed between both 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 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 provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Have you read through the agreement, do you understand it and do you agree to it? MR. VALTIERRA: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Thank you. Are there any questions from the board? MR. DEAN: I have question. You don't think there's a safety issue there, electric being supplied to the mobile unit? MS. RODRIGUEZ: No. Their permit is in. They've already applied for it. They took all the walls down and they left it like an open carport; took the electricity out. So no. MR. DEAN: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any other further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, with that, I'll entertain a motion to accept the stipulated agreement. Page 5 April 22, 20 1 0 MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stip. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (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. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY : Very well. You have 120 days to come into compliance, and that includes a certificate of completion and also to notify the investigators when it's done. MR. VALTIERRA: Okay. Gracious. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Next one is going to be Ramirez. (Speakers were duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your names, please, for the record? MR. RAMIREZ: Felipe Ramirez. MS. GONZALEZ: Diana Gonzalez. D-I-A-N-A. MR. THOMPSON: Richard Thompson. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good, thank you. Go ahead. MS. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, 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 Page 6 April 22, 2010 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 or demolition permit and request required inspections to be performed and passed through a certificate of completion/occupancy within 180 days of this hearing or a fine of 250 per day will be imposed. The respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Thank you. Mr. Ramirez, do you understand everything that's in this agreement, and do you agree to it? MR. RAMIREZ: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Do we have any questions from the board? MR. ORTEGA: I have a question. Is 30 days going to be sufficient? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is it 180? MS. RODRIGUEZ: It's 180. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I think 30 is just for the op. costs. Any other questions? Mr. Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Of the county. Why is this one 180 days? I see this one dates back about a year and two months ago. MS. RODRIGUEZ: He has an SIP, a Site Improvement Plan, that just got submitted this week. When you deal with SIPs, it takes a long time. So we figured we'd give him six months now so that he could get it started. And then ifhe doesn't -- and I'm sure he's not Page 7 April 22, 2010 going to finish within six months -- we could come back to the board and ask for an extension of time, because it's going to take him maybe a little over a year before he can finish and get everything permitted. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: With that being said, is there anyone on the board who's interested in talking about maybe extending the time now to avoid the Ramirezes from coming back and ask for an extension? MR. L'ESPERANCE: I would feel comfortable keeping it at the specified time in order to keep a sense of urgency through the whole process. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Fair enough. MR. DEAN: And you don't feel there's a safety issue? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Actually, no. He is a migrant worker, and the end of May they leave. And they're gone for six months out of the year, so those mobile homes are going to be vacant. There is people living in them now, but they're only here until the end of next month. So they should be vacant. And they're going to be moved. So hopefully when they move them and they get their permits, when they come back, they'll be okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions from the board? MR. ORTEGA: Yeah, I do have a question. Why are they requiring an SIP? Is it part of the mobile home overlay? MS. RODRIGUEZ: None ofthe mobile homes had permits. He had already started the SIP like maybe four years ago and he never finished it. He never did anything with it. So the original SIP terminated, it expired. So in order for him to keep the mobile homes, he has to go back, redo the SIP and start all over again. MR. ORTEGA: Okay. SIPs don't generally take that long. SDP is a different story. So we are talking about an SIP? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, SIP. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any other further questions? Page 8 April 22, 20 1 0 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: With that, I'd entertain a motion to accept the stip. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a -- MR. LEFEBVRE: And second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- a motion? Any second. Any discussion? (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. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Carries. Very well. Good luck with your improvements, and if you have any problem with time frames, please come to see us or let us know before this agreement expires. Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Someone might want to explain that to him a little bit better. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Let me just clarify. Basically what will happen is if you go past the 180 days without having your certificate of completion, you will be fined at $250 per day. So we generally ask people to come to us with a set of progress showing us what's going on in that, you know, it's been actively pursued. And if the board finds at that time that it's acceptable, we will Page 9 April 22, 2010 grant you an extension of this initial order. Okay? Great, thank you. MR. THOMPSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: With that, I think it closes the stipulations. Now we move to public hearings. And the first one is Baigorria. (Mr. Mucha was duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 1O.02.06(B) (1) (a). Description of violation: 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. Location/address where violation exists: 2197 45th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116. Folio 35742520004. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Pedro Baigorria, P.O. Box 990937, Naples, Florida, 34116. Date violation first observed: June 10th, 2009. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: Notice of Violation posted at the property and the courthouse on December 31st, 2009. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: February 2nd, 2010. Date ofreinspection: February 3rd, 2010. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. I would now like to turn it over to Investigator Joe Mucha. MR. MUCHA: Good morning. For the record, Joe Mucha, property maintenance specialist, Collier County Code Enforcement. This case initiated back in June 10th of 2009. I believe at the time we were monitoring the property as a foreclosure property for weeds and such. And when the investigator -- the original investigator was Tony Ossoro, and he observed some unpermitted -- or actually some items Page 10 April 22, 20 I 0 that had a permit at one point and the permit was expired. And that would be for a garage conversion and an addition of a lanai. And I'd like to submit two photographs and also the original permit. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Entertain a motion to accept the exhibits. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. MUCHA: This is a photograph of the lanai that was added onto the back of the house. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Date of the photograph, approximately? MR. MUCHA: This was June 10th, 2009. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. MR. MUCHA: And this is the photograph of the front of the house, showing the garage conversion. The garage has been enclosed into living space. June 10th, 2009 was the date of the photo. And this is a copy of the original permit that was applied for back in 2002. It was never inspected and obviously didn't receive a certificate of occupancy. And permit has since expired. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Did you say no inspections were -- MR. MUCHA: No inspections, sir. Okay, just to give you a little background. I guess around this time the bank had sold the property, and by the time we kind of caught Page 11 April 22, 2010 up with that, it was -- looks like it was September of 2009 and the case was given to the area investigator from the foreclosure team. Investigator Cano was the investigator working on it at the time. And he met the new owner back on October 16th, 2009 and advised him of the violations. December 31st, 2009, a Notice of Violation was posted at the property and courthouse. I personally met with the new owner on March 16th, 2010. And basically the situation is he bought the property, didn't realize that this permit was never inspected or C.O.'d, and he's kind of like -- doesn't really have the money to make those changes that's going to be needed to be made. And that was my last contact with him was back in March. So here we are today. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Question: Does the new owner need to simply reapply for the permit and have things inspected? What's your opinion? MR. MUCHA: I mean, I don't know what the work on the inside looks like. I mean, I could assume that could be a route he could go. And it might not be as costly. And if all the drawings and everything that was submitted back in 2002 is still okay, yeah, it might be a possibility. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Has he been briefed with that possibility? Has he -- MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. MR. L'ESPERANCE: And his reaction is? MR. MUCHA: I just think he's just kind of overwhelmed. You know, he bought this property and, you know, just didn't realize the issues that were going on there at the time, so -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Do you think he needs more counseling or information? MR. MUCHA: It could be a possibility. Page 12 April 22, 20 I 0 MR. L'ESPERANCE: It may not be as serious as he thinks. MR. MUCHA: I mean, the fact that he's not here today concerns me a little bit. Because, you know, I had a conversation with him back in March and, you know, I assumed that he was going to be here. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Gerald? MR. LEFEBVRE: Just have a question regarding a chain of ownership. The permit shows Orlando Corcoba, and then it was taken in foreclosure; is that correct? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: And then the person that was noticed purchased it through a foreclosure; is that correct? MR. MUCHA: Through the bank, yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. I just want to make sure that I understand the change of ownership. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that a violation exists. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LA VINSKI: Second. MR. ORTEGA: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Pick one. Any discussion? MR. ORTEGA: Yes, I-- CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor -- oh, sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Ortega. MR. ORTEGA: The route -- would you consider this work complete at this point? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. MR. ORTEGA: Is he using the garage as a habitable space presently? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. MR. ORTEGA: Does he know he cannot use it without a Page 13 April 22, 2010 certificate of completion or occupancy? MR. MUCHA: He might not understand that. MR. ORTEGA: The other route that he can take is going to be a permit by affidavit. If the work is considered incomplete, the permit was pulled at one time but no inspections rendered, so that means that he's going to have to start all over. Since the work is done, the only route he's got, recourse, is obvious -- well, two: Demo and/or permit by affidavit. MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, there is a violation. Do you have a suggestion? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. My recommendation is that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $81.72 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days, and to abate all violations by: The respondent must apply for and obtain all required permits, inspections and certificates of completion/occupancy for all unpermitted improvements made to the structure within blank number of days of this hearing or a fine of blank per day until violation is abated. Alternately, the respondent must apply for and obtain a Page 14 April 22, 2010 demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy for the removal of all unpermitted improvements made to the structure, and return structure to a permitted state within blank number of days of this hearing or a fine of blank per day until violation is abated. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Does anybody on the board want to take a crack at it? Mr. Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Okay-- MR. ORTEGA: Before we do that, if! may? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes, sir. MR. ORTEGA: Something I left out. Is this on a septic tank? In the spirit of advising the respondent. MR. MUCHA: To be honest with you, I'm not 100 percent sure. It's in Golden Gate City. And I know sometimes in the city, some areas they are and -- MR. ORTEGA: You may want to start there. Cost-wise, that's what I meant. MR. MUCHA: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Mr. Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Okay, I'm going to try to fill in the blanks for your suggestion. On the abate by, 120 days. And the fine at $200 a day thereafter. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is that for both sections, the demo-- MR. KAUFMAN: Yes, it is. Page 15 April 22, 20 I 0 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. For both sections. We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LA VINSKI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Second by Mr. Lavinski. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. MR. MUCHA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Thank you. And if you would, try to let the respondent know the suggestions that Mr. Ortega suggested. MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Thank you. Next case would be Emma Houston. Respondent is not present, but we do have in our packet -- or there was paperwork about a continuance. MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Do you want to read the case in and then we can discuss it? 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), and 1 0.02.06(B)(1)( e )(i). Page 16 April 22, 20 I 0 Description of violation: A single-wide mobile home converted from a single dwelling unit into two dwelling units and an addition added without obtaining building and land alteration permits, inspections and certificate of occupancy as required. Location/address where violation exists: 415 Third Street, Immokalee, Florida. Folio No. 126960008. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Emma Houston, P.O. Box 1275, Immokalee, Florida, 34143. Date violation first observed: November 4th, 2009. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: November 10th, 2009. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: December 10th, 2009. Date of reinspect ion: January 12th, 2010. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Mr. Morad, we'd like to take a look at maybe this motion of continuance real quick. But I do have a question. Is this a repeat or -- okay, we do have another. Because we've seen Mrs. Houston before. MS. WALDRON: We do for other cases. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Does anybody have any objection to entertaining I guess the motion at this point to extend to June's meeting? MR. LEFEBVRE: I have a little bit of reservation due to the fact that she's been in front of us several times. And would have liked to seen this resolved before this point. And I think extending it to June may be giving her a little bit too much of a leeway. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I have a question also. Is this property occupied? MR. MORAD: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do you foresee any health, safety or welfare Page 17 April 22, 20 I 0 issues? MR. MORAD: For the record, Ed Morad, Code Enforcement Investigator. I had the opportunity for a short period of time to get in the unit on the east side, unit one of the two units. At that time I didn't see any structural weakening of the walls, the floor or the ceiling. There's reason to have a concern about the addition added with the additional electric and kitchen area. There's only one means to enter or exit both units and that's through the front door. MR. KAUFMAN: What is the zoning in that area? MR. MORAD: The zoning currently is VR, village residential. MR. KAUFMAN: So should everything fall into place, this could be a two-family structure -- MR. MORAD: Correct. MR. KAUFMAN: -- and not violate the zoning. MR. MORAD: A two-unit dwelling is allowed in that zoning. MR. L'ESPERANCE: However, with only one means of ingress and egress, it sounds like a violation. MR. MORAD: There is a violation there, yes, sir. MR. L'ESPERANCE: An obvious one of only one door and then possibly ones of -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's an opinion of the investigator. I don't want to get too far into hearing the case just yet before we decide what we're going to do with this motion. But is there a reason, do you know, why Mrs. Houston wants this pushed back till June and not our May date? MR. MORAD: I hadn't had the opportunity. All my calls to Ms. Houston has never been returned since I think January 5th, 2010. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd like to make a motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Gerald? MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd like to make a motion that we deny her request to reset the date to June, our June hearing. Page 18 April 22, 20 I 0 MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: We'll continue to hear the case. Sorry to interrupt your spiel, but please go ahead. MR. MORAD: Thank you. For the record, again, Ed Morad, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20090017445, dealing with the violations of a single-wide mobile home, converted from a single dwelling unit into a two-dwelling unit duplex. And in addition, added without obtaining building and land alteration permits, inspections and certificate of occupancy as required. The location is 415 Third Street, Immokalee, Florida. Folio No. is 126960008. Personal service was given on November 10th. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits, 1 through 12. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion, do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Second. All those in favor? Page 19 April 22, 2010 MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Great. MR. MORAD: The first picture is the front of the structure, dictating (sic) the two means of -- to enter and exit on both units. This is the entrance to unit (sic) on the east side of the structure. MR. KAUFMAN: I have one quick question, if you'd go back to the first picture. MR. MORAD: Sure. MR. KAUFMAN: When Mr. L'Esperance asked is there only one door, there are two separate doors to gain entrance. MR. MORAD: Correct. Each unit has a door to enter and exit, only that door. MR. KAUFMAN: Thank you. MR. MORAD: This picture is the doorway at the west end of the structure for that unit. This is the west side of the structure. As you can clearly see, where the AC unit is is the actual trailer. They did a roof over the mobile home and they added a six-foot wide by 47 feet addition. This is just a closer look at the roof. This is from the west side, taking a picture of the rear of the structure, showing that there's no other doors to enter or exit from the rear. That's just a closer look at the rear, the roof line. This is a picture taken from the east side of the structure, again Page 20 April 22, 2010 indicating -- you can obviously see where the trailer ends and the new addition, the front addition, starts. That's just again a closer look at the two structures -- or the one structure with the addition, I'm sorry. Closer look from the east side, indicating there's no doors on the rear of the structure to enter or exit. This is a little sketch from the property appraiser's showing the dimension of the single-wide trailer, which is a 12 by 47-foot structure, which gives the square footage of 564 square foot of living area. They added a six by 47 addition of living area, which created 200 -- 252 square foot? MS. WALDRON: 282. MR. MORAD: 282, okay. Which gives you a total of 846 square foot. You divide that by two, it gives you a total of 423 square foot of living area per unit. This was a good indication telling me, based on the minimum square footage allowed for two dwelling units, that it was way below the -- I even went back to 1959 zoning regulations, and the minimum square footage back then for each dwelling was 600 square feet. So that gave me good indication the permits were not applied for or permitted for the addition or the change of use being a duplex now. Also, for a secondary kitchen, which both units have kitchens, you need a total square footage of 2,500 square feet before you can get approval for a secondary kitchen. The last photo here is just a crude drawing, obviously not to scale, of each unit. The east unit has two bedrooms, a three-fixtured bath and a full kitchen and a dining room/living room area. West side of the structure, it's the same thing, it's just the bedrooms are on the opposite side. MR. MARINO: I have a question. Can we go back to the pictures of the back of the trailer? CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Mr. Marino, could you pull your mic just Page 21 April 22, 2010 a little closer. Thank you. MR. MARINO: My question is, are those four-by-four posts the support for the roof area that is above that? MR. MORAD: Yes, sir. That's part of the new addition, yes. MR. ORTEGA: Well, what's the present zoning here? MR. MORAD: Again, the present zoning currently is village residential. MR. ORTEGA: The zoning requirements that you stated were more for -- was defined as a single-family home and not a mobile home, when you speak of the two kitchens having to have 2,500 square foot minimum. Does this really apply for the zoning and certainly to this structure? MR. MORAD: I don't quite understand your question. MR. ORTEGA: Okay. In a single-family home in order to have two kitchens you have to have a minimum requirement of 2,500 square feet, as you stated. MR. MORAD: Correct. And that's what this was originally, a single-family dwelling. MR. ORTEGA: It was? MR. MORAD: Yes. MR. ORTEGA: I see. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Mr. Morad, do you have anything further for your case presentation? MR. MORAD: Not really, other than the fact that I did meet with Ms. Houston. You want me to go on? Okay. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Please. MR. MORAD: Yes, I researched the -- this was first observed on November 4th, 2009. I researched the review of no permits were obtained for the improvements. I met with the owner Ms. Houston on November 10th, 2009, and Notice of Violation was reviewed and issued with a compliance date Page 22 April 22, 20 I 0 of December 10th, 2009. At the meeting, Ms. Houston admitted that both units contained a kitchen, three-fixtured bathroom, along with two bedrooms and a dining area. She also verified that the front door was the only way to enter or exit, and she stated her ex-husband did the improvements. December 10th, 2009, I had a phone conversation with Ms. Houston. She stated she decided she would either submit for a demo permit to remove the improvements or submit for a permit to replace the existing mobile home duplex. She requested more time because she was going through personal problems, and also with Christmas fast approaching she couldn't get the permits applied for because of the holidays. She got an approval until January 5th, 2010. From January 5th, 2010 until this hearing, I've made numerous calls to Ms. Houston, without any contact. No permits have been applied for at this time and both units are currently occupied. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Mr. Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that we find respondent in violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) Page 23 April 22, 20 I 0 CHAIRMAN KELL Y: There's a violation. Do you have a recommendation? MR. MORAD: Yes, sir. That the respondent pay $81.15 within 30 days and -- for the operational costs, and abate the violation by: Obtaining a Collier County building and land alteration permit or a Collier County demolition permit. Request all required inspections to be performed, pass through certificate of occupy/completion as required within the amount of days you give her, of to day's hearing or a fine of whatever's determined will be imposed for each day the violation exists. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And now for the board's discussion. MR. KAUFMAN: Well, I think it's going to be very difficult to bring that structure into compliance in its current form, especially in light of the square footage requirements. So it appears that going down the road, this structure is going to be turned into a big or bigger one- family home or the addition will probably have to be removed. To do so probably will require probably at least 120 days. It's disturbing to me that the respondent is not here to ask for anything, more time, whatever. So in light of that, if you'd like me to -- unless there's further discussion, I'll take a shot at the remedy. MR. ORTEGA: I have a greater issue with all this. It seems to me there's a life safety issue here. And I can't see from the pictures even if those posts are even connected. And obviously we all know that June's approaching and hurricane season almost here. So I think Page 24 April 22, 20 I 0 there's a life safety issue and I think that's the greater picture here. MR. KAUFMAN: Are there two units there, one is occupied and one is not? MR. MORAD: No, sir, both units are occupied. MR. KAUFMAN: They are both occupied. MR. MORAD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Further discussion? MR. MARINO: Do we know how many people are living in these units? MR. MORAD: No, each visit there was either one person in both units or sometimes there was two people. The one visit that I got inside, there was -- I believe they said there was three or four people living in that unit. MR. LEFEBVRE: In this particular case we're not looking at the addition that was built in front of the mobile home, we're not looking at the roof, we're just looking at the occupancy, turning it from a single-family into a multi-family, two units, correct? MR. MORAD: No, there was an addition added which requires permits, inspections and a certificate of occupancy. By adding that addition, they split the structure down the middle and created two units, which is a land use issue also. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, the roof that was installed, was that permitted? MR. MORAD: The roof? No, the roof is -- the new roof is part of the addition. It's a roof over the mobile home, and an additional six-foot by 47-foot additional living area was created in the front. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. ORTEGA: I don't think the question was answered, though. Was it permitted? MR. MORAD: No. MR. DEAN: You know, just one comment. It's obviously a safety issue, definitely. And when code enforcement calls and you Page 25 April 22, 20 I 0 haven't received a call back in that amount of time you specify, that's inconsiderate. And it makes me think that she's just there collecting the money until she's thrown out because she's not going to do anything. That's an assumption. But also we have to consider that the hurricane season is upon us, you have an occupied resident that's not supposed to be there. And I really strongly feel about the safety issue of people living in a property that's not permitted. Electrical, plumbing and fire safety. MR. LEFEBVRE: I concur. And again, she's been in front of us several times in different cases. And I feel that this is just a delay tactic by her trying to get an extension until June, her not calling you back and so forth. So I think we do need to be aware of that in structuring this recommendation. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Would you like to -- MR. LEFEBVRE: The last one speaks is the one that gets it? More than likely she's going to have to probably get a demo permit for this. From what it sounds like it doesn't have the square footage and so forth to make it two families; is that correct? MR. MORAD: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: Typically how long does it take to get a demo permit? MR. MORAD: 24 hours, 48 max. MR. LEFEBVRE: 24 hours? All right, how about 60 days from today's hearing and a $250 fine for each day that the violation exists. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, that's in the form of a motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes, correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Do we have a second? MR. KAUFMAN: I second it. And I'd like to make one comment on the motion. Is it possible that once this motion, if it should pass, notification will be able to be made to the respondent and then I guess the Page 26 April 22, 20 I 0 respondent would have an opportunity to get back to the board in a relatively short period of time? MR. LEFEBVRE: That's going to be pretty hard to do since our meeting is a month off. MR. KAUFMAN: Well, but the motion is for 60 days. MS. WALDRON: The respondent will get a copy of the order in the mail to the P.O. Box on record. MS. RAWSON: And hopefully that will be next week. MR. MORAD: And plus, I will try to notify her again. Plus I also -- her son owns a bail bonds business in Immokalee, and I have tried through her son to notify her of the hearing as well as the violations. So I'll try to do that also. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, one further question. Three different individuals on the board at least have expressed their concerns over possible life safety hazard concerns with this property. Do we have it within our responsibility to express a concern for the occupants of the property to be vacated? CHAIRMAN KELL Y: My suggestion would be to vote no on the pending motion and then try for a shorter time frame or to maybe ask Mr. Lefebvre to possibly amend his initial motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, we could amend the motion to where we can give her a certain amount of time, if I'm not mistaken, to have the units vacated; is that correct? MS. RAWSON: (Nods head affirmatively.) MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Just trying to think what might be -- is this migrant housing at all? MR. MORAD: No, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: It isn't? Okay. Because if it was migrant housing, then end of May typically, from the previous case, they no longer occupy the premises. If! amend my motion -- okay, I'll amend my motion to include I guess -- to include that within 21 days both units must be vacated. Page 27 April 22, 2010 And if they are not vacated within 21 days, a fine of $250 per day will be imposed. Will that be a sufficient period, or would you like it shorter? MR. L'ESPERANCE: It's within our power to request that type of action? MS. RAWSON: Yes. If it's a safety issue, sure. MR. ORTEGA: Again, we are assuming it's a safety issue, obviously from the pictures. So is there a possibility of somebody looking at that? MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, we see that it's a safety issue, that there's only one ingress and egress. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Still, would it be beneficial for the community to have some representative from the county make a health, safety and welfare inspection visit? MR. ORTEGA: A structural inspector? MR. MORAD: Sorry? MR. ORTEGA: One of the structural inspectors visiting the job? Since it's a single-family residence, the inspector does have the latitude to look at not just structural but other elements of the structure. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Whether or not we're on track or not -- I agree with it -- but what I want to say is I don't think this board can ask another part of the county's department to act. We might be able to get -- buy in from this department, but we couldn't go to the health department and ask them to perform an inspection. We don't know what their time frame is, and what if they don't meet what we're trying to propose? We do have a motion, a second, now an amended motion without a second. MR. DEAN: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: We need to get Mr. Kaufman to -- MR. KAUFMAN: Yeah, I'll second it. Page 28 April 22, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great. So now we have a real motion. So now we have further discussion. Sorry, I want to keep it going right. So to that motion, is the 21 days acceptable? And right now it's so that we are just notifying the respondent to make sure -- Mrs. Houston, if you will -- to make sure that those residents are vacated. Is that acceptable to the board? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Jean, any other recommendations from you? MS. RAWSON: No, I try not to give you recommendations unless I think you're going wrong legally. You have the right, if there's a -- because of the evidence you've heard that you believe there's a safety issue, you have the right to ask the respondent to vacate those units within a certain period of time. MR. LEFEBVRE: Which we did in our -- MS. RAWSON: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- in my motion. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Do we also have the ability to maybe ask one of the investigators to possibly notice each of those units of the pending non-occupation, I guess? MS. RAWSON: Well, I think he probably will. I don't know if you really have the right to order the county to do anything. MS. FLAGG: It will be in the order. So we'll include that in the order. And as the investigator indicated, he'll pass that on. And he can also contact the building department and have the building department go out there and do an inspection. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is that acceptable? Any further discussion? MR. KAUFMAN: I have one comment to make. It seems to me there's two problems. One problem is with the violation and the remedy for that violation. And the second one is a communications problem.e Page 29 April 22, 2010 Had you been able to contact the respondent within the past 90 days or had a working relationship with the respondent, I think it may be a different situation. But with no response, I think the only way to go is with the motion that has been proposed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Does everyone understand the motion? MR. DEAN: Twenty-one days. MR. MORAD: Just point of clarification, you want me to have a -- request a building structural inspector and also an electrical inspector or -- CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Well, you can request whoever you feel would be great to help out in this situation. My thoughts were the health department, only to put it on request. I don't know what their time frame is. But they have also the ability to shut down a dwelling if it's not safe. MS. FLAGG: Migrant housing. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, or migrant hou -- there you go. MS. FLAGG: So they do inspections for migrant housing. So we would have the building department do an inspection for dangerous building. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great. All right, in that case we'll go ahead and call for a vote. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? Page 30 April 22, 2010 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: And it carries. Sixty days, $250 a day, both parts, including a 21-day eviction on both sides of the dwelling. MR. MORAD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Thanks, Mr. Morad. It Cherie', are you okay? THE COURT REPORTER: Fine, thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, next case is Lunski. And this is another one of those where the respondent requested a continuance. The request -- am I right about that? MS. WALDRON: We spoke with the respondent earlier, and he would like to just go through with the hearing. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Okay, great. So we'll ignore the request for continuance. And Jen? (Speakers were duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name for the record? MR. LUNSKI: Dennis Lunski. MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of ordinance Florida Building Code 2004 edition, Chapter 1, Section 105.1 Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Article 2, Section 22 to 26-B. Description of violation: Single-family residential structure with electrical being built and storage shed has been erected prior to obtaining a Collier County building permit as required by the Collier County Land Development Code and the Florida Building Code. Location/address where violation exists: 10581 Keewaydin Island, Naples, Florida. Folio 00721360003. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation Page 31 April 22, 2010 location: Louise D. and Dennis J. Lunski Trust, residing at 375 Germain Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34108. Date violation first observed: January 12th, 2009. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: January 27th, 2009. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: February 20th, 2009. Date of reinspect ion: March lIth, 2010. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. I would like to now turn it over to Azure Sorrels. MS. SORRELS: Good morning, gentlemen. For the record, Azure Sorrels, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD200800 16673, pertaining to violations of a storage shed and a dwelling structure with electrical built before obtaining required Collier County building permits. Located at 10581 Keewaydin Island. Folio No. 007213600003. Service was given on January 27th, 2009. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Exhibit B, it will be pictures 1 through 16. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you have any more than that, Azure, or is it -- MS. SORRELS: I would. I have another Exhibit C, which would be four aerial photos from the property appraiser's website. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Has the respondent seen these photos? MS. SORRELS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And you approve of them? MR. LUNSKI: I do. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great. We have a motion, do -- MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a second. All those in favor? Page 32 April 22, 2010 MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And Azure, that's for both. MS. SORRELS: Correct. On January 13th, 2009, I made a site visit and observed storage shed and a residential structure with electrical. The first photo that you're going to see is the storage shed that is on the bay side of the island. On the coastal side of the island, what you're looking at is a residential structure. This is just another view showing more -- or closer up of the sliding glass doors, and another door over there on the side. Showing the stairs. And on this structure you're going to see -- I believe there's another picture -- you're going to see sliding glass doors that wrap around on the other side as well. Construction material that was underneath the structure at the time of my visit. This is looking down the side, looking towards the back of the structure. This is the back of the structure where a storage shed -- what you're looking at there is like a storage shed attached to the dwelling unit, and at the time just had a wood roof on it. This is looking up -- there's actually a sun deck that you're going to see a picture of, what I would like to call a sun deck, just showing there's electrical ran through the structure. Page 33 April 22, 2010 This would be the sun deck that's just on the other side of the storage shed located on the rear of the structure where obviously there's a door that you can access the inside of the dwelling from the sun deck, and vice versa. Again, showing electrical ran with the intention for some kind of electrical to be -- or appliances, lighting, outlets, whatever. And this is the other view of the sun deck on the back side. The sliding glass doors that wrap around the front. More electrical. And this is just taken through the sliding glass doors showing drywall and other construction material on the inside of the structure at the time of my visit. On the 15th of January, 2009, I conducted research. I ordered the property card. I reviewed the property card. There was two things that I noted on the property card. One was that in 1971, the property appraisers had picked up a pavilion. The pavilion is indicated as being built with piers, wood piers. The exterior walls are screening. The roof is wooden shingles. The floor is wood as well. And on the property card as well is a 1986 permit. However, when I ordered the permit, it's not obtainable. So I do not -- not sure what that '86 permit covers. However, on the aerials for the property appraiser's between 1985 and 1995, a dock appears. So the '86 permit could very well be for the dock. I contacted Mr. Lunski on the 16th, made him aware of the complaint, what the violations were and what his options were and -- to abate the violation. And that a Notice of Violation would be sent to him by mail, given him further information of the exact violations, the ordinances and how to comply. At this time I guess I'll go ahead and show you the aerial photos. Again, these are four photos off of the property appraiser's website. The first one will be from 2002, and then it will go to 2008, 2009 and 2010. Page 34 April 22, 2010 In 2002 is the first visible, clearly visible structure I can pick up on an aerial. And this is the structure that is on the photo. And I did a measurement on the property appraiser's, you can actually use a measurement tool. And the measurements for that structure comes out to be 18 by 21. And according to the property card, the pavilion that was picked up or is documented to be built in 1971 was 12 by 16. In 2008, the same structure is there, same measurements. Obviously the roof has the -- the metal roof appears to have been weathered and rusted. And then in 2009 that is the aerial at this time -- well, excuse me, in 2009, showing the obvious -- the square footage of the structure being added to. And then in 2010, which is the most current, again is just showing you the aerial of what's existing at this point in time. Mr. Lunski has been very cooperative. He's been doing everything possible to basically make an informed decision. He has requested -- well, first off, he did obtain a permit for the roofing and siding that he was doing at the time of my visit. I spoke with him about that and informed him again that the roofing and siding is great, you obtained the permit for it, however, we're still looking at a structure that's not permitted or the alterations have not been permitted. Mr. Lunski has -- went through a preap. meeting with the building department. He has requested a conditional use preap. meeting. He's asked for a zoning verification. He has used every channel possible with the county to obtain information to make a decision. The county's stance is this: It is unpermitted and that it needs to be permitted. And it's complicated. Right now as it sits, it does not meet FEMA flood level. For him to permit it, it would have to be raised 13 feet. To be permitted as a principal structure, which would Page 35 April 22, 2010 be defined as a dwelling unit, he would have to add a kitchen and a bathroom. Ifhe leaves it at the elevation that it is now, it is permittable as long as he makes alterations to the walls. And forgive me, I don't know all the terms, but from my understanding from Gary Harrison, the building chief, he stated that they have to be breakaway walls. If it's not going to be elevated above flood level, the walls have to be considered breakaway walls. So that's where we sit at right now. We sit at the fact that yes, it does need to have a permit. But Mr. Lunski has kind of run into -- he's not sure where to go. He's already invested quite a lot of money into all the preap. meetings, the conditional use meetings, the zoning letters and things of that nature. So we bring this to you -- we just bring this to you today to hopefully give some weight on -- to Mr. Lunski to help him through. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Lunski, this is your opportunity now. You haven't seen any cases prior, but what we need to decide here as a board is whether or not a violation does exist. So if you have any testimony to help us maybe come to a conclusion that would favor you, this is where you would present that. And then we'll also ask questions and have banter back and forth and you're able to ask the investigator questions. MR. LUNSKI: Okay. First of all, I'd like to apologize for not getting information to you sooner, but I just flew in last night and I was not expecting to be at this meeting. But I'm so fed up with all this. I spent a year of my life trying to get this stuff handled with the county. I've talked to every board in the county about trying to get this resolved. Some things I don't agree with the investigator, and I'd like to just go through a chain of events that pretty much happened on this property. And I have some exhibits and so forth that I'd like to show you. Page 36 April 22, 20 I 0 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Lunski? MR. LUNSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you'd like to show us those exhibits, just go ahead and we'll have to vote on them. MR. LUNSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: And the county can put them up on the screen so everyone can see them. MR. LUNSKI: Do you want them over there? CHAIRMAN KELL Y: But just so you know, if you do enter them as exhibits, the court reporter will take them and make them part of the permanent record, so you will not get them back. MR. LUNSKI: That's fine. I have 15 copies, so I've got plenty. MR. LEFEBVRE: Has the investigator seen them? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Azure, have you seen them? MS. SORRELS: No, I have not. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: You want to take a look and make sure that they pertain to this case? MR. LUNSKI: I'm sure she's seen most of it. The first one is -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Ifwe can, Mr. Lunski, we'd like to get them approved first. MR. LUNSKI: This is the property appraiser's card, okay? This is an aerial photo -- CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Mr. Lunski, you'll need to speak in the mic, because this becomes part of the record. MR. LUNSKI: This is the property appraisal's card. And as Azure indicated, she has more information than what's on this card, which is surprising to me, about square footage and how the roof was made and how everything else was done on this building. Kind of interesting where she got this information. Maybe she can help me with that. Secondly, I have an aerial photo which also came from the Page 37 April 22, 2010 Property Appraiser's Office that is dated -- the earliest photos they made on this property was 1975. The photos indicate a structure on this property. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: We can't see those yet until we've accepted them. First we just need to get the county to approve them. And no objection? MS. SORRELS: (Shakes head negatively.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, in that case I'll entertain a motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to approve respondent's exhibits. MR. DEAN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Second by Mr. Dean. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, now we can go through them one by one, if you'd like to tell us what they are. MR. LUNSKI: Okay, great. After I received notice from the Code Enforcement Board, I went into the county to try to obtain a building permit for this work that supposedly was being done. And I did do the work myself, so I knew exactly what I was doing as far as how much it cost me and everything else. I was under the impression from the county that I could do roofing, siding and minor repairs to the underlying structure as far as Page 38 April 22, 20 I 0 the roof and siding, which is common to the permit. And I was in there to receive a permit. They at that time would not give me a permit because they said well, there is no original permit for the property. But if you can prove to me that there was a property before 1975 or earlier, they would grant permits. However, the permit department said you need to go to planning and obtain approval from planning to verify that it's a nonconforming existing structure. Which I proceeded to provide to the planner and prove that it was there in existence. So that's an aerial photo. 1975 was the earliest photos they had. And I even have an original copy that was signed by the tax assessor. Secondly, now this other photo is the property identification card that we'll put up on the screen. MS. SORRELS: Can I just make a statement real quick on that photo? I'm not saying that I object to it, but I just wanted to point out that that photo does not in any way indicate that the picture that you're looking at or the lot that he is pointing out is actually his lot. It does give a section, a township and a range, but however it does not give a lot number, so there's no way to actually verify that that is the lot we're speaking of -- or his lot that we're speaking of. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So you're saying it could be a neighbor's lot with a dwelling on it. MS. SORRELS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the dock as well? MS. SORRELS: Correct. MR. LUNSKI: There again, the property card indicates that this building is a 12-by-16 structure. And in talking with the county assessor, he said basically we measure the building size. We do not include the decks. At that time they're not including decks, roof overhangs or anything else. So in essence that building, when I purchased it, there was Page 39 April 22, 20 I 0 six-foot overhangs all the way around this building. There was decks all the way around this building, which did not show up in this property card. It was also enclosed on two sides with two windows. There was screen on two sides of this structure. So anyway, that's what shows on the property card and that's what Azure is using. As she indicated, she scaled the photo that she has from the aerial, quite a bit larger than that 12-by-16, which indicates that there were in fact large overhangs. And a survey I did in 2000 also showed partial decks around the building. Some were dilapidated to the point where they were unsafe. So in about 2001, after I bought the property I put some new deck boards around the building to make it safe to walk on. Let me go back and start out where I was going to start before I got the exhibits. This structure was in existence since 1972, according to records we could find. And planning actually confirmed that. That property was basically used for day trips to Keewaydin Island. And I don't know how many of you have ever been to Keewaydin Island. You can understand this, probably a property you can visit maybe in the wintertime. You do not go there in the summer, you get carried away by mosquitoes. That's why these things were screened in. I use the property very minimal. I probably go out there in the winter maybe once a month at the most. And it's mainly for -- it's for day trips. We don't sleep in it. It's not intended to be a residence. It has no bathrooms, kitchen. It has nothing in it, just a one-room shack, I call it. My wife calls it the sugar shack. But anyway, that's what we use it for. If it gets -- if we get a stormy weather, we'll go inside and we'll spend the rest of the day, whatever we have to. We have grandkids and they need to go in there. The bathroom is a port-a-potty that we take home with us. And it's never been intended to be a residence, as code enforcement is Page 40 April 22, 20 I 0 intending it to be, and everybody else is intending it to be. The thing is about the size of at one-car garage. I mean, it's a cutesy playhouse is what it is, someplace to spend the day. In about 2005, I had so much vandalism out there that -- it was a well known party spot. I think everybody in Naples used that property for a party on the weekends. Every time I went out there I had beer cans, candles being lit on the property. It was a mess. I'm paying eight, $9,000 taxes on this property every year and I'm having to clean up the mess of everybody else. So I contacted the Collier County Sheriffs Department and they said, well, there's no way, we have no way to enforce this. There's no security out there by the Sheriffs Department. The closest security is somebody coming by boat. And it may take them, you know, half a day to get there in some cases. So he says, all you can do is secure the property. Well, how can you secure a screened-in supposedly called cabana, or whatever you want to call it, everybody's got a different name for it, other than enclose it? So I proceeded to buy three patio doors. Which there again didn't cost me but $1,500. I put them in myself. I took the screens out of the front of the porch and put in three patio doors. Well, I was careful to spend, you know, as little as I can because I didn't want to exceed that $1,500 price point that the county said I, you know, have to stay in. So that's what happened. I put the doors in. It was surprising how much it kept the people out of there. It looked like somebody lived there now or somebody was there and not just an abandoned structure that they could use to have parties. So I proceeded to keep maintaining this property for the next five years. Couple of the footings were being -- were deteriorating, so I put new footings under it. I repaired some of the wood. I mean, this building's 40 years old and on a coastal area. Definitely takes a lot of maintenance. Page 41 April 22, 2010 So I have to do the things. Every time I went out there I did a little something. I hauled it out in my boat, you know, two-by-four if! needed one or couple of concrete blocks, and I did it. And pretty soon I decided I need a new roof because there was holes in it. I mean, you could see it was rusting to the point where it was really bad. The thing was leaking. It was just adding to the detriment of the building. So I got some metal roofing from a contractor, they had some left over from off a job and hauled that out there and put a roof on it. Then pretty soon it looked -- you know, it looked pretty nice, you know, with a new roof on it. I thought, well, you know, I'll go to Home Depot and buy, you know, $800 worth of siding, vinyl siding. So I put that on there. Now this thing's starting to look pretty darn nice, you know. And all of a sudden somebody thought it looked too nice and I get a code violation. So there I was trying to correct a problem, doing the county aerobics, I call it, going from department to department trying to understand what I need to make this thing legal. Simple as that. Went through planning twice. I went through environmental twice. I talked to the head building official at least four times. And a lot of them had sympathy with me, but nobody really knew what to do with it, because Keewaydin Island is full of these type of structures. I mean, they have cabanas, they have screen porches, they have accessory structures that don't have residences on them, all this stuff. And I can tell you about seven of them that are within 2,000 feet of my own property that are the same. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Mr. Lunski, if! could. I don't want to interrupt you; however, we have typically a five-minute -- MR. LUNSKI: I understand. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: -- restriction. Let me just poll the board and see if anyone has any objection Page 42 April 22, 2010 with you going on further. We have no problem extending it; it's actually an interesting story. And I think we have some questions as well. Anyone have any issues with extending the time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Okay, good. Go ahead. MR. DOINO: I have one question. The property, it says on this particular thing that we're looking at is 10580. And just a question, and it's different from the address that is in the -- in our log here. MR. LENBERGER: It's 81 exactly is what it is. They had some confusion about the addressing on it, the county. MR. DOINO: Okay. And it -- MS. SORRELS: To clarify, sir, the addressing on the bottom obviously is incorrect for whatever reason; however, we can identify that the property is correct by the folio number at the top of the page underneath the bar code. It gives the correct folio number to identify that we are speaking of the proper property. MR. DOINO: And my question was, is this provided by the county, this document that -- MS. SORRELS: It is. MR. DOINO: -- is on our screen now? MS. SORRELS: Correct. MR. DOINO: Or the customer, you know. MS. SORRELS: Well, that copy's provided by the customer, but he accessed that through the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office. MR. DOINO: Okay. Just because of the fact that we're showing if it was a different property, that's what I was getting at. MS. SORRELS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Mr. Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: I have one question that was brought out in some of the pictures. There is no electricity that's on Keewaydin Page 43 April 22, 2010 Island; is that correct? MR. LUNSKI: Absolutely not. MR. KAUFMAN: So the wiring that we see in the pictures, could you talk to that a little bit? MR. LUNSKI: That wiring was basically a part of my security system that I wanted to put out there on the property because I was concerned about the security of it. Later found out that it was too intense to have a battery, photocells and all the other stuff to even make it worthwhile. So it was a prewire that will never be used. Only way you could ever get electricity to it would be to haul out a big generator out there and have a generator with whatever else, a full-blown electrical system, so -- I don't need electrical out there because we don't spend the night there. I have no use for it whatsoever. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: I have a question of the county. If we had an existing structure and that structure fell into disrepair, you would still need a permit to fix that existing structure, for instance, to replace a roof or to replace structural footings or something along those lines, correct? MS. SORRELS: Correct. CHAIRMANKELLY: Okay. MR. ORTEGA: He will be allowed to maintain and repair. The biggest challenge that exists is that first of all we don't know it's legal nonconforming. We know it's nonconforming because of the year it was built. What you are allowed to do is that you can maintain and repair. But the minute you alter the structure, which has been altered, now you're required to obviously acquire a permit. The problem that you have there is obviously you're in a V zone. So in a V zone you have different criteria for construction. First of all, as the officer already stated, that the building is below the floodplain. Now, non-habitable structures can exist below the floodplain, we Page 44 April 22, 20 I 0 know that. But the minute you start putting walls in, now you have to build to that V zone criteria. But as a nonconforming structure you can maintain. You can replace the roof like it was, but you cannot alter anything. That's the only way you can get by in saving the structure. What you've done by doing that now that you've triggered other elements that are going to require you to bring it up to date, and one of those things obviously if it is going to be a habitable structure, obviously because there's presence of potential electric, then you would be required to bring it up to the FEMA code. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Is that in the form of a motion that a violation exists? MR. ORTEGA: Basically informing so that a direction can be taken by the respondent. MR. DEAN: Well, let me ask one question. It says single-family residential structure. Is it or is it not? Because there's no electrical, there's no overnight. And the Sheriffs Department won't even go there. You can't tell me that's a single-family residential structure. MR. L'ESPERANCE: No plumbing. MS. SORRELS: To reply to that, sir, I would have to apologize for me putting that into the wording. It is not single-family because it does not have a bathroom or a kitchen. Is it still considered a dwelling structure? MR. DEAN: Okay, so let's just cross that out and call it a structure. MS. SORRELS: Correct, sir, my-- MR. ORTEGA: It's a non-habitable structure. MS. SORRELS: -- apologies. Correct, there's no bathroom or kitchen, correct. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Jean, does that change the charging documents at all? We could still find the violations? Page 45 April 22, 20 I 0 MS. RAWSON: You can. But I think it's a good idea for us to amend the word dwelling. Put structure. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good. Thank you. MR. DEAN: That kept throwing me off. MR. ORTEGA: There is enough issue, that typically you're not allowed to build an accessory structure without a primary structure. The fact that that exists is because it was built when it was built. So that's another issue. So again, if you maintain and repair, you'll probably be okay. But the minute you alter the structure, now that structure by definition can't really exist. So really it's a question of where would you like to go with this. Because there's going to be cost issues in order to bring it into compliance. MR. LUNSKI: Well, I've researched the residence part of it. First of all, I'm not interested in a residence out there. I wouldn't even use it. I'd be taxed on it. And the cost to even think about raising it, and now they're saying I need to move it to meet codes. We're looking at lO-foot raising and we're looking at 65-foot setbacks. The building is not feasible to do that, and cost prohibitive. Secondly, the impact fees alone or twice as much as what the building's worth. And that's what I think, you know, they're shooting for. Like you see the impact fees, all the coastal permits and so forth which I've researched are another $15,000. So to get this to be a residence of one bedroom, septic system, boom, boom, boom, it's 200 and some thousand dollars. MR. ORTEGA: But you understand that the structure may remain, as long as it remains in its exact condition as it was. MR. LUNSKI: Well, there again, I could remove the patio doors. We have put the wood screens in it. Now we're back to the security issue. So I'm back to square one. I might as well just burn it down or have it removed. To remove it like they're suggesting, it's another $20,000 to remove it. Because I need to bring in barges, I Page 46 April 22, 2010 need to bring in a piece of equipment to knock it down, and so I'm into that situation. I'd like to leave it. Ifwe need to put screens in it, that's fine. We'll have to just worry about it, you know, burning by some partygoer or somebody gets hurt in there, we're going to have to just ensure the crap out it for liability, you know, and have the county say hey, you know, whatever. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: It seems like the conversation has gone more towards how to rectify the situation. I think that it's best the board find either a violation does or does not exist before we continue with that discussion. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that a violation does in fact exhibit. MR. ORTEGA: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All in favor? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? MR. KAUFMAN: Opposed. MR. DEAN: I oppose. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Two oppositions. Okay. All right, now we'll talk about maybe -- do you have a recommendation? MS. SORRELS: I do. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Can we see that; we'll go from there. Mr. Lunski, after she reads this recommendation, we'd like to talk Page 47 April 22, 2010 about what your possible future plans are, maybe we can help construct this a little better. MS. SORRELS: The county recommends that the respondent shall pay the operational costs in the amount of $81.15 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate all violations by: Must obtain all required Collier County building permits, inspection, certificate of occupancy or completion for structure with electrical and storage shed, or obtain demolition permit inspection -- sorry, tongue twisted -- obtain demolition permit, inspection, certificate of completion and demolish both structures within "X" number of days of this hearing or an "X" number amount per day fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains. Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator to perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question. You mentioned electrical? MS. SORRELS: Correct. MR. KAUFMAN: There is no electric on the island? MS. SORRELS: There is no electric on the island, correct. But the structure itself is wired for electrical. So all that would need to be done was a generator be brought out and connected to and it would be -- then you would have electrical. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. So part of the solution could be to remove some of the wires that are in the walls, I guess. Based on the respondent's testimony that it was for a security system that won't work and he has no intention of bringing any generator out there. So if he removed a wiring -- THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Kaufman, is your microphone Page 48 April 22, 20 I 0 close to you? MR. KAUFMAN: Can you hear me now. THE COURT REPORTER: I can, thank you. MR. KAUFMAN: I won't do a Verizon commercial. So that could be one of the things that Mr. Kelly had mentioned as far as formulating some sort of solution to the existing problem. Also in your motion there was some discussion regarding breakaway walls. Was that part of your motion at all, or is there any description that we can go by? I look to the board for that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Let me take that one, Azure. MS. SORRELS: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I think what the county's recommendation basically says is that they comply with either the existing structure the way it was before alterations or bring it up to current code. And by doing so, whatever that prescribed method would be is what they would need to follow in order to get their certificate of occupancy. If we start getting too limited in our order, it might make it difficult for the respondent to do what he needs to do. MS. SORRELS: Mr. Kelly, can I add something to that. I just want to get -- I want to make clarification here. In past experience -- I'm not saying it is for this case, everything is case-by-case -- it's been said a couple of times now that ifhe returns it to the existing structure that it would be okay. That would be the building department's decision to make if he returned it. The discussion would first be well, what's the existing -- what was the existing structure. If we go by what the property card says, it's only a 12 by 16 pavilion. According to Mr. Lunski, when he purchased the property it was enclosed in on two sides that had six-foot overhangs. So to state that it would -- if he returned it to its existing condition, I would have to say the building department would have to Page 49 April 22, 2010 make that determination if that would be an acceptable option for complying with the code. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Lunski, I'll recap what was stated. Regardless of the condition of the property when you bought it, you're responsible for any alterations that were performed without having valid permits and inspections. In other words, and this is a horrible thing, if the person who owned the property before you made illegal alterations to the property, for instance, if they enclosed two sides of that pavilion and put in those windows, unfortunately, sir, since you own the property, that violation now carries on to you. You saw in the previous case it was a foreclosure home and they bought it from the bank and they inherited all of the problems back before the bank even owned it. That's just the way it works, and I'm sorry to say that. My question, to help us kind of provide us direction is you have two options, basically: You can try to go the full extent and make this into a more permanent structure qualifying with FEMA and so forth, or you can return it back to a pavilion. Those two different directions could take vast differences in time frames. It would help us to construct whatever our motion -- or our order would be if you were to maybe give us a little direction in the way you wanted to go. MR. LUNSKI: Well, first of all, Azure told us that we don't know what the original condition was. And that's going to be our big problem to go through county aerobics again to try to figure out where we're at. We've also had formal approval from -- I shouldn't say formal approval, but verbal approval from the state as far as leaving the structure the way it is as a nonconforming major structure, and they would permit that as such, what could be left in its condition. However, the county is not in favor of that. So there again, I spent another $2,000 trying to get that thing going through. I can't deal with this anymore. I've spent a year of my life on this Page 50 April 22, 2010 thing. And, you know, I know I'm going to be running through so many more hassles just trying to even put it back to the original condition with the requirements from all the departments. There's going to be -- it's going to be a lot of hassles, and I don't know if I can handle that. I'd love to keep the building, but there again I don't have money to spend $20,000 to haul this thing off. And if we have to have somebody come in from the Gulf side, it's going to have major impact on the shoreline. And then we have shoreline restoration and everything else with barges and equipment and whatever else. It's going to have to be taken down piece by piece and probably taken 900 feet back towards the back waterway and barged out slowly. I mean, that's the only way it could be done without having a major impact on the property. Other -- then basically it's -- it's gone, you know. And I just -- I think this thing was blown so out of proportion, that there are so many of those structures out there. We have all the clubs out there with screened-in roof structures that don't have breakaway walls, they have -- a lot of them don't have conditional uses -- permits out there for all this stuff. There's storage sheds all over the property. I mean, you need someplace to keep your tools, your lawn chairs, your lawnmower or whatever, if you want to at least keep the trail even open so you can go from the back to the front 900 to 1,000 feet. I mean, try to carry an 80-pound cooler on your back to the front beach. It doesn't work. So there's all kinds of them out there. And for some reason I got singled out, and I kind of know what's happening out there is we've got Rookery Bay out there now in force with four-wheelers and volunteers and so forth going out there that are trying to save the turtles and everything else out there. Which is fine, I have no problem with that. I have turtles at my property and I watch them. But they're the people that are starting to complain about anything and everything on the island. Page 51 April 22, 2010 And nobody can build out there because the restrictions are so great. I mean, you're talking -- I spent the year just trying to run through county just trying to get answers to get a building permit out there. It's a two-year process. I talked to my coastal engineering guys, it's at least nine months to get through the state. So, you know, I guess I'm looking for you guys to try to give me a reasonable solution to the problem. And whatever you decide, I'll do it. But think about it and look at it as I presented it. It's a day place and it's nothing more than a big playhouse. I mean, it looks like some major house. It's not. It's a cutesy playhouse is basically what it is. You couldn't be a car in it. I mean, that's it. And it's been there for 40 years. And naturally it's more structurally sound now than it was 20 years ago. So-- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. MR. LUNSKI: -- there I am. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Does anyone want to take a stab on the order? MR. DEAN: You want to close? CHAIRMAN KELLY : We'll go ahead and -- good idea, we'll close the public hearing now. Discussion amongst the board? MR. LA VINSKI: Again, I just have a comment. Having a little bit of experience with land and ownership on Keewaydin, what -- I think what we're running into here is what I've seen down there for years is what we called under the table building creep. What you have is maybe a pavilion at one time, and then next year it showed up with screened walls, and then the following year it showed up with solid walls. And this building, looking at it, it's a long way from what it used to be. And I'm just concerned that here again before you know it there's going to be power, there's going to be sewage, there's going to be -- you know. Page 52 April 22, 2010 So I think if we don't take the stand and either remove it or take it back to what it used to be, whatever that was, I think we're just caught up in this building creep and we're going to be here five years from now looking at a habitable structure, in my opinion. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Jim, you have the floor, if you want to try to mold an order. Any other discussion while Jim's thinking? No? MR. DEAN: Well, my opinion, I think we should give him enough time. I mean, this is a long-going process, and if we give him enough time to work on this, then he won't have the pressure. I was looking at 360 days and $50 a day fine. And that way he's got enough time to go and decide what he's going to do. With all the money he's spent and what it's going to cost him, to give him time to evaluate all that. MR. KAUFMAN: Is that a motion? MR. DEAN: Sorry I didn't speak in the mic, dear. MR. LA VINSKI: Yeah, I would kind of agree with that, as long as we leave in, you know, the demolition or returning it to its original state conditions. Because I don't think it's going to go, knowing -- I don't think it's going to go anywhere beyond where it is today without all the regulations in place. MR. LEFEBVRE: The other thing too is just a little clerical correction here. Description of violation, we want to remove single- family residence and put in there structure, a structure with electrical, just to be clear. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Right. And Jim, is that in the form of a motion? MR. LA VINSKI: Yeah, I'll make that a motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So it was 360 days and $50 per day. MR. LA VINSKI: Right. MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Seconded by Mr. Dean. Page 53 April 22, 20 I 0 MS. WALDRON: 365 or 360? CHAIRMAN KELLY: It was 3-6-0 is what Mr. Dean said; is that correct? MR. DEAN: Yes, I did. MS. WALDRON: Okay. MR. ORTEGA: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes. Well, any discussion? MR. ORTEGA: Why can't we bring this back next month, allow the respondent enough time to think about which way he wants to go. And that way 365 days are not really required. Because the two avenues here that I see is going to be either to demo or bring it back to its original intent. But perhaps the respondent needs a little bit of time to think about it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sure. MR. ORTEGA: And then from that standpoint we don't have to go a whole year, you know, waiting for a decision or an abatement of a violation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I think the intent of the discussion here was to try to give him plenty of time within the order to do whichever, to think about it, to demo, maybe to try keep the structure and go forward. So are you saying that that is enough time or you'd like to keep it shortened? What was your suggestion? MR. ORTEGA: My suggestion was to give him one month to think about what he wants to do, come back to us next month, and from that standpoint if it's going to be I want to put it back the way it was, subject to meeting with the building department, because obviously it's changed. So from that standpoint, he has I think a better idea of what he really wants to do. There's no question that the walls need to come down. It's a V zone. MR. DEAN: See, my point was ifhe has enough time, and that Page 54 April 22, 2010 let's him go to the building department, planning department and to find out what he can do with this. In a month it's going to go -- it's not enough time to do anything. MR. MARINO: I have a question. MR. DEAN: That's why I gave him enough -- I thought give him enough time to go to these departments and figure out what he's going to do, that's all. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Mr. Marino? MR. MARINO: I have a question also. Original intent, does that mean if he takes the sliding glass doors off -- was this entire enclosure going to be getting screened in and you put up the exterior walls? There was a roof on it, correct, and you just put a metal roof on it? MR. LUNSKI: As I stated, it was a roof with big overhangs. Like six-foot overhangs all the way around to the porch. And the two back walls were enclosed with windows that you could open up. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Gerald? MR. LEFEBVRE: He is going to need 360 days. And it's going to -- I don't think it's going to matter which way he decides to go, either with demo or with actually trying to get permits. The permits are going to take quite a bit of time. He may need state and federal permits. And as we know from a previous case, that particular person's been working on them for five plus years. Ifhe decides to go ahead and demo the property, he is going to need that time also, 360 days, because we're getting into the turtle nesting season, and there may be restrictions on what kind of work can be done. I'm not sure, but there may be restrictions on what could be done on the property during that period of time. It's what, five or six months. So I think the 360 days is appropriate, and it's definitely going to be needed in either direction that he goes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to echo Mr. Lefebvre. There's no Page 55 April 22, 2010 plumbing, there is no electrical service out there. Whether there are wires in the building or not is another case. It's a shed that's out there. And I say 360 or 365 days should be no problem. I don't think there are any safety health violations out there. And I think that would be in line. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any further discussion? (No response.) MR. LUNSKI: Could I state something? CHAIRMAN KELLY: We've actually closed-- MR. LUNSKI: Oh, have you? CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- the public record. If one of us from the board was to ask you a question directly, you'd be able to address that. MR. LUNSKI: Okay, sorry. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's okay. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, we have a motion, 360 days with a fine of$50 per day. We do have a second. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed? MR. ORTEGA: Nay. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: We have one nay? Did I hear a nay? MR. ORTEGA: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: From Mr. Ortega. Mr. Lunski, what we've done is we've given you 360 days to go Page 56 April 22, 2010 with whichever direction you'd like. It would be the hope of this board that maybe the building department could find some relevance to the state report and you're able to keep the structure as-is. But in either case, within 360 days you have to come up with some kind of permit, inspections and a certificate of completion or occupancy. And then please, let the inspector know that you've gotten to that point so that fines don't accrue. Additionally, if you run into a process, and let's say you decide to take it to the full event (sic), and maybe DEP is holding up permits and you just need a little more time, if you come to us ahead of time before this expires and request and extension, showing that you've made progress and what the holdups are, there are times in the past where the board's granted those extensions. MR. LUNSKI: My biggest hangup is to determine what the original state was. And that's going to be the same today as it's going to be 360 days from now or whatever. But the county inspection and all these departments, I'll be going back and forth through those. And it's not going to be a decision made. I mean, I've already been to that state and nobody knows what to do with it, let's put it that way. And nobody wants to set a precedence out there. Just like you said, they don't want to, you know, let me have something that might burn down the road, so -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Question for the county. If in fact it shows a 12 by 16 on the 1975 -- I know a lot of dates have been thrown out, 1975, '72 records. Ifhe does in fact show a structure of 16 by 20, let's say, how hard would it be to get a variance or to get that permitted like at this point now? If he was to take it back to the original where let's say it's all screened in or if there's two walls in back, how hard would it be to get a variance? MS. SORRELS: Here's the problem that he might possibly run into and that is the pavilion's not considered a principal structure, it's considered an accessory structure. Accessory structures are not Page 57 April 22, 2010 permittable without a principal structure. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. LUNSKI: But yet there's all kinds of them on the island. So there's numerous violation out there. It's a Catch-22. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Well, I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Lunski for presenting -- MR. LUNSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: -- and I wish you good luck. MR. LUNSKI: Thank you. MS. SORRELS: Mr. Kelly, for clarification, there was a lot of talk going on, and I just want to make sure that we touched base on the storage shed. I know we spoke about the dwelling -- or excuse me, the structure, but was the storage shed included in that? CHAIRMAN KELLY: They're part of the charging documents; therefore yes, they're part of the order. MS. SORRELS: Just wanted clarification. Sorry. CHAIRMAN KELLY: There's no disagreement on the board, correct? No, that's it then. Cherie', do you need 10 minutes? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, please. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: We'll go ahead and recess for 10 minutes. We'll be back at 10:48. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, thank you. I'll call the Code Enforcement Board back to order. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd like to amend the agenda-- CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Okay, we have a motion to amend the agenda. MR. LEFEBVRE: To move Mary Edwards, Case No. 20060801227, to be heard now. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a Page 58 April 22, 2010 second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. MR. LA VINSKI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Second by Mr. Kaufman. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMANKELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. DEAN: That's being move to when? CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Right now. It will be number one. We're now moving old business, motion for imposition of fines and liens. And we've moved case number two up to A-I under old business. So this would be Case 2006080127, Mary Edwards. Also on this case for the board, there was an amended part of your packet. This case is now in compliance. I know your original packet said not in compliance, but we do have an amended ordinance. MR. DEAN: Mine says complied. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Azure? MS. WALDRON: You want us to read that, or not? CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you'd like, I can preface it. MS. WALDRON: Go ahead and preface it. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: This is a unique case that really shows how government can come to the aid. You know, here we are today deciding the fate of so many homeowners, and it looks in some cases negative. Page 59 April 22, 20 I 0 Well, this is one of those situations where it's very, very positive. And I'd like to turn it over to Azure Sorrels, the investigator, to talk about the details of this case just to remind us and to show us the update and what's happened. MS. SORRELS: Thank you. Before I read off the imposition, I would just like to kind of remind everyone of the case and Ms. Edwards. Back in 2006 and 2007, two different complaints were made on Ms. Edwards' property. One was for a shed, which is the case that I actually had ended up with. And while working that, I discovered that there was also a prior case for unpermitted additions to a mobile home that another investigator was working. Meeting with Ms. Edwards and seeing the -- seeing her living conditions and that she was only able to access pretty much half of her home due to her handicap, she was not able to get into the mobile home part of her home because there was no ramps, she can't walk stairs. So she was pretty much left to just live in the addition that was on ground level. I'll go ahead and show you some pictures of what her residence looked like with the violations. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Azure, are these part of the existing case? Are these all repeat pictures so we don't need to accept them again? MS. SORRELS: Some of them would be repeat pictures, yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And you have new ones as well? MS. SORRELS: I do. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Well, just to keep it with the order, we do need to accept those as, if you will, an exhibit. MS. SORRELS: Sure. So it would be Exhibit A, or Exhibit B? MR. DEAN: I make a motion we accept-- MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. MR. DEAN: -- A and B. Page 60 April 22, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: And seconded by Mr. Lefebvre. All in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Opposed? (No response.) MR. LEFEBVRE: Just to make a correction. On -- the only change from the imposition of fine that we got is both -- it has been complied with, but under operational costs they were not paid in our package and now they have been paid. That's the only thing. MR. DEAN: Mine says paid. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: That's the new one. MR. LEFEBVRE: The one we got here today. MR. DEAN: You have an old one, I have a new one. MS. SORRELS: All right, this is Ms. Edwards' prior home. As you see, it's a mobile home with an addition made on the left-hand side and a carport on the right side. This is just kind of looking down the side of the addition. This is a front view of the home, and it's kind of hard to tell with the shadowing, but in the center there where that dark space is, that's an actually doorway that led to a sliding glass door on the left-hand side that she accessed her addition or her living space with. On the property was also an unpermitted -- well, a boathouse and a shed, unpermitted. The boathouse actually stored her washer and dryer. So Ms. Edwards had to actually leave her home, go out, you know, to the back of her property to the boathouse to do her laundry. This was the shed that was on the property that was unpermitted. Page 61 April 22, 20 I 0 And then this is another view of the boathouse. It's kind of like an awning screening type of area that she would wheel herself into the boathouse. And just a far view showing the boathouse and the shed. Working this case and seeing what the situation was, I decided to contact Lisa -- and forgive me, I cannot pronounce her last name -- thank you, Boyan. And I explained the situation to Lisa about Ms. Edwards and her home and the violations and asked ifthere was anything she could do. Her words were we don't know, but we can always try. I picked up an application from Lisa, I drove out to Ms. Edwards' home, I hand delivered it, told her that if she filled it out the county would be more than happy to do anything possible if there was something to help her with. After a long period of time, I am very, very happy to say she that was approved for some grants and she has a beautiful new home. MS. EDWARDS: Amen. MS. SORRELS: This is the front of her new home. And Ms. Edwards enjoying her front porch. This is on the inside her home. Beautiful tiled floors. A great open spaced kitchen, front room. And one of the best parts about this is it was built to accommodate her needs. The sinks were low for her to reach, the appliances, the cabinets, everything's accessible for her. Just another shot of going into a bedroom, a storage closet. And I have to add, this is one of the funniest things that she said, she was so happy that she didn't have to go outside to do her laundry. Her washer and dryer is located inside. This is actually going into her bedroom. I didn't want to invade too much of her privacy, but this is going into her bedroom. Her bedroom is large, lots of room for her to maneuver. It's got a bathroom attached to it and the bathroom is built to meet her needs. Page 62 April 22, 2010 MS. EDWARDS: The old song, I need 40 acres to turn this roof around fits with me. MS. SORRELS: And this is on the side of the home. Obviously ramps to access both her front porch and her back porch and giving her all the freedom in the world. So with that being said, I don't know if she'd like to say anything, but -- MS. EDWARDS: Just that I'm extremely grate -- MR. LEFEBVRE: All right, motion to abate all fines. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Ms. Edwards, I hope you enjoy your beautiful new home. I want to let you know that although it took longer than what the original order is, the board just voted to abate all fines. So you do not owe anything to the county. And we hope you enjoy your home for years and years. MS. EDWARDS: Thank you. I'm in gratitude to the county. MS. RAWSON: Is there a new mailing address? MS. EDWARDS: No. MS. RAWSON: Same address. MR. HERRIMAN: Stays the same, ma'am. Page 63 April 22, 2010 MS. RAWSON: Good, good. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And also, I'd like to thank Lisa Owen, Tammy Hammer and the director of Housing and Human Services, Marcy Krumbine for their help in providing the grants and assistance to help Ms. Edwards with her home. And of course the Code Enforcement Department for going way out of their way and taking it upon themselves to help her through this. That's just remarkable. And Azure, thank you for all your personal attention. Thank you, Mrs. Edwards. Enjoy. MS. EDWARDS: Thank you. You can replace that, right? Sorry about that, dear. Thank you again. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Thank you. Have a good day. Okay, moving on to case CESD20090011000, Pamboukis. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. SMITH: For the record, Reggie Smith, Collier County Code Enforcement. In reference to CEB Case No. CESD20090011000, Board of County Commissioners versus Agathonicos G. Pamboukis, respondent, violation of Florida Building Code 2004 edition, Chapter One, permits, Section 105.1 and Collier County Ordinance 04-41, the Land Development Code, as amended, Section 1O.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location: 201 Santa Clara Drive, Unit 9, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 46573004801. Description: Structural, electrical and plumbing improvements made to structure without first applying for and obtaining all required permits to perform such improvements. Past orders: On November 19th, 2009, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings 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 official record 4516, Page 12 for more information. An extension of time was granted on January 28th, 2010. See Page 64 April 22, 2010 official record 4551, Page 1811. An additional extension of time was denied on March 25th, 2010. See official record 4551, Page 1813. The respondent has not complied with the CEB orders as of 22 April, 2010. The fines and costs 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 26th, 2010 through April 22nd, 2010, 28 days, for the total of $5,600. Fines continue to accrue. Order item number five, operational costs of $81.15 dollars have not been paid. Total amount to date, $5,681.15. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Have you had any contact with the respondent in the past 30 days? MR. SMITH: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: And could you describe to the board how those comments went? MR. SMITH: The most recent contact from Mr. Pamboukis was in the form of an e-mail he sent to me. Basically he had gotten his notice of hearing for today, and he didn't quite understand that, he says, which is a common response from this gentleman throughout this case. He then sent me the e-mail asking exactly what is happening here, and asking for basically an extension of time once again. I then forwarded that e-mail to Supervisor Jennifer Waldron for some advice on that. She replied back to me bye-mail. And if you'd like, I can read the e-mail. Basically states that he does once again need to in the form of a formal letter request the time continuance extension. I then forwarded that e-mail back to Mr. Pamboukis, and I do have a copy here that shows that on the 15th of this month I forwarded Page 65 April 22, 2010 that copy noting to review Supervisor Waldron's comments and to follow. To this day we have not received any formal request. MR. KAUFMAN: Well, based on the fact that he has not complied and has not paid the operational costs, I move that we impose the fines. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LA VINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Second by Mr. Lavinski. Discussion? Gerald? MR. LEFEBVRE: When's the last time you were on the property? MR. SMITH: Last time I was on the property was when I posted the notice of hearing. MR. LEFEBVRE: Which was? MR. SMITH: Which was -- MR. LEFEBVRE: What I'm alluding to is has there been progress made to abate the problem? This is a condo unit that has -- the kitchen was ripped out and is being replaced, he hired a contractor and so forth that took off with his money. Is work being done on the property? MR. SMITH: By talking with the contractor over a month ago, yes, they have now begun to -- I haven't been able to get into the unit. It's not occupied at this time. Again, the owner is out of state, he's in Ohio. Unless I made special arrangements to site visit inside of the condo unit, I wouldn't be able to see that other than peering through a window, which I don't do. I've been basing my reinspections on just the researching of the permit to see what inspections have been completed. As to date, this morning, code number 99, which I believe is the -- basically getting the work started. That's the only inspection that's been passed. Page 66 April 22, 2010 MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any further discussion? MR. ORTEGA: That last comment, what did you mean by 99? MR. SMITH: I don't have a copy of it here. MR. ORTEGA: Is that a failed inspection? MR. SMITH: Yes, that's one of our building inspections. I believe that's commencement. MR. ORTEGA: The notice of commencement? MR. SMITH: I believe so. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: The fines will be imposed and will continue to accrue. MR. SMITH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Thank you. And then our last case under old business is Zonia Lambert, Lambert Trust. Case No. CESD20090015245. (Speakers were duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please. MR. LAMBERT: My name is Julio Lambert. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Mr. Lambert, are you a member or executor or trustee of the trust? MR. LAMBERT: Sir, the trust was set up for me and my sons. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. As beneficiary, or do you have Page 67 April 22, 2010 the capacity to speak in reference to the assets and the value of the trust? MR. LAMBERT: Well, it was set up for me and my boys to live, but my sister's executor of the trust and she was supposed to have papers drawn up that I would be able to -- in case any repairs needed to be done to the house, I could have authority to do anything short of selling the house without their permission. And to date I don't have them papers. And I've been trying to get ahold of her for the last two months and she won't call me back, she won't call me back, she won't call me back. And finally she moved my mom to Miami about six weeks ago, and I've been talking to my mom every week, but she's the one that holds the Power of Attorney for everything. And I've tried to get the permits. I've already bought all the material to make all the repairs, but I wasn't going to make them without the permits, because that's illegal. So then they told me to write a letter to the board asking for an extension. And I come to find out that this is -- just a minute ago I found out -- I wasn't aware that this was a board of building, and I sent it to the Board of County Commissioners instead. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: In either case, because this now could potentially be an issue where if the fines were not paid, technically the lien could go to the county attorney's office and the home could be foreclosed upon. So we are talking about that level, if you will. MR. LAMBERT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I would have to say, as chairman of the board, that we would need somebody who was on the trust or a notarized letter from someone on the trust granting you, you know, permission to make decisions in their stead before I could ask for you to make any representation for them. Under these situations, we would entertain any testimony that you have but merely as comments. You couldn't actually make any Page 68 April 22, 2010 decisions for the case. More or less like a public comment, if you will. And in cases where typically we're presented with an imposition of fine and it has not been complied with, in other words, the repairs have not been made, the permits haven't been inspected and so forth, we generally rule to impose the fines. Now, that does not necessarily mean the end of the world. What it means now is that these fines will continue to accrue. The county does have the option to forward to the county attorney's office for foreclosure, like I had just stated. But sometimes there's a delay. In those cases, if you were to come into compliance, you could come back in front of the board and ask for a reduction or an abatement of the fines that did accrue. In other words, you could ask us to wipe the slate clean from any fines since you were able to bring it into compliance. Okay? So those are kind of the avenues. But in any of those cases, you definitely would need to have somebody from that trust grant you Power of Attorney or so forth to get the permits and to continue with the work. Okay? I know that's a lot. MR. LAMBERT: Yes, sir. Because there's very little work that needs to be done to the house. The fascia. And I bought all the material. I just wasn't going to put it on there without the permit. And I've tried to get -- I've tried to connect with my sister to please, at least write me a letter so I can pull my permits. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, a suggestion might be to hire a contractor to pull the permit for you. And in that case all you would need would be a notice of commencement signed by -- if it was over $2,500 you would need a notice of commencement. Less than that $2,500 you wouldn't even need that. And they can do the work for you to come into compliance. MR. LAMBERT: A contractor could pull the permits for me without my sister signing the -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: rfyou were a renter and you entered in a Page 69 April 22, 2010 contract to make improvements to a home that would benefit a home, sure, a contractor you would hire, they would pull the permits and they would do the work, get all of the approvals. You would then notify county inspectors and the investigators and you would be in compliance. MR. LAMBERT: If! can go that route, I will go that route, sir. I've got 100 problems, last thing I need is fines that I can't afford. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Because we are now forced to make a ruling on this today because it's on our agenda, we have to either say impose the fines or not impose the fines. Ifwe impose them today, I again repeat, you have the option to come back and ask for forgiveness of those fines, if you were to come into compliance here in the next couple of weeks. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, without something signed, again, you couldn't represent the trust. So you couldn't come in front of us to ask for reduction of fines. At this particular point it would have to be done by your sister. MR. LAMBERT: Yes, sir. If! could have got ahold of her, I would have made the repairs to the house then. She's just ignoring my request. MR. KAUFMAN: One quick question. I remember this from I think it was last month. Is this an issue of communication that you can't contact your sister, or is this a money issue? Do you have the money to get a contractor to go ahead and pull the permit, et cetera? MR. LAMBERT: I don't have the money to get a contractor to pull the permits, but I've bought all the material and stuff, and the permits are just a few hundred dollars at the most. But the problem is I was trying to get the permits, I was told that the Power of Attorney or my mother had to get the permits. And I bought all the material. And we're talking about a day's worth of work to fix the house to end up with thousands of dollars in fines. And I did ask for an extension, but I didn't know that this wasn't Page 70 April 22, 20 I 0 the county -- they said I needed to send it to the board. And I wasn't paying attention, I sent it to the Board of County Commissioners. I didn't think that this was a board of building inspectors. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, what's the county recommendation at this point? MS. SORRELS: County recommendations in reference to Case No. CEB -- CESD2090015245, Board of County Commissioners versus Zonia C. Lambert, Zonia C. Lambert Revocable Living Trust. Violation: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Building and Building Regulations, Article 2, Florida Building Codes, Sections 22-26, Subsection B, and 104.5.1.44. Location is 3450 Cherokee Street, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 74413 960006. Description of violation is Permit No. 930000827. Expired without first obtaining a certificate of completion. 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 OR 4537, Page 1731 for more information. The respondent has not complied with the CEB orders as of April 22nd,201O. 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 26th, 2010 to April 22nd, 2010, total of28 days for the total of $5,600. Fines continue to accrue. Order number five, operational costs of $81.72 have not been paid. Total amount to date, $5,681.72. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to impose the fines. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Do we have a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: We have a motion and a second. Page 71 April 22, 2010 Any discussion? MR. ORTEGA: Just to be clear, it's not just about hiring a contractor. To submit for a permit, you're going to need some plans, some design documents as well. MR. LAMBERT: Well, all I have to do is put the fascia on to finish the job. MR. ORTEGA: Did I read structural electrical? MR. LAMBERT: No, no. There's no structural anything on there. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, what we've done is we've imposed the fines. That means they will continue to accrue until it's brought into compliance. And like I said before, if you show progress and come back, there is a chance for reduction or possibly abatement. MR. LAMBERT: Sir, I got a question for you. when I came in front of you guys, you guys gave me 90 days on the main structure, right? This is 90 days. Now, right? So how come there's talking that I owe 5,000 and something when you gave me 90 days to complete the first structure? So there shouldn't be but a day or two in fines. MS. SORRELS: Can I provide some clarification? There's three other cases on this property. I do believe that he's figuring the compliance date of the other permitting case. Page 72 April 22, 20 I 0 MR. LAMBERT: No, of this case. CHAIRMAN KELLY: The case that I have here originally said 60 days, not 90. MR. LAMBERT: Sir, when I talked to you guys, you guys gave me 90 days to finish the main -- to get the permit on the main structure, and then you gave me 60 days after the 90 days to do the little building, to get the little building inspected. But I had 90 days on the main house and then after the 90 days I had 60 on the second house is what I was told. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: I can tell you that the case -- in that case they were split, and all we're talking about was the 60-day portion of it. And that didn't -- it didn't run from the date the 90 was up, it ran from the date of the hearing. MR. LAMBERT: Yeah. But that was still only two days back, right? Because I was told to do the main structure first. I had 90 days to finish the main structure and after the 90 days of the main structure, I was given an additional 60 days to do the second building. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: There was no additional 60 days, it was 60 days from the beginning. So in other words, the original meeting was January 28th. Therefore 60 days would have been up March -- I'm sorry, by the time this was recorded and everything, it would have been March 25th would have been the end of your 60 days. And that's why in this imposition of fines we now have from the dates of March 26th, the next day, through April 22nd, which was the date today. Plus operational costs. So 5681. MR. LAMBERT: Can I ask you a question? Was the last meeting that we went to recorded also? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Absolutely. And the court reporter has a record of everything. MR. LAMBERT: How do I get a copy of that, ma'am? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Cherie' will work with you. MS. WALDRON: I have a copy of the order too that we can also Page 73 April 22, 2010 give Mr. Lambert. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great. Very good, thank you. That's the end of all of our old business. On to -- there's nothing under the consent agenda. Is there any new business? How about reports? MS. FLAGG: Yes. For the week ending April 11 th, the banks have abated 1,067 code violations since November, 2008 when we started the Blight Prevention Program. And they have expended one million, 486 in Collier County to abate those violations. In addition, starting January of201O we've begun the program in conjunction with Naples Area Board of Realtors where they've changed the disclosure to potential buyers and sellers in regard to informing them of the importance of getting a code inspection. And also doing a code lien search before a buyer buys a home. So that 2009 case where they bought it from a bank and didn't know about the violation, hopefully that won't be happening anymore. We're tracking all of them. We've called the program, To Stop The Bleed. So we track. Every time we get a code violation, the investigator talks to the homeowner, checks all the records, and if there is an issue where the buyer was not provided the information by the realtor, then we follow up with Naples Area Board of Realtors. They have been terrific, very cooperative. The brochure is on the code enforcement website. The meet and greets that the investigators do with the community members, they also hand out the brochure, it's called by Buying a Foreclosed Home or Residential Property. And it tells in the brochure the importance of getting a code inspection and a lien search done before buying a piece of property. In addition, this month three community task force teams had what we call community cleanups, where instead of citing community members for debris, we give them the opportunity -- we work in Page 74 April 22, 2010 conjunction with utilities and the sheriffs office and all the other members of the task force to help committee members take debris and dump them in the dumpsters at no charge. And then those dumpsters are hauled off. This month the community cleanups were in Goodland, Isles of Capris, North Naples and Golden Gate Estates. And finally, we continue to ask our community members' assistance in letting us know if they see a home that looks like it is foreclosed. They can let us know either through the website, Colliergov.net/code. And on the left-hand side they can report a possible code violation and/or they can call the office at 252-2440. The investigator will go out and look at the home and then start working with the banks and the foreclosure teams to get the green pools back to clear and the grass cut, the windows repaired and anything else that needs to be addressed on the property. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Wonderful work. With that, the next meeting date will be May 27th, 2010. MR. DEAN: Motion to adjourn. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: We'll see you next month. Page 75 April 22, 20 I 0 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :23 a.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD KENNETH KELLY, 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 76