Loading...
CEB Minutes 07/22/2010 R July 22, 2010 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida July 22, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Kenneth Kelly Larry Dean Ron Doino (Excused) Robert Kaufman James Lavinski Gerald Lefebvre Lionel L'Esperance Tony Marino (Absent) Herminio Ortega 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: July 22, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. Location: 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Building F, Naples, FL 34104 NOTICE: THE RESPONDENT MA Y BE LIMITED TO TWENTY (20) MINUTES FOR CASE PRESENT A TION 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 P ARTICIP A TING 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. 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - A. June 24, 2010 Hearing 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. MOTIONS Motion for Extension of Time I. Felix & Guadalupe Alvarado CESD200900 14845 2. Dale & Keri Ann Ochs, Ridhard & Jeaneen Norton CEVR20090000974 3. Mateo Ayala & Mateo F. Ayala CESD200900 15555 B. STIPULATIONS C. HEARINGS I. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: 2. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: 3. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: 4. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO.: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: CESD20090002717 KARLA P. ABDALA INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 1O.02.06(B)(I)(a) GARAGE CONVERSION WITH ADDITION OF ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING 36320520001 5436 27TH PLACE SW NAPLES, FL CESD20090000870 RICHARD MERCER, JEFFREY AND AMY MERCER INVESTIGA TOR JOSEPH MUCHA COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(l)(a) STORAGE BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY WAS EXPANDED WITHOUT PERMITS 45912400009 1260 17TH ST. SW. NAPLES, FL CEA U200900 15258 IVY JEAN NEBUS, JUDY ANN BLAKE & BETTY JO ROBERTSON INVESTIGA TOR HEINZ BOX COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 5.03.02(A), FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2004 EDITION, CHAPTER 1, SECTION 105.1 UNMAINT AINED, UNPERMITTED FENCE 275560003 3994 MERCANTILE AVE. NAPLES, FL CEPM20090017577 LEONEL GARZA ET AL INVESTIGA TOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LA WS, CHAPTER 22, BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULA TIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22-231(l2)(b), (f),(g),(i),(l) EXTERIOR WALLS ON A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE THAT HAD HOLES, BREAKS, LOOSE ROTTING MATERIAL THA T WAS NOT WEATHER TIGHT AND NOT MAINTAINED IN GOOD REPAIR, ALSO NO GUARD RAILS ON THE APPROACHING FOOTSTEPS THE STAIRS CONSIST OF UNSTABLE BLOCKS, WINDOWS AND DOORS WERE NOT WEA THER AND WATER TIGHT NOR WERE THEY MAINTAINED IN GOOD REPAIR. THE SCREENS ON THE WINDOWS WERE MISSING OR THEY HAD BEEN REMOVED. THE EXTERIOR SURF ACE OF THE WHOLE STRUCTURE WAS IN POOR CONDITION 25582720003 111 7TH ST. IMMOKALEE, FL 5. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: 6. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: 7. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: 8. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: CESD20100002477 JOSE G & A VELlNA ROMERO INVESTIGA TOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 1O.02.06(B)(1)(a) NO PERMIT POSTED FOR THE CARPORT STRUCTURE/IMPROVEMENT 00081000003 3018 IMMOKALEE DR. IMMOKALEE, FL CENA20100002928 PALM LAKE LLC. INVESTIGA TOR AZURE SORRELS COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 54, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54-181 AND SECTION 54- I 79 LITTER CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO; WOOD, METAL BUCKETS, GLASS, FURNITURE, PLASTIC, AND OTHER DEBRIS SCATTERED THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY 61842240009 3131 T AMIAMI TRAIL EAST NAPLES, FL CEV20100003082 PALM LAKE LLC. INVESTIGA TOR AZURE SORRELS COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 2.0 1.00(A) APPROXMA TEL Y NIN UNLICENSED/ INOPERABLE VEHICLES ARE PARKED/ STORED ON PROPERTY BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOTS:38, 31,27, 18,9, & 2 VEHICLES ACROSS FROM LOT 5 61842240009 3131 T AMIAMI TRAIL EAST NAPLES, FL CEPM20100003098 PALM LAKE LLC. INVESTIGA TOR AZURE SORRELS COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LA WS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22-231(12)(n), SECTION 22-23 I(12)(m), SECTION 22-23I(12)(b), SECTION 22/231 (16), SECTION 22/231 (12)(c), SECTION 22-242(b), SECTION 22-231 (16), SECTION 22-231 (12)(c), SECTION 22-242(b), SECTION 22-231(12)(i), AND SECTION 22-241(1)(e) MUL TIPLE LOTS IN PALM LAKE HAVE SEVERAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE VIOLATIONS TO INCLUDE BUT NOT LIMITED TO; ACCESSORY STRUCTURES (CARPORTS AND SHEDS) NOT MAINTAINED IN GOOD REPAIR AND SOUND STRUCTURAL CONDITION 61842240009 3131 T AMIAMI TRAIL EAST NAPLES, FL 9. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: 10. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: 5. OLD BUSINESS CESD20 I 00004059 PALM LAKE LLC. INVESTIGA TOR AZURE SORRELS FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1 COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 1O.02.06(B)(1)(a) AND 1O.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE II, SECTION 22-26(b)(104.1.3.5) PROPERTY HAS SEVERAL UNPERMITTED STRUCTURES, ADDITION, AND/OR AL TERA TIONS CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO; SHEDS, CARPORTS, SCREENED ENCLOSURES, SCREENED ENCLOSURED CONVERTED INTO LIVING SPACE, ADDITIONAL ROOMS, INST ALLA TION/ AL TERA TION MADE TO ELECTRICAL WIRING, AND INST ALLA TION/ AL TERA TIONS MADE TO PLUMBING WORK 61842240009 3131 T AMIAMI TRAIL EAST NAPLES, FL CEPM20100004292 PALM LAKE LLC. INVESTIGATOR AZURE SORRELS COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LA WS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22-231 (11) ELECTRICAL WIRING RUNNING TO THE MOBILE HOMES ARE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT NA TIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, ELECTRICAL METERS ARE NOT SECURELY FASTENED; MISSING COVERS ON ENERGIZED ELECTRICAL PARTS, DIRECT WIRES AND CONDUIT ARE NOT BURIED TO CODE 61842240009 3131 T AMIAMI TRAIL EAST NAPLES, FL A. Motion for Imposition of FineslLiens I. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: CESD200900 14845 FELIX & GUADALUPE ALVARADO INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2004 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1 A METAL CARPORT ERECTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT 00055000000 4810 MYERS RD. IMMOKALEE, FL 2. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: 3. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: 4. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: 5. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: CESD20090002945 LISA DASHER INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i), FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2004 EDITION, CHAPTER I PERMITS, SECTION 105.1 PATIO IN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY BUILT WITHOUT A COLLIER COUNTY PERMIT 25577800404 3551 CARSON LAKES CIRCLE IMMOKALEE, FL CEVR20090000974 DALE & KERI ANN OCHS, RIDHARD & JEANE EN NORTON INVESTIGATOR SUSAN O'FARRELL COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 3.05.01B VEGETATION REMOVAL, PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION CLEARING OF NATIVE VEGETATION WITHOUT A PERMIT 01138800003 BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL PARK CESD20090017445 EMMA HOUSTON INVESTIGATOR ED MORAD COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) AND 1O.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i) A SINGLE WIDE MOBILE HOME CONVERTED FROM A SINGLE DWELLING UNIT INTO TWO DWELLING UNITS AND AN ADDITION ADDED WITHOUT OBTAINING BUILDING AND LAND AL TERA TION PERMITS, INSPECTIONS, AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AS REQUIRED 126960008 415 3RD ST. IMMOKALEE, FL CESD20080015112 MARIE L. GILOT INVESTIGATOR WELDON WALKER COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22, BUILDINGS & BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE II, FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, SECTION 22-26(b)(104.1.3.5) CONSTRUCTION/ REMODELING DONE TO MAIN HOUSE AND SHED ON PROPERTY WITHOUT PERMITS 7521240007 1707 6TH A VENUE IMMOKALEE, FL 6. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: 7. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: 8. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: CESD20080007126 MANUEL F. & ANA L. MORAN INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 1O.02.06(B)(l)(a) AND 1O.02.06(B)(l)(e)(i) PERMIT NUMBER 2002023338 FOR STEEL BUILDING EXPIRED WITHOUT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY 40987721006 865 EVERGLADES S. NAPLES, FL CESD20 I 00002534 HERBERT A. SALGA T JR. INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(l)(a) DETACHED GARAGE WAS CONVERTED INTO LIVING SPACE AND AN OFFICE WITHOUT PERMITS 38226080009 5941 CEDAR TREE LANE NAPLES, FL CESD20090015779 ALEXANDER & JOANKA C DIAZ DOMINGUEZ INVESTIGATOR JON A THON MUSSE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 1O.02.06(B)(l)(a) UNPERMITTED ELECTRICAL BOXES AND OUTLETS IN DWELLING 62635080006 669 99TH AVE N. NAPLES, FL B. Motion for Reduction of FineslLien 6. NEW BUSINESS 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Motion for Imposition of FineslLiens B. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. 8. REPORTS 9. COMMENTS 10. NEXT MEETING DATE - August 26, 2010 11. ADJOURN July 22, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board meeting to order. Notice: Respondents may be limited to 20 minutes per 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 Roberts Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. 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. Larry Dean? MR. DEAN: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Herminio Ortega? MR. ORTEGA: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Ron Doino has an excused absence today, and Mr. Tony Marino is absent. Page 2 July 22, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a full board. All of our normal board members are here so they'll all have voting rights. Now, moving on to the agenda. Can you tell us what changes are on the agenda, please? MS. WALDRON: Under number four, public hearings/motions, letter A, motions, motion for extension of time, we have one addition, which will be number four, Emma Houston, Case CESD-2009-0017445. Under letter B, stipulations, we have four stipulations. The first will be Karla P. Abdala, Case CESD-2009-0002717. Number two, Ivy Jean Nebus, Judy Ann Blake and Betty Jo Robertson, Case CEAU-2009-0015258. Number three, Leonel Garza, et al, Case CEPM-2009-0017577. And the fourth one will be Jose G. Romero and Avelina Romero, Case CESD-2010-0002477. Under letter C, hearings, we'll be withdrawing Case No.2 on the agenda, CESD-2009-0000870, Richard Mercer, Jeffrey and Amy Mercer. And moving on to number five, old business, letter A, motion for imposition of fines/liens, we -- scratch that. That's all the changes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any changes from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: In that case, I'll entertain a motion to accept the agenda. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion, second. All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 3 July 22, 2010 MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the ayes have it unanimously. Moving on to minutes. Any changes from the minutes from last month? MS. WALDRON: No changes from us. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And any changes from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: If not, I'll entertain a motion to accept. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? MR. DEAN: I oppose. CHAIRMAN KELLY: One abstention. MR. DEAN : It's not oppose, abstain. CHAIRMAN KELLY: One abstention for an absence -- I got you -- from Mr. Dean. Very good. Mr. Dean, can I borrow your pen? Moving on to public hearings/motions for extension of time, number one, Felix and Guadalupe Alvarado. (Speakers and Interpreter Felix Alvarado were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Good morning. Page 4 July 22, 2010 Since you're asking for the extension of time, if you'd like to take a moment and explain to us what events have happened and where you are now and why you need the extension, that would be great. MR. ALVARADO: We've already got everything. All we need is just get the permit and we just need time. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Could you pull the microphone down a little closer to you so the court reporter can hear too? Go ahead. MR. ALVARADO: Yeah, we just need more time. Money-wise, you know, the work's so slow and everything. It's just we need more time, you know, to get the money to get the permits. And we got everything, papers, everything ready, so all we need is just the permits. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And it says in your letter that you're asking for 60 days; is that correct? MR. ALVARADO: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And will 60 days be enough time to complete it? MR. ALVARADO: Well, four months -- what was it we asked? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Sixty days. MR. ALVARADO: Sixty days? Yeah, that will be plenty of time. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: You sure? MR. ALVARADO: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any objection from the county? MS. RODRIGUEZ: No objection. They have applied for the permit. Except because it was an after-the-fact permit, it was like $1,000, he didn't have the money. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Because of the after-the-fact permit fees? MS. RODRIGUEZ: (Nods head affirmatively.) Page 5 July 22, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Are there any questions from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion. MR. ALVARADO: Excuse me, instead of 60 days, can we get 90 days? MR. DEAN: What? I didn't hear him. CHAIRMAN KELLY: The respondent is requesting 90 days instead of 60 days, which was in the original letter. MR. DEAN: I guess I don't understand. You said 60 days was fine, plenty of time, now you want 90? MR. ALVARADO: Yes, he just told me. Ifwe could get 90 days instead of 60 days. MR. DEAN: I have no problem. MR. KAUFMAN: Can I ask the county what this entails. MS. RODRIGUEZ: It's a metal carport. MR. KAUFMAN: And what is it -- happening? It needs to be permitted to stay or it needs -- MS. RODRIGUEZ: It needs to be permitted to stay. And he's already got all the permits, it's just he needs the money to pay for it to C.O. it. Because it's a permit by affidavit. So once he gets the permit, like the following day it will be C.O.'d. But he just doesn't have the money right now. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the county doesn't have any type of waiving because it's a code case? MS. RODRIGUEZ: No. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Gerald? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to extend the respondent's time to pull the permit and get a Certificate of Completion for 90 days. MR. DEAN: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Dean. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? Page 6 July 22, 2010 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: 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 unanimously. Thank you, sir. MR. ALVARADO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We'll see you soon. MR. KAUFMAN: Hopefully not. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: You're right. Moving on to Ochs, Ridhard and Norton, extension of time. Real quick clarification, the last 90-day motion was from today, correct? MR. LEFEBVRE: From today. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Jean, you got that? MS. RAWSON: I got it, thanks. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sorry, Susan. MR. LEFEBVRE: I added that at the tail end of it. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning, Susan. MS. O'FARRELL: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So we have a letter requesting an extension. Is there -- an extension of 90 days to fully execute, therefore, they're requesting a 120-day extension. Are there any objections from the county? MS. O'FARRELL: No. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board? Page 7 July 22, 2010 MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion that we approve the extension for 120 days from today's date. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Second by Mr. L'Esperance. Any discussion at all? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: 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 unanimously. MS. O'FARRELL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thanks, Susan. Next case, Ayala and -- or Mateo Ayala. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. MR. AYALA: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Since you have requested the extension of time, would you like to explain just briefly for the board why you need the extension? MR. AYALA: Well, at the time I already got the permit, the demolition permit. I started knocking it down yesterday. I needed the time because I was going to try to keep one of the structures there, but I couldn't pull the permit, no way. So I just need a few more __ probably two to three weeks and I'll have it ready to go. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So originally you had tried to Page 8 July 22, 2010 explore the option of keeping it -- MR. AYALA: Right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- realized that it might not be the best -- MR. AYALA: Right. So I'm going to go ahead and tear it all down. I mean, it's already started, so -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. MR. KAUFMAN: So you don't need the 90 days? MR. AYALA: I'd say within three weeks at the most. I mean, I'm tearing it down now, but I just got to make sure I clean everything up. MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion we grant 60 days. MR. AYALA: That would be plenty. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? MR. ORTEGA: I have a question. Is there a permit pulled on this? MR. AYALA: Yes. Yeah, I got a demolition permit. It's already posted out there and I started knocking it down yesterday. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And is there any objection from the county? MS. RODRIGUEZ: No objection. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any other further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seeing none, all those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. Page 9 July 22, 2010 MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. Sixty days. Thank you, sir. The last motion for extension of time is Emma Houston. And the respondent's not here. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: For the record, Kitchell Snow, Collier County Code Enforcement. Just to speak to this issue, not arguing for or against the extension, this is not Ms. Houston's first rodeo with this board, but this is the first time Ms. Houston has showed initiative that she may comply. She did vacate the premises. There's no longer anyone living there, which is the board's main concern. They are closed up. She does state she's going to get permits within 90 days. I'm not sure that that's reasonable, but that's what she wants and that's what she requests. But to me this is unusual in that she has demonstrated to the board that she does want to comply. She complied with one part of your orders, and she may do this. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any further discussion with the board or questions? MR. ORTEGA: I do have a question. It says here single-wide mobile home converted to a single dwelling? MR. SNOW: What she did is she converted the mobile home into two individual dwellings. If you remember, they were the blue mobile homes that had the extended roof attached to it that was an open roof. And the main concern is we did not know or you did not know whether it was safe or not. So one of the main requests you had was to vacate the premises, which she did. Page 10 July 22, 2010 So I believe she wants to either have those removed -- I've talked to Ms. Houston, explained the desire for the board to have her here so you could ask her questions yourself. And I know that's your policy, unofficial policy, to go ahead and demonstrate their willingness to comply to the board. But I think she wants to either permit them, turn them back into the single-family double wide, the one trailer without the double dwelling in it, or have them removed and have new trailers put in there. MR. ORTEGA: And the extension of time again was? MR. SNOW: Ninety days, sir. MR. ORTEGA: Ninety days. MR. L'ESPERANCE: You feel that may not be adequate time? MR. SNOW: I don't know how far she's along. I know there's nothing that's been applied for. She does have -- state that she does have a contractor. But I would like to see it not go farther than 90 days for the fact that she hasn't demonstrated to the board other than this one time that she's willing to comply. She can always come back to the board and request more time if she needs more time. But I wouldn't want to extend it past that 90-day period for the fact that she may wait till the 119th day of 120 days and then come in and say I need more time. MR. KAUFMAN: Have you had any problems getting ahold of her or conversations going back and forth? MR. SNOW: Sir, it's strange, sometimes Ms. Houston is readily available and other times she's not. She's called me on a couple of occasions and we've discussed this, and then I try to reach her and I can't reach her for two weeks, so -- but this letter, and she says that she's going to do it, so -- MR. KAUFMAN: I'll make a motion then we grant her the 90 days. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? Page 11 July 22, 2010 MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? MR. LEFEBVRE: I just want the board to be aware that part of the fines started on May 14th, if I'm not mistaken, and then the other part started in June. So we're actually giving her more time than 90 days, because she was supposed to get this corrected months ago on one of them. So I just want the board to be aware of that. And then please reiterate that if she comes in front of us again, we might not be as willing to given another extension. MR. SNOW: County's in agreement on that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any further discussion? MR. ORTEGA: I don't agree with this. I think we need to bring her before the board within 30 days to find out what the intent is. I think 30 days is more than enough to figure out what you want to do. At this point it's not clear; am I correct? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Ifwe give her 30 days, it would most likely hit the September meeting, not necessarily the August. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, we could say by next meeting. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: We could do that. MR. KAUFMAN: I have no problem withdrawing my motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion withdrawn. Is there another motion then? MR. ORTEGA: I'd like to make a motion to give the respondent 30 days to come before the board -- MR. SNOW: Hold on. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Yeah, let's hold it, we have Ms. Houston here. MR. SNOW: Ms. Houston is here. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Ms. Houston, we're discussing your case now. Would you like to step up? And the court reporter will have to Page 12 July 22, 20 I 0 . swear you In. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. HOUSTON: I'm sorry I'm late. I missed my road. I don't live in the area, so -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you for driving all the way in from Immokalee, we appreciate it. And just to catch you up, what we've been discussing is we're actually looking at your letter right now, and we see that you have vacated the home and that you've hired a contractor, and at this time you're asking for an additional 90 days from today to give you enough time to fix the issues. MS. HOUSTON: Correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: The discussion from the county has been very positive. They're willing to ask the board to grant the time of90 days. The discussion amongst the board has been somewhere right around 30 days to allow you the chance to come and appear again in front of us to explain why you need more time. But since you're here today, maybe you can help us better understand what your intentions are. MS. HOUSTON: Okay. And why I need more time is -- I know this is personal, but I had months of things in my family. The person that really helped me was in a court procedure two and a half years. So when that help was gone I had no help, I had to make decisions on my own. And the lady that I tried to get out -- I was very friendly with, and she said -- you know, but when I got to doing the motion of getting her out, she would not go. And she was in that house about 14, 15 years, so she felt like -- and she's not an English speaking person, she felt that that was her home. Her daughter moved her stuff out but she still would not go. So that put me in a process of going through some strenuous things and other financial situations. Page 13 July 22, 20 I 0 But I, you know, got her out and got everybody else out of the house. And even the doors were removed. And I did not know that I had to get a licensed contractor to give me permission to tear the parts down. And I -- and procedure. I talked with his wife yesterday, I called him several times. So, you know, we hurried up and that's where I'm at now. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Did you say you do have a contractor now? MS. HOUSTON: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Do we have any questions from the board? MR. ORTEGA: I do have a question. Actually, several questions. One, your intent is to place the mobile home back in its original condition; is that your intent? MS. HOUSTON: My intent is to go two ways if I could. Either way. But my first intent is to put it back in condition, yes. MR. ORTEGA: And you are aware that in order to proceed or to conduct any work, you do need a permit, correct? MS. HOUSTON: Yes. But like I said, I found out you need a permit for everything. And that's why, you know, you have to, yes. And I did not know that you need permits for all these things that you do. But it seems like everything, you know. MR. ORTEGA: The purpose for the questions are to establish how much time you really need. I think the request is for 90 days, and, based on what you decide to do, will have an impact on the time. That's why I'm asking these questions. MS. HOUSTON: Well, if I cannot replace that trailer, you know, where it's at, I cannot tear the front off and -- without a lot of hassle, then I will need to get a permit from the department to put something else there. But my first intent, because the money is not there, is to tear the Page 14 July 22, 2010 front off and see can I go with that, you know, finish tearing it down. MR. ORTEGA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is anyone inclined to make a motion? MR. KAUFMAN: I'll make a motion that we grant a 90-day extension. If you have a problem meeting the 90 days, you need to come back to the board prior to the expiration of the 90 days. MR. L'ESPERANCE: The property is vacant, correct? MS. HOUSTON: Yes, it's vacant. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'd like to second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a second. Do we have any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: The ayes have it unanimously. You have 90 days from today. And I'd like to reiterate, there was discussion before you got here from the board members about not being as lenient. So if you could tell us prior to any expiration your progress if you need more time, we would appreciate it. MS. HOUSTON: So you want me to state it again? CHAIRMAN KELLY: No, you're good. You've got the 90 days. But if you run into further problems and you need more than the Page 15 July 22, 2010 90 days, the board is asking that you let us know about the extension, the request for more time before it expires. MS. HOUSTON: Oh. Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Thank you for making the trip over. MR. SNOW: The County thanks the Board. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's all for the motions of time. Now moving on to B, stipulations. Abdala. (Speakers and Interpreter Ed Severo were duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please. MS. ABDALA: Karla Abdala. INTERPRETER SEVERO: Ed Severo. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you'd like, you can bring the microphone closer to your mouth so that we can all hear. Investigator Paul, would you like to tell us about the stipulation. MR. PAUL: Yes, I would. For the record, Renald Paul, Collier County Code Enforcement. I've spoken with Mrs. Abdala, and she's agreed to pay the operational cost in the amount of $80.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of the hearing, and abate all violations by, respondent's required to the obtain any and all permits as required by Collier County for any and all improvements and alterations to this residence, or obtain permits for removal of all unpermitted improvements to this property and obtain all required inspections and Certificate of Completion within 60 days of this hearing or be fined $200 a day for each day the violation remains. Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all Page 16 July 22, 2010 costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. And she has agreed to this. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you would translate and ask if she understands that she has 60 days to either get the existing garage permitted as-is or to turn it back to its original state, or a fine of $200 per day will accrue. INTERPRETER SEVERO: She understands. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Please. MR. KAUFMAN: Do you have any idea which direction you're going to go? Are you going to demo it or restore -- INTERPRETER SEVERO: No, we already -- the building department already approved the construction part of it. We got -- we're dealing with the health department for the -- there was issues with the septic. So we expect to correct that within the next few weeks. MR. KAUFMAN: And you think that 60 days would be sufficient time to get everything done? INTERPRETER SEVERO: I believe so, I believe so. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any further discussion? MR. ORTEGA: I do have a question. If the intent is to keep the conversion, how far is it? Is it complete? INTERPRETER SEVERO: Yeah, it's complete. It was an issue of getting a permit by affidavit, and I check with the county yesterday and like I said, the construction part of the violation has been completed. However, the health department got in at the last minute requesting information that we haven't finish yet, you know. We had the inspection of the septic where we got certification, we're just dealing with the paperwork, so -- MR. ORTEGA: No further questions. Page 1 7 July 22, 2010 MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion. Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the ayes have it unanimously. INTERPRETER SEVERO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thanks very much. Good luck. Next stipulation is going to be Nebus, Blake and Robertson. MS. CAPASSO: Supervisor Susanna Capasso, for the record. Capasso, C-A-P-A-S-S-O. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. CAPASSO: Mrs. Robertson is representing her family. And this has been an ongoing issue since it started in the 2002 when they first applied for a permit. The fence was never completed. It was re-app'd in 2008, and they have yet to complete it. They recently re-app'd the permit, and Mrs. Robertson, speaking on behalf of herself or her sisters, has assured me that 60 days would be enough and that they would complete the fence. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Would you like her to read the stipulation agreement into record? Page 18 July 22,2010 put the amounts of costs in there. MS. CAPASSO: At the time when I met with Ms. Robertson, I did not have the amount. She was going out of town, so we just wanted her to sign it. But I did explain to her that there would be operational costs, usually between 80 and $85, and that she would be required to pay within 30 days of the hearing. And she agreed to it, she had no problems with it. MS. RAWSON: So if we added the amount of costs in there, there's not going to be a problem? MS. CAPASSO: No. MS. RAWSON: Yes, why don't you read it in. MS. CAPASSO: Do you want me to read the whole thing or just the part where she agrees to abate the violations? MS. RAWSON: Well, probably you're going to have to say that there is a violation and then you're going to read the last part. MS. CAPASSO: Okay. The violations noted in the referenced notice of violation are accurate and I stipulate to their existence. Florida Building Code 2007th edition, Chapter One, Permits, Section 105.1, Fences and Walls, All Districts; Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 5.03 .02.A, unpermitted dilapidated fence. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $81 and I think it's 51 cents -- 15 cents incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of the hearing. They will abate all violations by obtaining any and all Collier County building permits along with inspections and Certificate of Completion for perimeter fence at 3994 Mercantile Avenue within 60 days from signing or a fine of $100 dollars per day for each day the violation remains. The respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a Page 19 July 22,2010 site inspection to confirm compliance. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all cost of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there any questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion -- I'll entertain a motion-- MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation agreement. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: That carries unanimously. MR. KAUFMAN: We're going to make a motion to turn down the temperature here. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Yes, I'd like to second that, please. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I think that we're all in favor of a little cooler environment, if it's possible. MR. DEAN: I thought you ought to turn it off. It's too cold. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next stipulation would be Garza. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Maria, would you like to read the Page 20 July 22, 2010 stipulation into the record. 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 $84.01 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; abate all violations by applying for and obtaining a Collier County building permit or a 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. That the respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provision of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. and Mrs. Garza, do you understand the stipulation agreement and agree to it? MRS. GARZA: Yes. MR. GARZA: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You got that? MR. L'ESPERANCE: It's not on -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Are there any questions from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Is this residence currently occupied? MRS. GARZA: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: It is? MR. GARZA: Yeah. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I have a question. Is the 120 days sufficient? Page 21 July 22, 2010 MRS. GARZA: No, sir. No, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: One hundred twenty days is not enough? MRS. GARZA: I need more -- about three more months. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Can I ask -- excuse me, ma'am, can I ask when you signed this stipulated agreement? MRS. GARZA: This one? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes. MRS. GARZA: Yesterday. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And did you learn about new events that happened since yesterday and today that now requesting so much more time? MRS. GARZA: Well, I need more time because I don't have enough money, you know. I need -- I just have 200 a month that -- for fixing, you know, I can fix the house. That's why I need more time. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So now you're requesting that the stipulated agreement be changed to seven months? MRS. GARZA: Yes, if they can, you know. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, we can do that, if it's agreed upon by the board. And I understand that the reason behind it is because you're on a fixed income and it will take you that amount of time to come up with the money necessary to make the repairs? MRS. GARZA: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there any questions from the board? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Yes. Is it fair to say that these conditions or repairs are exterior items, items that are on the outside of the home? MRS. GARZA: Outside of the home. The boards-- MR. L'ESPERANCE: There's no health or welfare problems or issues, there are just exterior maintenance items? MRS. GARZA: No, I don't have no help. I don't know where to go. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Maria, would you like to-- Page 22 July 22, 2010 MS. RODRIGUEZ: The exterior of the house is very poor. We did not go inside the house so I can't verify if it is a health and safety Issue. MR. L'ESPERANCE: My point is these are exterior issues that we're looking at today. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, yes. MR. L'ESPERANCE: There are exterior issues, we have no health and welfare issues at all. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Not that I'm aware of. MR. L'ESPERANCE: On the outside. Okay. MR. ORTEGA: Is this an elevated structure? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. MR. ORTEGA: The railings are not intact? MS. RODRIGUEZ: It isn't a mobile home, it's an actual house that was built back in the 1940's, so it's on bricks. MR. ORTEGA: And we're two feet, three feet, 10 feet in the air? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Probably like three feet in the air. It is on blocks. I don't know what the inside floor looks like or structurally how it's -- have holes or whatever, because we did not go inside. The actual owner lives in the house, because this is a house that was inherited through their father, parents. And three of the brothers and sisters own the house. One of them lives in the house and the other two of course live somewhere else. But she's having a hard time fixing because she's on an income that's fixed because both her and her husband are disabled. And she was hoping to move out of the house because they were going to try to demo it; at least that's the last I heard. She cannot afford at this time to move out because they don't have the money to rent elsewhere. MR. KAUFMAN: It does say in the violation that it has unstable blocks. Is that the blocks that are holding the building? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Oh, no, no, those are the blocks to the front Page 23 July 22, 2010 of the house. It's got three steps. She already abated that part. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay, so that part of the safety is -- MS. RODRIGUEZ: Is corrected, yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: So you said this is owned by multiple people. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: A family? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: So it's not just her income that could possibly be used to fix up the premises. MS. RODRIGUEZ: All three of the family members are on fixed income. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Does the county have any issues with granting seven months to do the work? MS. RODRIGUEZ: I have no objections. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any further discussion from the board, or questions? MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, also this violation was first observed back in November. So she would have well over a year to abate this. Has there -- how much has been done to try to abate the issue? You said that the front stoop -- or stairs were fixed. Is there -- MS. RODRIGUEZ: She replaced a little bit of the wood because it's an old wood house. She did replace some of the wood on the side of the house and the stairs, and that's it, that's all she's done. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there a motion, perhaps? MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion that we accept the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, so we have it at 120 days and $200 per day. That's the motion. Is there a second? MR. ORTEGA: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a second. Page 24 July 22, 2010 Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Opposed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Opposed. Okay, and the ayes have it, with two in opposition. And you now have 120 days. It was the original amount that you had agreed upon with county yesterday to fix up the issues. Like we tell all of our respondents, if you run into problems meeting that 120-day time frame, please come back to the board before it expires to request additional time. And it helps if you have a track record of doing works and communicating well with the county investigator. MRS. GARZA: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay? MR. GARZA: I got a question. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes, sir, please. MR. GARZA: If she don't build it, fix it in 120 days, who's going to be fined, her or me? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, what will happen is if you don't finish within the 120 days, you have the opportunity to come back. You can even write a letter requesting a further extension of time. We just ask that you please show us where you've been making some improvements to work towards abating this violation. MRS. GARZA: I understand. MR. GARZA: Yeah, because she's the one that live at the house. Page 25 July 22, 2010 I don't live at the house with her. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I appreciate that. MR. GARZA: Yes. And I want to find out if I'm going to be fined. They gave her enough time to do it and she didn't do it. MRS. GARZA: My husband got sick. MR. GARZA: I'm sick too. MRS. GARZA: No, it's not the same. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I understand. To answer your question, the fines would go against the owners of the building. And we are not in the business of taking anyone's home, we just want to help and make sure that you have a safe place to live. MRS. GARZA: If I don't have enough time, I tell her. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Right. Very good. MRS. GARZA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Good luck. Next case would be stipulated agreement for Jose and Avelina Ramero. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. RODRIGUEZ: She is not here today. She couldn't make it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you have information as to why or-- MS. RODRIGUEZ: She works, and her husband is out of the state. She couldn't drive up here, so -- she has no driver's license. But she couldn't make it. She did sign the stipe so she did agree. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great, we'll take that into consideration. Thanks, Maria. Would you like to read it into record. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $80 incurred in the prosecution of Page 26 July 22, 2010 this case within 30 days of this hearing; abate all violations by: Must apply 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 90 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: Is there any questions from the board? MR. ORTEGA: Yes. With regards to the structure itself, it's completely erected? MS. RODRIGUEZ: No, it's halfway done. She has pulled the permit for it. She was supposed to get it out today or tomorrow, and then they were supposed to start on it, because she's ready for this thing to be over with. So I'm hoping that it will be finished within the next 30 days, but we went ahead and gave her a little bit more time. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: If not, I'll entertain a motion. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to approve as written. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 27 July 22, 2010 MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the ayes have it unanimously. Thanks, ma'am. That's the end of our stipulations. Cherie', would you like a 10-minute break? Anybody on the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, seeing that, we'll go right into public hearings. The first hearing is done, the second one is withdrawn. Is it all the way down to Palm Lake, LLC. And Azure, I'll go for some guidance on how you want to handle these. If they're similar, maybe we can hear testimony and then just vote on each one individually. MS. SORRELS: There's a total of five cases. I would definitely like to do that with the permitting case and the property maintenance case. We have a second property maintenance case which is covering electrical I would like to have heard separately, unlicensed and inoperable heard separately, and litter heard separately. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Let's go ahead and take them one at a time, then. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And sir, you're an attorney, correct? MR. ERICKSON: Lewis Erickson, here on behalf of Palm Page 28 July 22, 2010 Lakes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So you're kind of exempt from that. MR. ERICKSON: Right, yeah, I didn't think I'd be testifying, but -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Since this is a case being brought by Collier County, we'll let them read the case into record and then we'll discuss it. MR. ERICKSON: Okay, that's what I would appreciate. MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of Ordinance Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 54, Article 6, Section 54-181 and Section 54-1 79. Description of violation: Litter consisting of but not limited to wood, metal, buckets, glass, furniture, plastic and other debris scattered throughout the property. Location/address where violation exists: 3131 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida, 34112. Folio 61842240009. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Palm Lake, LLC, 1000 Jorie Boulevard, Suite 44, Oak Brook, Illinois, 60523. Registered agent, Gregory Urbancic, 4001 Tamiami Trail, Suite 300, Naples, Florida, 34103. Date violation first observed: March 4th, 2010. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: March 4th, 2010. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: March 14th, 2010. Date of reinspect ion: June 16th, 2010. Violation remains. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Real quick, just procedural, Azure, if you're going to have the officer also present testimony, we'd like to swear him in ahead of time. MS. SORRELS: That's fine. I'm not sure ifhe will need to, but might as well do it if he does. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And then we're going to have to Page 29 July 22, 2010 go through this on each case, since they're all separate. (Corporal Mike Nelson was duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please? CORPORAL NELSON: Corporal Mike Nelson. N-E-L-S-O-N. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Since it's your case, if you'd like to present. MS. SORRELS: Good morning, gentlemen. For the record, Investigator Azure Sorrels, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CENA20100002928 pertaining to the violation of litter consisting of but not limited to wood, metal, buckets, glass, furniture, plastic bags, bottles and other debris, located at 3131 Tamiami Trail East, Folio 61842240009. Personal service was conducted on March 4th, 2010. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Exhibit B, pictures one through 24, all dated the 21st of July, 2010. MR. L'ESPERANCE: May I ask a question before you post those pictures? MS. SORRELS: Sure. MR. L'ESPERANCE: The registered agent was notified of this hearing, correct? MS. SORRELS: That is correct, sir. MR. L'ESPERANCE: And do we know a reason why the registered agent is not present? MS. SORRELS: From my understanding he is just -- he serves at the registered agent, not as the representative to the property owner. The gentleman, Mr. Erickson, has been retained by the property owner, Mr. McKay, who I did speak with on the 19th that did confirm he received the notices of hearing and that he had obtained his serVIces. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. MR. KAUFMAN: Has he seen the pictures? MS. SORRELS: Yes, he has. Page 30 July 22, 2010 MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion. Do we have a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Dean. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the ayes have it. MS. SORRELS: Gentlemen, if I may, before we start reviewing all these photos, let me explain the property that we're speaking of here. This property is Palm Lake Mobile Home Park. The property is owned by one person, who is Mr. McKay. It's actually listed as Palm Lakes, LLC. The mobile homes, there's a total of 60 lots, and the mobile homes and the travel trailers are owned by individuals. Whether they reside in them or rent them out, I don't have any knowledge of who's who on that. But all the violations obviously are done by the tenants and the owners of the mobile homes, not necessarily Mr. McKay. But I just wanted to kind of lay that out there that this is what we're dealing with, that the property owner was separate the owners of mobile homes and residents. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So is this a deed restricted community Page 31 July 22, 2010 where they have their own bylaws? MS. SORRELS: No, it is not. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So you're -- basically to reiterate, each of the individual home sites, the site, the land itself is owned by one person? MS. SORRELS: No, the land in total -- maybe I'll help you by giving you a visual here. The land in total is owned by Mr. McKay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Including all of the individual home sites? MS. SORRELS: Correct. The only thing that is owned separately is just directly the mobile homes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, got it. MR. LEFEBVRE: So it's like a land lease, is that what you're talking? MS. SORRELS: Correct. It's considered a mobile home rental park. MR. ERICKSON: If I may speak briefly on this, this whole issue of the five complaints that we have here, as I understand it, we have a mobile home park that is pretty much in a dilapidated condition. The five cases are five significant issues, I don't think anybody's here to dispute that. The problem that we have is that I believe there's like 60 units in there, and the vast majority of them are occupied. It is obviously a low rent mobile home park that needs significant improvements. And it may need to be shut down. The infrastructure -- the pictures and everything will show here the infrastructure has serious problems. And we're not here -- I'm not going to be here disputing hardly anything that the code enforcement officer is saying today. This is apparently a rather dilapidated park that this is the first significant hearing time that has been brought by code enforcement before this board to figure out what we're going -- what needs to be Page 32 July 22, 2010 done and what is going to be done about this situation. It's like -- it's crunch time, I recognize. It's time that something, a plan has to be devised to make it -- bring it up to code, an acceptable code and deal with it. But the problem is that we do have numerous tenants in the park. There's crime problems in the park, there's, as she indicated on this first one, there's litter. There's going to be electrical problems, there's broken windows. There are problems with the park, and that definitely have to be addressed. So our main concern, my main concern on behalf of Mr. McKay and the LLC that owns it is figuring out where we go from here and what type of time frame we're going to be looking at from here to obviously correct a situation that's going to need some significant corrections. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I appreciate you coming forth and being so willing to work with us. And it will make the proceedings go a lot faster now that there's almost just a general admission that there are violations that exist. And what we'd like to do is to continue that kind of dialogue when we get to the point where we talk about how we're going to rectify the situation, the time frame that's going to be needed and so forth. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just a suggestion. Is there a way that we can work on a stipulated agreement? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Azure? MS. SORRELS: We had discussed a stipulation agreement with Mr. Erickson. We thought that it would probably be best to have the hearing so that way a definite reasonable amount of time could be given with you guys hearing the circumstances of the legalities involved with property owners and individual mobile homeowners, that you would be able to maybe provide him with more reasonable time. Page 33 July 22, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Outside your normal stipulation time frame? MS. SORRELS: Correct, yes. MR. ERICKSON: My suggestion would be -- quite frankly, I was involved in one other case involving the -- Ms. Garretson on a magistrate hearing in which there was a violation against a particular unit in the park that was owned by the other person, and that was about a month and a half ago that I was involved in that case. I originally -- when I got these notices, I thought these were similar, just different notices as to five different mobile homes. Until today I was not aware that this is a huge full-blown issue involving the park. My suggestion, I'm not sure what your alls procedure is, would be that we be allowed a continuance until the next hearing to give us time to work with code enforcement to see if we can enter into a stipulation and a proposal to address each of the issues in a time frame that we'd need for each of the issues. Because quite frankly, I'm in a position today that I have no idea what type of time frame is going to be needed on these issues. I don't know -- I know I've been involved before in closing down mobile home parks, and I know what a problematic area that is in getting the tenants out of the park. Even if we want to get them out of the park it's very difficult. So my suggestion would be that we be given until the next hearing to see what we can work out with the code enforcement officer to stipulate to and then that would make it easier for everybody to proceed, I think. This is obviously a problem that has been going on for years. And just as a general time frame, I would assume it's probably going to take a year to resolve a problem of this magnitude. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Just to answer your first question, the code enforcement department has two avenues for enforcement. Page 34 July 22, 2010 For smaller, quicker issues they have the special magistrate, which is a single person. For a little bit more complex, they have a group of volunteers. And thank you for rising our jobs to that level. We appreciate you recognizing the situation. I think, and I don't want to speak out of turn, but I believe the county would prefer to have it under this venue, only because you have citizens here. We're not representing anyone except the public at large. And to have these minds get together and be creative we maybe would be more lenient understanding the situation. We might be able to go outside what their standard stipulated agreement time frames are and so forth. But given your request, let's go ahead and ask the county if they do want to pull all of these cases from the record today and give you guys a chance to work on maybe an agreement outside this board. But it's up to them to pull it or not. MS. SORRELS: Gentlemen, I do understand that Mr. Erickson has been just recently made aware of this. However, Mr. McKay, the property owner, has been made aware of this now since the month of March. Mr. McKay, my supervisor, Patti Petrulli and myself had met with Mr. McKay on Feb -- excuse me, on April 16th. We walked the entire park with him, we pointed out -- and I mean, very detailed, explained to him what needed to be done. Since that conversation, that meeting that we had, I have not heard from Mr. McKay at all. Very little compliance has been met. Mainly the litter is the only thing that's been touched on. Other ones, all the other violations have not even been addressed. And I do understand that there's legalities there, but I would ask that we have the hearings. It's health and safety. Some of these structures are in very bad repair. And the fire department made site visits with us as well. And they have concerns, not underneath the fire code, but just as firefighters, the fire hazards that these people are in. Page 35 July 22,2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Ifwe do continue, I'll ask that the board keep in mind the balance act between the safety of the public and the legality of possibly eviction notice time frames and so forth. With that being said, it looks like we'll go ahead and continue and hear each of the cases, and we will certainly be openminded to your situation and the legalities behind it. MR. KAUFMAN: Can I ask a question of the county before we begin? MS. SORRELS: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: Is this a case -- there are five cases -- of where it's reported by one person, individual -- we certainly don't want to know who it is -- or is this a report of many people that has caused the case to be brought before us? MS. SORRELS: I'm not sure I understand your question, sir. Are you talking -- MR. KAUFMAN: Was this one person who said I have a problem with A, B, C, D, or it is many people that have reported this? MS. SORRELS: Sir, I cannot answer that accurately due to the fact that the complaint came in to us anonymously, and the complaint was the general overall condition of the park. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: To further clarify, was the Sheriffs Department involved in making any type of complaints? MS. SORRELS: I do believe that in the complaint -- again, I'm not sure how the complaint actually all originated. I know that it was trickled down through people. I do believe there was concerns of the Sheriffs Office activity inside this park. And Corporal Nelson would be able to testify to calls and stuff within the past year of that park. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You were going to show us some pictures of the park. MS. SORRELS: Yes, correctly. I'm just going to real quick just read through a couple of my Page 36 July 22, 2010 dates. On the 4th of March I had made a site visit with myself and Supervisor Petrulli. We had observed litter scattered throughout the property. Supervisor Petrulli conducted personal service with a Notice of Violation on the registered agent. We also had made another site visit on the 19th, myself and the Sheriffs Office and the Fire Department, and again walked the entire park with the property manager, Robert Burns, and again pointed out specifically to the violations that were in the park. And the first picture that you see, it's kind of sideways, but that's okay, that's actually a warehouse building and that's just some metal and some wood that is leaned up against it. This is old furniture just sitting out in the weather, being rained on. Storage of ladders, coolers, plastic buckets alongside the mobile homes. Sinks, chairs. Plastic. Whether it be plastic bags or plastic tarps that's just rotted away from the weather and then started blowing around the property . Old appliances not being thrown away on the side of the shed. You see coolers and everything being stored outside. Not necessarily considered litter, but it falls underneath the abandoned, derelict items. They need to be stored within -- inside of a closed structure. Again, materials of different natures, wood blocks, metal being stored. Pieces of wood laying around. Shopping carts full of beer bottles. Other stuff stored behind inbetween the mobile homes. Piles of debris -- or vegetational debris, excuse me. MR. L'ESPERANCE: How is trash picked up in this community, individually or do they have dumpsters? MS. SORRELS: They have dumpsters, two of them, sir. Page 37 July 22, 2010 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. MS. SORRELS: Just pieces of wood kind of stacked up to make like a makeshift fence. Materials of wood and metal stored inbetween the warehouse and mobile home two. Old furniture, doors. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Do we have a GIS perspective available? MS. SORRELS: Yes. I was going to ask if you'd like to see. I have a GIS and I also have an actual from a 1998 reroof permit. I actually have a site plan. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. MR. KAUFMAN: Does this area have city water and sewer? MS. SORRELS: Yes, it does. Caught me off guard on that one. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Are these part of your original Exhibit A? MS. SORRELS: Yes. This, the property in question, the mobile home park, this is at the corner of Airport Road and Tamiami Trail East. It's just behind the -- well, what used to be the Property Appraiser's building. As you make that corner, the Property Appraiser's building was right there on the corner and this is right past it. The next thing that I have to show you is the lot site plan. Approximately 60 lots. As I had mentioned, we had made several site visits on the property. We had spoken with Robert Burns, the property manager. We've also met with the property owner, Mr. McKay and explained again all the violations and specifically very detailed explained too what we considered litter and what we would consider abandoned, derelict items, what would need to be stored inside an enclosed structure and what obviously would need to be discarded. My last site visit obviously was as of yesterday, the 21st of July. The violation remained. Page 38 July 22,2010 I prepared the packet on the 25th of June for the Code Enforcement Board. Personal service was conducted with a Notice of Hearing with the property manager, Robert Burns. And I followed that up with a phone call to Mr. McKay on the 19th. I called him, asked him if he was aware of the hearings. He indicated that yes, his registered agent had informed him of it and that he had obtained the services of Mr. Erickson. He had made a couple comments to me that made me feel like he was not quite sure how the violations would be abated so I clarified that again. Those were more pertaining to the other cases than this litter case. And that's it. As of right now the violation remains. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Mr. Erickson, usually this is where the respondent or representative would talk or defend against there being a violation in the first place. We as a board need to next decide if a violation exists or if doesn't exist. If it does exist, then we go forth with a corrective action, time frames, what needs to be done and so forth. So if you'd like to speak to whether or not a violation exists, we'd enter that now. If you don't have any objections, we'll go ahead and rule as a board that it does, and then we can move towards time frames and so forth. MR. ERICKSON: The only comment I'd like to make and the concern I have is the -- may bring Ms. Rawson in on this -- is the legal effect of most of what I saw there were items that appeared to me to belong to the various tenants that are stored outside their units. And I've never -- I haven't researched this, I'm not sure I understand, code can only go after the owner of the land. But again, my concern is what Mr. McKay can do to force these people or even to remove the items that are stored. Obviously the litter in the park he can pick up and he is responsible for that. But my concern is the personal property that clearly belongs to other people Page 39 July 22, 2010 that is stored in their -- on their site. I'm not sure what his legal rights are, so I want the board to take that into consideration. And as to -- and I'm not sure what can be ordered against him as to disposing of other people's property that's on their rented lot. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, Jean? MS. RAWSON : Well, it seems to me that this is litter that is scattered around the park. And I think his job as a landlord is to tell all of the people there's an order from the code enforcement this litter's got to be picked up, if you don't pick it up within a certain amount of time it will be removed. Because otherwise I'm the one that's going to be held responsible because I'm the owner of the land. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Mr. Erickson, ifby chance you were to research and find that there is some kind of law that limits his ability to do that, you do have the appeal process, and that would certainly be entered, and it would be great testimony. MR. ERICKSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Anything further? MR. ERICKSON: No, I have nothing further. CHAIRMAN KELLY: With that, do we have any questions of the board? MR. ORTEGA: I do have a question. Based on this layout that I'm looking at, each individual parcel or trailer area, is that just for the trailer? In other words, is the debris placed outside the area? If the leased area is each individual parcel and the debris or abandoned materials are placed outside of that area, we go back to the property owner agaIn. MS. SORRELS: Well, in some instances, yes, it would be in like the general common area of the property. Others would be -- well, it would be on either side. I know the way that the lot is -- or that site plan looks, it looks like there's common space in between each one. Whether that is an accurate statement, I cannot say. I never had a Page 40 July 22, 2010 survey done of the property so I couldn't tell you if there is actually common space in between each of them. My understanding actually is just that lot lines go, it's one lot, next lot, there is no common space in between them. So if it's not on one lot, it would definitely be on the other lot. MR. KAUFMAN: I really don't think that matters much. The owner of the property owns all the property -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: I agree. MR. KAUFMAN: -- whether the trailer is occupying all of those rectangles or not. And based on the photos that you showed, I'd like to make a motion we find them in violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second that motion. MR. DEAN: I'd like -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second. Discussion? MR. DEAN: Well, my comment would be yes, the man owns the land, but obviously if you write a lease and somebody leases the property, it's theirs and you can't enter there. I mean, if these people have say a year's lease, you just can't go there, that's his property for a year. So you're probably talking about the overall area where maybe they picked up the garbage cans or some of the places might be vacant sites. Does every one have a trailer on it, every site? MS. SORRELS: There are a few vacant ones. MR. DEAN: So those vacant ones might have a lot of junk in them. So maybe that could be his responsibility. But as far as an individual that signs a lease, he has rights, and that owner can't cross over in his property. And the gentleman is correct when he said it's their personal property, he can't go take it off the property. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I would not agree with that comment. I would agree with our attorney's opinion, Jean's opinion as to how that should be approached. Page 41 July 22, 2010 MS. RAWSON: My guess is they don't have written leases. I would be surprised if they do, and so they would be month to month, which like would be a 3 O-day. And this may be a situation in which -- and of course that'll be up to the owner of the property, which if he doesn't get any compliance from his tenants that he might have to evict some of them. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Gerald? MR. LEFEBVRE: We've had cases before, and I remember a restaurant in particular where there was a sign issue, and it went back. We had several cases where it had gone back to the landowner, not to the tenant. So this I feel is definitely a case where you have to look at the owner of the property as ultimately being responsible. It is his responsibility to keep the property clean and maintained. If they were individually owned, like in some other places, some other mobile parks, then you'd go after the individual owners. Just like a condo association, you go after the condo association if it's common property, you don't go after the individual owner. So this is I think very similar in respect to -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I call the question, please. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And no discussion. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, the ayes have it unanimously. Now we can work on a resolution. Jean has spoken to potentially having the owner of the property either revise or institute a lease rental Page 42 July 22, 2010 agreement that requires each individual tenant to police their own area. The county has had great success forming community task forces to help with blight and foreclosure homes, keeping them clean using community involvement directly one-on-one with the county. If for instance the owner of the property was willing to front a couple of dumpster fees and get everybody in the community together on a Saturday to clean up, maybe that would help. With that being said, I'll open it up to any suggestions. MR. LEFEBVRE: I have a question. Do you know what ultimately this owner wants to do with the property? Does he want to maintain it as a mobile home park or does he look at possibly changing the use of this property? MR. ERICKSON: I don't know specifically, I haven't discussed it in depth with him at all. But it is my understanding that he does want to continue it as a mobile home park. I've not been given any indication that his intent is to close it down at this time, sell it nor do anything else with it. And the concern is, you know, I think as long as people are in compliance with their leases, I believe you have almost like a year before you can evict anyone from a mobile home park. And that's one of the concerns I've looked at when I first got involved in this case is the rules and regulations. Because the other case I had, I was trying to figure out if this guy paid his lease is there even something that allows us to evict him because there's a code violation assessed against my client. And I couldn't find that there was. Fortunately in that case the guy had not paid his rent and so we were able to evict him. That's what my concern is, whether we can just kick these people out because they're storing something on their lot. MR. LEFEBVRE: I guess it comes down to what's in the lease. If there's something in the lease that says that you can't have items Page 43 July 22, 2010 stored outside the unit, it would violate the lease, you might be able to evict them at that point. MR. ERICKSON: Well, there are rules and regulations, that was the first thing I looked at. I've got them here. And you know, there's a regulation all homes, sheds and other things must be maintained in a clean and orderly manner. So we do have a regulation here that would be -- that I highlighted a long time ago that would clearly seem to me to be the basis of his legal action against these people. Then it doesn't matter what the courts would do as far as allowing them. But that's where, you know, I agree that my expectation is that upon the conclusion of this hearing we will be giving a notice to the park throughout the park as to what needs to be done in coming up with a plan of action. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question, and Jean brought it up. Does he have leases? As a normal course of business, does he have the people who live there sign a lease? MR. ERICKSON: I'm not sure. I believe about half of them have leases and some of them don't. I think it's one of those situations to where the original idea was to have leases, but it's not as well run a business with the leases as it probably should have been. MR. KAUFMAN: That was question one. Question two is do they have, as they do in condo associations or in gated communities for that matter, rules that you can't do this, that or the other thing? MR. ERICKSON: Right, that's what I was just looking at here and just referred to. There is -- it says Palm Lake -- in fact this says Palm Lake Mobile Home Park Rules and Regulations, and it has a date on it March, 2010. So this may be something that he came up with after meeting with -- after that March meeting, I would presume. MS. SORRELS: Actually, I was going to comment on that. That is actually correct. After we had made the property owner aware of all the violations on the property, on one of my site visits, I believe it was Page 44 July 22, 2010 March 19th, one of my site visits I had spoken with the property manager, Robert Burns, and he had informed me that he was mailed an abundance of these rules and regulations, and he was to hand each one of them out to the tenants or the owners, whoever is residing there, and they had to sign a paper confirming they had received this. And it was all the rules and regulations. And they actually -- and the copies that he had of the code violations that were in existence for Collier County were actually highlighted in each booklet. MR. KAUFMAN: I think that if we take a look at this, it's no different than a house in the ritziest part of Naples. If you put stuff outside your house and you're in violation, we don't generally provide a whole lot of time to pick it up because it's not a big deal to clean it up. And as Mr. Kelly has stated, as far as the time frame on resolving this particular issue, it doesn't appear that it would take that much time to have this abated. MR. ERICKSON: I would agree. MR. KAUFMAN: And for that matter, I would think that a reasonable amount of time may be you're giving the people who live there 30 or 60 days to do it, as long as there's no health or safety issue with the stuff that's strewn about. I saw a boat or two there; I don't know how that fits into the equation. But I would suggest 90 days would be a sufficient time to have it cleaned up. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think 90 days is actually probably too much time. They've already been noticed in March from a letter. So I would have to say that a shorter period would be -- MR. KAUFMAN: What do your rules state as far as the time frame and once you've been notified that you are in violation of the litter law, if you will? MR. ERICKSON: I don't see right offhand here any specific notification, but I would -- I would request 60 days opportunity, and -- because one of the things you mentioned, the cars and things. I think Page 45 July 22,2010 that's going to be another issue that we deal with later, the various vehicles and things of that sort. I know there's a problem there. But with the litter, and I would kind of like to get everything reasonably consistent. But I would think 60 days, as far as this board is concerned, that that would give us an opportunity to send a notice out saying that we're going to have everything cleaned up, give the tenants an opportunity, like 30 days to get their stuff taken care of and then we have 30 days to deal with whatever is not taken. So that's why I would think a 60-day -- MR. KAUFMAN: Let me modify my motion to make it 60 days then. MR. LEFEBVRE: And what's the fine? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Ifwe could, could we have county read in the recommendations so we get all the verbiage, and then we can fill in the blanks with the motion afterwards? MR. KAUFMAN: Sure. MS. SORRELS: County's recommendation is the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational cost in the $80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: The respondent must remove and properly dispose of litter, abandoned items consisting of but not limited to wood, metal, buckets, glass, furniture, plastic bags and bottles and other debris scattered throughout the property within "X" number of days of this hearing or "X" amount per day fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Azure? MS. SORRELS: Okay, fine. 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 property 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 Page 46 July 22, 2010 provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Mr. Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Filling in the blanks. Within 60 days of the hearing is the first blank, and $200 a day for the second blank, and the date starts today. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Jean, can we do that? Since representation is here, can we start it today? MS . RAWSON : Well, 60 days from today, yes, we can. I mean, he won't get the order probably till next week but yes, you can start it today. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So we can waive notice, if you will? MR. ERICKSON: That's fine. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's acceptable? Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, 60 days on this one, and $200 per day thereafter. We might be able to roll into the next few. That does conclude the first case. So we'll go ahead -- Page 47 July 22,2010 MR. ERICKSON: As in all these cases, if there's a problem, as you've mentioned to everybody else who's come up here, if there's a problem and we notify the board before the 60-day period, we have that right on all these; is that correct? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Absolutely correct. You can certainly request motion for extensions. We love to see progress. MR. ERICKSON: Right, I understand. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great. Everybody will need to be sworn in. Of course not you, Mr. Erickson, because you're representing, but for each case if you're going to provide testimony. And Corporal, I don't know if you have anything to put in on these, but if you do. (Azure Sorrels was duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of Ordinance Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 2.01.00(A). Description of violation: Approximately nine unlicensed inoperable vehicles are parked/stored on property but not limited to lots 38, 31, 27, 18, nine and two. Vehicles across from lot five. Location/address where violation exists: 3131 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida, 34112. Folio 61842240009. Name and address of person in charge of violation location: Palm Lake LLC, 1000 Jorie Boulevard, Suite 44, Oak Brook, Illinois, 60523. Registered agent, Gregory Urbancic, 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300, Naples, Florida, 34103. Date violation first observed: March 4th, 2010. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: March 12th, 2010. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: April 1st, 2010. Date of reinspection: June 16th, 2010. Results of reinspection: Violations remain. Page 48 July 22, 2010 MS. SORRELS: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Azure Sorrels, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CEB2010003082, pertaining to the violation of unlicensed inoperable vehicles on property located at 3131 Tamiami Trail East. Folio No. 61842240009. Personal service was conducted on March 12th, 2010. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Exhibit B, one through 15, pictures dated 7/21/2010. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. MR. LA VINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Lavinski. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the ayes have it. MR. KAUFMAN: I'm assuming that you've seen those pictures? MR. ERICKSON: Yes, I've seen the pictures. MS. SORRELS: On March 4th, myself and Supervisor Patti Petrulli made site visit, observed several unlicensed vehicles on the property . THE COURT REPORTER: Please slow down. MS. SORRELS: I'm sorry. Page 49 July 22, 2010 I talked with -- excuse me, Supervisor Petrulli and myself spoke with Property Manager Robert Burns and informed him of the violations. He stated that he would address the violations of the unlicensed vehicles with the tenants and also the property owner. Made a site visit on the 12th of March and confirmed that the violations were still there, and personal service was conducted on the registered agent with a Notice of Violation. April 9th, I had made a site visit with myself and the Sheriffs Office and spoke with Robert Burns, walked the entire property. We pointed out all the unlicensed vehicles. A couple of them are R V trailers. On the 16th of April, 2010, myself and Supervisor Petrulli met with property owner on-site, Mr. McKay on-site. Walked the property with him as well and pointed out all the different violations. May 13th, made a site visit. The violation remains. Spoke with the property manager, Robert Burns, and he stated that he was addressing but wasn't sure what the property owner was -- how he was handling it on his end. On June 16th, site visit, violation remains. The 30th of June, 2010, I prepared the packet for CEB. Personal service of the Notice of Hearing was conducted on the 9th of July with the property manager. I spoke with Mr. McKay, the property owner, on the 19th of July, made him aware or asked him if he was aware of the hearings. He indicated that yes, he was. And on the 21st of July, 2010, myself and the Sheriffs Office made the last site visit to confirm the violations remain. This is an unlicensed commercial vehicle that's parked beside the warehouse. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Can I ask a quick question? MS. SORRELS: Sure. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is this the maintenance vehicle that they Page 50 July 22, 2010 use on-site only? MS. SORRELS: I have not actually seen it used. I've only seen it -- that was one of the original vehicles that was spotted on the initial site visit, and it's the one that remains unlicensed. And I haven't seen it used. MR. KAUFMAN: Were there any comments made by Mr. Burns when you asked him about that vehicle? MS. SORRELS: He didn't respond to who owned it, he just knew that, you know, it was there. He didn't say that he knew the owner of it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: The only reason why we ask is because if it never leaves the property, I think if memory serves me correct, it doesn't need to be tagged. I think it's considered personal farm and it's exempt. MS. SORRELS: Right. Well, no, he definitely did not indicate that they use that vehicle, that it was not something that he drove around or used. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MS. SORRELS: This is one of the travel trailers that's located at lot 60, and it is considered a recreational vehicle, not a mobile home, and it would be required to have a current license plate attached to it. This one expired in '99; I believe one of the pictures show that. MR. KAUFMAN: That's not occupied, is it? MS. SORRELS: No, that one is not. This is just showing that the wheels are still attached to the travel trailer, indicating that it can be connected at any time and moved. Just a closeup of the tag showing the expiration of'99. This is a vehicle that's located at lot 54 with an unlicensed -- actually, it's got a tag on it, it's just expired. This is another vehicle with an expired tag. '09 was the expiration date, or year, I should say. That's just the front of it. Page 51 July 22, 2010 This is lot 38. Lot 38 also has a travel trailer, a fifth wheel recreational vehicle on this property. I'm showing here that the tires are attached to it and indicating that it can be hooked up to a fifth wheel hitch and removed from its location. MR. ORTEGA: Is someone living in there? MS. SORRELS: There was somebody living in that one during initial visits; however, as of yesterday it appeared to be vacant. This is the rear of the vehicle with obviously no tag attached. And yes, that is an illegal addition added to it. MR. L'ESPERANCE: May I pause you for a moment. MS. SORRELS: Sure. MR. L'ESPERANCE: If that last fifth wheel unit is now vacant, can we jump to the conclusion that it was not owned by the person who was formerly living in it? MS. SORRELS: That would be correct. I did speak with the gentleman on my initial visit, with the gentleman that was on that property, indicated that he resided there, that he was a renter, not the owner. And I guess he was looking into possibly buying the travel trailer from the owner, but there was a question of the title. And I think that's one of the reasons why it never got licensed. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Can we ask another question, and that would be does the owner of the mobile home park own any of these individual units? MS. SORRELS: The only one that was indicated to me by the property manager and the property owner was the first travel trailer that you saw the picture of with the expired '99 tag on it, that he owns that one. CHAIRMAN KELLY: In this case, the additional structure that was built onto the side of this, that's not part of this violation, correct? MS. SORRELS: No, it's not, it would fall underneath the -- for unpermitted structures, yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So we'll leave that out of this testimony, Page 52 July 22, 2010 since it's not -- MS. SORRELS: Sorry. MR. KAUFMAN: The pipe that I see coming out of the back, is that a sewer line? MS. SORRELS: That would be correct, sir. This is Lot 31. Thirty-one, this is the second car that's been on this property. The first one was a Saturn. That one's been removed. And as of yesterday this one was brought in. It expired in March of 2010. This van at Lot 13 was one of the original vehicles from my first site visit; however, it's just moved to a different lot. Am I still going too fast? I need to find a slow motion button. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is that all of them? MS. SORRELS: That's all the photos. MR. KAUFMAN: And I had just one question. What's the zoning? MS. SORRELS: It's zoned residential home -- excuse me, mobile home rental park. MR. DEAN: Okay. Even though it's on a commercial street. So was there a permit back -- MS. SORRELS: We're going to address that in a permitting case that I have on the property. MR. DEAN: Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any objections, Mr. Erickson? MR. ERICKSON: I don't have any comments on these. CHAIRMAN KELLY: With that-- MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to find them in violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion, second. Any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 53 July 22, 2010 MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the ayes carry unanimously. And now we'll move on to the county's recommendation. MS. SORRELS: The county recommends the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$80 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Must obtain and affix a current valid license plate to each vehicle, trailer and repair defects so vehicle is immediately operable or store within the confines of a completely enclosed structure or remove offending vehicles/trailers from the property within "X" number of days of this hearing or an "X" amount fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when 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: Quick question. Is there any difference between removing litter and removing a vehicle as far as time frame goes? MR. ERICKSON: I think they would be the same. I would ask that we be consistent on it; I think it would make it easier for us to deal with. MR. KAUFMAN: I have one question. In your write-up that Page 54 July 22, 2010 was provided on March of 20 1 0, does it mention unlicensed vehicles in there? MS. SORRELS: Are you speaking to the rules and regulations? MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. MS. SORRELS: I believe, sir, it does. Vehicles and parking. I don't see anything that actually clearly states unlicensed vehicles. It does talk about vehicle repairs, only minor motor vehicle repairs may be made on personal vehicles at resident's space. Motor vehicles not in operating condition -- excuse me, I stand corrected. Motor vehicles not in operating condition or without current license plate are not allowed in the community for more than 24 hours. Vehicles in violation will be towed away at vehicle's owner's or homeowner's expense. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion. To be consistent, provide the same 60 days. And a fine of $1 00 a day will be imposed for each day the violation remains. MR. LEFEBVRE: One hundred dollars or two? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah, because you had two on the last one. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay, 200. MR. LEFEBVRE: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Page 55 July 22, 2010 Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good. That one's done. And the same consideration would be given in all these cases for a time frame. Okay, great, let's go ahead and take a 10-minute recess, and we'll be back at 10:40. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board back to order. Did you want to make a change in the agenda now? MS. WALDRON: Sure. Ifwe could go out of order and take number 10 on the agenda next. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any objections from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, let's just have a motion real quick to change the agenda. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to change the agenda. MR. LA VINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? MR. DEAN: No. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's no, he's not opposed, we're good. MR. DEAN: I lose. Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You're on. MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of Ordinance Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article 6, Page 56 July 22, 2010 Section 22-231.11. The case number, Cherie', is CEPM20 1 00004292. Description of violation: Electrical wiring running to the mobile homes are not in accordance with the current National Electric Code. Electrical meters are not securely fastened, missing covers on energized electrical parts, direct wires and conduit are not buried to code. Location/address where violation exists: 3131 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida, 34112. Folio 61842240009. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Palm Lake LLC, 1000 Jorie Boulevard, Suite 44, Oak Brook, Illinois, 60523. Registered agent, Gregory Urbancic, 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300, Naples, Florida, 34103. Date violation first observed: March 12th, 2010. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: April 2nd, 2010. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: May 2nd, 2010. Date of reinspect ion: May 13th, 2010. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. SORRELS: I understand that we're on some time frames here, so if you don't mind, I'm just going to maybe touch point on the most important dates and then just show the pictures and explain the violations as we go through. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Case number, violations and the rest is probably stipulated, that'd be fine. MS. SORRELS: This is in reference to Case No. CEPM20100004292, pertaining to the violations of electrical wiring provided to mobile home not in accordance with current National Electric Code. The violations that were observed on March 12th, 2010 by myself and Sheriffs Officer Corporal Mike Nelson and also building review -- Plan Review Electrical Inspector Daniel Cortez. Page 57 July 22, 2010 I do have pictures Exhibit B, one through 28, dated all of 7/21/2010. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) MS. SORRELS: On the March 12th visit, Daniel Cortez walked around the entire park with myself and the sheriffs officer and we observed multiple FP &L boxes throughout the park that did not meet current National Electrical Code for many reasons. As we go through the pictures I'll point out some of the violations and what they're supposed to be. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Azure, do you have anything from the inspector to this effect? MS. SORRELS: I do have an e-mail for him. I have not printed it out, but I do have an e-mail for him. However, I did include most of his e-mail-- the codes that he sent to me bye-mail in the Notice of Violation. So if you look at the Notice of the Violation, it states what the sections of the current national code are. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Yeah, anything just to keep this out of a hearsay situation. MS. SORRELS: It's in the Notice of Violation. Page 58 July 22, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great, thank you. MS. SORRELS: This is just identification of the property. This is the entrance to Palm Lake Mobile Home Park. This will be the very first lot as you enter on the left-hand side. It shows the two FP &L meters standing there, or mounted there. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And those are good meters or -- MS. SORRELS: No, they're not. As you get a closeup, you can see Mr. -- or excuse me -- Corporal Nelson's foot kind of holding it up. He didn't really want to touch it. This is a wiring -- electrical wiring coming from the meters that are in place to have travel trailers plug into. The PVC pipe, which is actually broken off, because it's not conduit, it's actually PVC pipe, is now broken off and the outlet is laying on the ground. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So to clarify, is there an FPL related issue or is it after the meter towards the home? MS. SORRELS: It's after the meter towards the home, which would be the property owner's responsibility. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great, thank you. Just another picture -- or is that the same picture? Again, this is showing the wiring at the broken end of the PV C pipe going into the ground, which of course would go back up into the FP&L meters. This is another meter kind of -- as you can see, it's kind of crooked and hanging. And that is because the wood that it's mounted to is rotted and deteriorated and is actually pulling away from -- the FP &L meters are actually pulling away from their mounts. And this is a violation of the National Electrical Code. This is the back side of some of the FP &L meters showing the wood deteriorated. MR. KAUFMAN: Does FPL come and read these meters, or is this one of these electronic -- Page 59 July 22, 2010 MS. SORRELS: That, sir, I could not answer. I do know that -- and Corporal Nelson can testify to a lady that we had spoken with on a couple of site visits, but the most recent conversation was yesterday. FP &L refused to turn her electricity on because of the condition of the power coming out of their meter and into her unit. Again, another back side of one of the FP &L meters. This is showing where obviously some kind of a box has been removed and the wires are still coming out of the top of the piping, right there. And obviously I can't tell you if they're live wires, but I wasn't willing to touch it. Go ahead. This is another part of the park. It's actually in the front part. The fence that you're looking at is actually the fence that runs alongside Tamiami Trail, so it would be on the right side of the entrance when you come in. Again, it actually has the right conduit, it's in the proper electrical conduit; however, the conduit has to be buried at a minimum of 18 inches. And that is definitely not buried, and the wires that are coming out of it are not properly capped off, I guess is the word you'd be looking for. This is the same piping, electrical wire, just showing where it's broken off of its box, junction box, I guess would be the appropriate word. Several outlets throughout the park do not have their covers on them, so they are exposed to moisture and water. This is some more conduit. It is proper conduit; however, it's not buried at a minimum of 18 inches. Some more outlets uncovered. This is another set of meters where the piping and stuff has broken away between the meters and the boxes and the piping to the ground. This is probably one of the most concerned ones that I have. Page 60 July 22, 2010 Children do live in this park, and these are for a fact, we know for positive without any doubt, Daniel Cortez indicated that those FP &L meters are live and those are exposed energized parts that anybody can grab and electrocute themselves with. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, could we have one moment, please? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sure. MS. SORRELS: Should I stop? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just give us a second. (Discussion was held off the record.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seeing as how we still have a quorum, we can continue. Sorry. Just so everybody knows what happened, Herminio is not feeling well. He might have a medical issue, so he's excused to -- and we hope he's okay. So I'm sorry, go ahead. MS. SORRELS: This is the same FP&L set of meters. This is just another meter where some feeble attempt was made to cover up the energized parts. However, it's just some kind of taping that's been broken away. This also is the same FP &L meter that was indicated to us that when it's hit by a soccer ball or baseball, the unit farthest from it loses their power. Again, the mounting, the wooden mounts for the panels are rotted, causing the panels to detach. This is an FP&L set of meters again that's on the park. And I wanted to point out the white piping is actually PVC piping, it's not electrical conduit, and that is what the wires need to be in. Go ahead. This here is -- if you look just past the AC unit, you'll see a white piping. That is actually coming out of the FP &L meter that you have just seen, and this piping is running about 50 feet above ground. And Page 61 July 22, 2010 again, it needs to be an electrical conduit and it needs to be buried 18 inches below ground. Again, here is the pipe traveling. And here is where it connects into the bottom of the panel. I think there's one more picture of that. And if you could see on the left -- or to the left side of the picture, you can see like a brown conduit pipe and then the white pipe, that's where it seems to be in the bend. It's actually an electrical conduit but the two would not go together, so they're separated, causing the wire to be exposed. Go ahead. And if you don't mind just real quick, I'd like to have Corporal Nelson at least testify to the conversation he had with the lady about the about that FP &L would not -- refused to turn on her electricity because of the condition. CORPORAL NELSON: How are you doing, sir? I was out on the site visit yesterday with code enforcement. I've actually had two of the residents come up; one of them owns four empty mobile homes there in the park. She was going to try and make it today; she could not. She had to abandon her homes because FP&L will not turn the power on to her homes because of the condition of the meters. So she has bought one, had to abandon it, moved into another one, had to abandon it. So now she's actually in possession of four mobile homes in the park that she can't live in because FP&L refuses to turn power on. Also while we were there, you saw the picture of me holding up the electrical conduit with the box on the end. It is live. It was actually powering the RV, the next one over. And it's in an area where the children play. They play soccer, they play ball and stuff out there. She also explained to me that any time the kids are out there Page 62 July 22, 2010 playing, if something bumps into that panel, they start losing all the power in those affected mobile homes. So our concern and my concern as a deputy is safety and welfare, especially with young children. They have everybody from infants to teenagers living there in the park. And you can't ask that they live in the park and not be able to play in the open space. Thank you, sir. (Mr. Ortega enters the boardroom.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Corporal, I have a question for you. CORPORAL NELSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: It would seem, you know, with my limited construction knowledge, in order to repair these, they're going to have to shut down power for a period of time. CORPORAL NELSON: Yes, sir, because FP&L won't even attach power to them. CHAIRMAN KELLY: What do you think would be a reasonable time frame under these circumstances to give, for instance, the respondent to handle this situation? Understanding that they are going to have to go without power for a couple of days maybe to get these corrected accurately. CORPORAL NELSON: Honestly, sir, I was rather dismayed. I believe it was March 12th we were there, and we spoke to the property manager and he was like, we have the material and stuff, we can remount the boards. This is now July. Things haven't -- not a single piece of it has been changed. How do you put a time period on the safety of kids? I apologize for not being able to give you a direct answer, but to me you're talking about possibly electrocuting a child, getting a child seriously hurt. I can't put a time limit on that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. CORPORAL NELSON: Yes, sir. Page 63 July 22, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions? MR. KAUFMAN: Well, we'll probably want to hear from-- CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'm sorry, of the Corporal. MR. KAUFMAN: No. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sorry. Okay, Azure, continue. MS. SORRELS: I just wanted to confirm what he was saying. On one of the March visits, I believe, Robert Burns, the property manager, had informed us that he had made contact with an electrical contractor. That was what was asked of him by Mr. McKay. And then once that contact was made, the information was given to Mr. McKay to follow through with. As my personal service on the 9th of July, I had inquired about that, what the status of it was, because I had noticed that there had been no permits issued for any kind of electrical work on the property. And Mr. Burns, the property manager, indicated that he had turned the information over to Mr. McKay and he had heard nothing since. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions of the county? MR. ORTEGA: I do have a question. Am I to understand that bumping this panel will affect the units? MS. SORRELS: This is testimony that I have received and he received as well is that yes, on a particular FP&L meter -- and I can actually show the location of the meter if you'd like me to -- when it is bumped by balls that are being -- you know, soccer balls, any kind of balls that the kids are using to play around with, when it's bumped their electricity does go out. MR. ORTEGA: Then I concur with Corporal Nelson, this is definitely a life safety issue. MS. SORRELS: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right. Mr. Erickson? MR. ERICKSON: I agree, this is clearly the most serious issue that's been brought before the board. It needs immediate attention. I Page 64 July 22, 2010 don't know myselfwhat's involved, whether you'd have to shut down the whole park to correct it or not. But this is one that clearly needs at least the hot wires addressed immediately. I would recognize that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Thank you. To the board, questions, discussion amongst yourselves? MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that we find them in violation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And how about remedy? MR. KAUFMAN: This is obviously a very serious -- ordinarily when we have safety and health, we go as short as one week to remedy a situation. And as far as some of the boxes that are completely exposed, something needs to be done today on those boxes to cover them in one way or another. This can't go on for 30 or 60 days. MR. ERICKSON: I agree. MR. KAUFMAN: This needs to be remedied immediately. MR. LEFEBVRE: The problem is I would assume that most of this work probably needs permits? Page 65 July 22, 2010 MS. SORRELS: Yes, it would, and it would have to be done by a licensed contractor. MR. LEFEBVRE: So that's going to take time to do. Now, with a permit being pulled, how specific -- I mean, does it spell out exactly what they're going to do or could it just be a general -- because I mean, to obviously bury wire 18 inches, I mean, this might have to be broken down into parts, what's being taken care of immediately and then what's buried -- obviously take care of the -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Gerald, I think what's going to happen is when you pull the permit, the permit will reference the codes that go along with those, so it will all be encompassing. MR. ORTEGA: I think some of these things may be abated, particularly if they're an emergency, life safety issue, the building department may look at it differently -- permit or not. MR. KAUFMAN: The one meter that is exposed that needs to be covered, needs to be covered today or tomorrow, whether you put a box around it, a piece of plywood over it, so that no child or -- anybody could go in and touch something and die. CHAIRMAN KELLY: What about something that's easily deployable like one of those orange safety fences or something as simple as caution tape with stakes around these areas? That's something that maybe the manager, on site manager can possibly do himself. MS. SORRELS: Correct, something to barricade it off to prevent children from getting in, absolutely. That's something they could do and it would not require permits or contractors or anything like that. Could buy them some time to do what they need to property. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That was just a suggestion. Whatever the thought is of the board. I would like to have county read in the recommendations so we can all the correct verbiage and then we can add to it from there, if that's okay. Okay, go ahead. Page 66 July 22, 2010 MS. SORRELS: County recommends that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$80.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by the respondent must obtain all required Collier County building permits, inspections, Certificate of Completion, and correct all electrical violations by bringing them into compliance with the current national electrical code within "X" amount of days of this hearing or "X" amount of fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains. 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: That still wasn't slow. But she's trying. Good faith effort. MS. SORRELS: I am so sorry. MR. KAUFMAN: I think that this needs to be split into two different things. I think the first more important part of this is to abate, however you do it, the instances where somebody can be electrocuted. The conduit that's PVC now that should be electrical, the burying at 18 inches, the changing of the plywood, a lot of those things I'm sure can be done expeditiously, but I don't think you need to put those two in the same time frame. We need to do something immediately for the wires that you showed in the pictures that were exposed, for the meter that was missing or the panel where you could just touch it and be electrocuted. Now, how we do that, I don't know if we can get somebody out of there from the building department to take a look and see what needs to be done immediately and separate those from the replace the Page 67 July 22, 2010 plywood, bury the cable, et cetera, et cetera. I'd like the board's thought on that approach. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I have a suggestion. How about language to the effect: Construct and implement physical barriers to restrict access to open electrical dangers, something along that line. Not just a warning sign. I think there needs to be some kind of barrier, something that someone would have to lift up or climb over to cross into around these areas. And I think that something simple. Any construction supply house would have any type of plastic fencing, you know, caution signs, those warning tapes, danger tapes, something along those that we use in construction all the time would be inexpensive and very quick to deploy. MR. ORTEGA: That may work for adults, but what about children? MR. LEFEBVRE: What I'm afraid of is you put up a barricade, and let's say a ball -- let's say the barricade's, say, three feet around. If someone has to climb over to get a ball, they're going to climb over to get the ball and not heed the warning or the fence, and by jumping over may come in contact with a wire. So this is a really hard case to weigh, you know, people live there, but then, you know, there is definitely a health and safety issue. I think that the fines should be very high and then it should be a short period to get this done. I'm thinking somewhere around seven days they need to get a majority of the issues corrected. And if they're not done, what's the maximum fine that the board can-- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Single offense is 500. MS. RAWSON: Five hundred. MR. LEFEBVRE: Five hundred. I think it absolutely should be 500. And there's a set fee, a one-time fee, right, also? MS. RAWSON: That might be for a repeat, though. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I don't think it's for a single. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well then I think the fines should be very Page 68 July 22, 2010 stiff, if it is not fixed within a very short period. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I know exactly what you're saying. You know, some kind of real encapsulating physical structure, like plywood with two-by-fours or something along those lines to really prevent anyone from getting access. But it's going to be difficult to do that in all of these areas. MR. LEFEBVRE: How many are we talking about? MS. SORRELS: Clarification, violations or how many FP&L meters? MR. LEFEBVRE: How many violations? How many are in a state of repair that need to be done right away, immediately? MS. SORRELS: That need to be done right away, it would be the three. It would be the two that have the energized parts exposed on that FP&L meter and the other one where he's holding up with the exposed wires. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a suggestion that we get an electrician out there within -- I'm sure an electrician who works on that every day can make those places safe. And we can surmise anything we want, but an electrician does this every day. They leave jobs that are not finished and they provide some safety on that. So I'd like to separate the three that you have identified as the most severe cases, and taking from Mr. Lefebvre's point as seven days to probably assign that seven days with the largest fine we can possibly come up with and that we ask that an electrician be brought on the property and make these places safe. MR. L'ESPERANCE: It does disturb me that it's been four months since the owner was noticed. MS. SORRELS: Can I make a suggestion, just kind of trying to understand where you guys are going with this. On the three that we have identified obviously that need to be addressed immediately, they would be three things that could be done without a permit by a contractor. They can get covers for those two disconnects that are Page 69 July 22, 2010 energized and cover them up. That would not require a permit to get a metal lid on top of those boxes. And then the third one with all the wires exposed and the conduit, and everything, just cut the power supply that's running to that, and that would abate those three immediate things. And then that would give them time to get the permits needed to make all the repairs necessary . CHAIRMAN KELLY: Could you help us to put that into some sort of language so that we can identify those. If you have unit numbers, lot numbers, anything along those lines that would help us, so that -- MS. SORRELS: I do. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Because, you know, I'd hate to get into a situation where, oh, well, I wasn't sure that that was part of the original and I didn't do that, and then a kid gets hurt. MR. LEFEBVRE: I absolutely agree. MR. ERICKSON: I would agree with that approach that she mentioned. That's what I thought too. I'm not an electrical contractor or anything, but I'm sure an electrician has a means of covering up any exposed wire with or without a permit. I would assume that if an electrician sees an exposed wire, they don't have to get a permit to remedy the immediate situation. MR. KAUFMAN: We're going to make a motion that said what she said. MS. RAWSON: She's going to have to say it again. MS. SORRELS: All right, just to show you the locations of the three things that I had pointed out, the FP &L meter that has the two energized disconnects are in between Lot 48 and 24. It's located right here. Those are the two that need the metal covers placed overtop of the disconnect -- energized disconnects. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just as a suggestion, maybe we can write on exactly where they are. Can you write on this exhibit exactly where it Page 70 July 22, 2010 is, and that way it's spelled out on this exhibit. And is there any way to put this in the order as an exhibit? MS. RAWSON: Yes. She can write on the exhibit and give me the exhibits, that would be very helpful. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And could you also refer to the photographs that you have printed, because they'll be part of the record. And they've numbered, correct? They have lot numbers on them or something? MS. SORRELS: Not all of them, no, they're in -- not in this case, they're not in lot numbers because there's not really lot numbers, they're just located sporadically around the park. CHAIRMAN KELLY: How about photos with electrical issue number one, two and three. MS. SORRELS: Yes. MS. RAWSON: I could attach that to the order. You might not want to record all that, though. Probably I could just describe it. MR. ERICKSON: That way the electrical person would have something to look at to make sure he's addressed the specific problems. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Exactly. MS. SORRELS: All right, I guess we're just going with the site plan indicating where they're located at. Again, between Lot 24, you know how hard it is to write -- thank you. These are the two covers that are needed. And then the other issue, the third issue was actually at the front of the park. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is there a north-south on this? MS. SORRELS: This would be your south, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: I just want to make sure so someone can actually look at and know which way's north and-- MS. SORRELS: Correct. This would be the south side of the property at the entrance. Where you see the RV's, one, two and three, Page 71 July 22, 2010 these are actually vacant. And right here along the fenceline is where that wiring is that needs to be disconnected from power source. MR. ORTEGA: I have a quick question. When you visited the site with Mr. Cortez, did you look at all the units or just these? MS. SORRELS: Specify as units, sir. Are you speaking of the mobile home units or each individual panel? MR. ORTEGA: Right, because if these are dilapidated the way they are, what's to say the other ones aren't and also pose a safety issue? MS. SORRELS: As within the units? They -- we have no idea what the electrical is inside the units. All-- MR. ORTEGA: No, no, outside. You have a meter for each unit, correct, for each trailer? MS. SORRELS: No, we do not have a meter for each unit, I think there've grouped. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And I believe what Herminio's asking is, did you walk the entire circle of the property and look at each one of those meters, boxes? MS. SORRELS: Correct, yes. We looked at all FP&L meters. MR. LEFEBVRE: On most of where the meters were, there's like three or four. MS. SORRELS: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: So if you extrapolate, if there's three or four per -- if there's 60 mobile homes, there's probably about 15 of these posts with the motors, correct? MS. SORRELS: There's about, we'll say approximately six or seven that has four to five meters. I know that two of the two center-- the two FP &L mounts that are in the center of the park, that goes down the center right here, they're double-sided. So there's actually eight to 10 meters on those. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Corporal Nelson, did you want to Page 72 July 22, 2010 comment? MR. NELSON: Actually, there's one other open wire. The ones that are, when you come in, immediately to the left. * * * They lie along the fence. MS. SORRELS: But they're not, the wires aren't exposed, it's just above ground. You know what I'm saying? The wire's just above ground. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Corporal, could you come to the mike, please. MR. NELSON: I'm sorry, I apologize for interrupting. When you first enter the mobile home park on the left, there's also a power box that's on the ground. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is that the one you were holding up with your foot? MR. NELSON: I believe that one's the one she's got just the photo of laying on the ground with conduit coming down and out. MS. SORRELS: This is the first FP&L meter that we had showed, where he's holding it up. MR. NELSON: That one right there. MS. SORRELS: That would be the picture. The wiring does have its protective coating on it. You know what, it is exposed. So if -- if you wanted to include that, we could indicate that the fourth location that the power supply be cut off to. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So that would be part one of your motion, which was seven days and $500 per day. And then part two would be the general electrical condition of everything else that was cited in the case. And what were your time frames on that? MR. KAUFMAN: I would guesstimate. I don't believe that you have to turn the power off to the entire park. So I don't believe -- they're individual meters. I would think 60 days should be sufficient time. And it's in line with the others. And as long as we take care of Page 73 July 22, 2010 the life and safety aspect immediately. And the 60 days would be followed by $200 a day fine. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, so to recap part one of this, motion would then be to accept the county's recommendation with the addition of two parts. Part one would be the four areas of imminent danger. Those would be corrected within seven days or a $500 fine per day. Part two would be to abate the additional violations within 60 days or $200 per day would exist. MR. ORTEGA: Be careful with isolating just those four areas. I think that needs to be determined by the electrical contractor as to the life safety issue. There may be five, there might be six. There might be other -- there might be grounds missing that require some attention now. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Here's my issue with that, because I agree, I don't want anyone getting hurt. But if somebody took it upon themselves to decide this fifth item, number five was not discussed and the owner didn't know about it, and all of a sudden he's getting hit with $500 per day because he thought that he had 60 days to do that particular one, that might be a lot of -- it would, one, be confusing but, two, it could be unjust. MR. KAUFMAN: How about if we amend it to have them resolve those four issues and then walk the area as you did and see if there's anything that the electrician sees that is a safety -- that is glaring, pardon the pun, that would require immediate -- and we'll leave it to the licensed electrician to select. MR. ERICKSON: The concern that I would have with that is whether a licensed electrician is then put on the spot. He's going to look at it that way. And whether he's going to look at it and say, well, boy, now I've got to -- now everybody is going to come after me if I don't clarify everything, so if anything has the least bit of concern to him it's going to be added to the list. Page 74 July 22, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Director Flagg? MS. FLAGG: Let me just offer that as the part of licensing an electrician, he has an obligation to review. So he will immediately be required to correct these four things. But he's also going to be required to review the site. Because that's his purpose of licensure. So if there is a life safety, he'll correct it. The only difference will be that the fines won't apply as you've outlined. MR. KAUFMAN: Now, as far as the days are concerned, you always thought the next day. And I understand that finding a licensed electrician to get out there immediately may not be the easiest thing to do. That's why we're allowing seven days to do that. Should you have a problem with that, I would ask up to get back with code enforcement -- MR. ERICKSON: We will. MR. KAUFMAN: -- and let us know what's going on. MS. FLAGG: I will tell you based on the job market, there will probably be folks standing in line for this job. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Jean, do you have everything pretty clear for that motion? MS. RAWSON: Yes, I think so. The four areas of imminent danger within seven days or $500. And I think I have them kind of described here. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So we do have a motion now that it's clear. Is it seconded? MR. ORTEGA: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Herminio. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. Page 75 July 22, 2010 MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is the respondent waiving notice? (Discussion was held off the record.) MR. ERICKSON: The concern I just had is we're going to need to review that order. I'm concerned that the electrical contractor is going to need to review the order to make sure he's got everything included in the order. So I was just checking with Ms. Rawson to see how long it will take to get the order. And I suggested she when she even gets the proposed order, she can e-mail that or fax that to me so that I can get it to the contractor. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I would really prefer also to have county work on separating out those images right now so that we can maybe even get a waive of service and set a date right now as to when those seven days are so everyone can agree on it here, we don't have to wait for orders to be written. MS. FLAGG: Mr. Chair, Ms. Waldron has identified on the site plan specifically relating to your order for the part one, and we can make a copy of the site plan and give it to you today. MR. ERICKSON: That would be good. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great. Thank you. And then also I want to add two more things real quick, Gerald. One is, as we go through these cases you'll hear this operational cost to be paid within 30 days. That is something that's assessed to the county, we can't waive those fees. We have nothing to do with them. That's just prosecution amounts to pay the investigators to do this. Page 76 July 22, 2010 I can tell you in the past we've been very reluctant to grant any extensions or waivers if that's not paid within 30 days. So if you can relay that to Mr. McKay. And then -- I'm sorry, go ahead, Gerald. MR. LEFEBVRE: I guess would it be possible to have code enforcement and maybe the building department on site when an electrician is there? MS. SORRELS: Arrangements can be made. If they communicate with me who they've hired and they put us in contact and we can set a scheduled date, I'm very flexible with my schedule. It's just the matter of the inspector. But if a date can be given to us, I'm sure that our building department would be more than happy to cooperate with -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Because that may be a way of streamlining and saying this needs to be done and this is what needs to be done here, and pointing out the areas, so that way there's no miscommunication. I don't know if that has to be in the order or -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: You know, it is in the order to notify code enforcement. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, when it's corrected, but-- CHAIRMAN KELLY: When it's corrected. So to have them on site while it's being done would be even better. MR. ERICKSON: I don't know if we'd want to put it in the order, though, because if there was a conflict, it might delay the correction. I will certainly tell them, to suggest to them to contact code enforcement. But I would hate to have it delayed because they're waiting to meet up with code enforcement. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay, just as a suggestion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sure. MR. LEFEBVRE: As long as it's duly noted. Page 77 July 22, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: And I just remembered the second thing I wanted to tell you, to Mr. McKay, the urgency of that last case. MR. ERICKSON: Oh, I understand. I'll be calling him immediately on that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. Okay, this will be case number eight now, if you want to read it in, len. MS. WALDRON: We're going to take cases eight and nine together at the same time. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MS. WALDRON: So I'll read the statement of violation for each case, and then -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: No problem. I'll just need two separate votes at the end. MS. WALDRON: Yes. Okay, the first is case CEPM20100003098. Violation of ordinance Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article 6, Section 22-231.12.N, Section 22-231.12.M, Section 22-231.12.B, Section 22-231.16, Section 22-231.12.C, Section 22-242.B, Section 22-231.12.1 and Section 22-241.1.E. Description of violation: Multiple lots in Palm Lake have several property maintenance violations to include but not limited to accessory structures, carports and sheds not maintained in good repair and sound structural condition, exterior surfaces of dwelling units haven't any protective coating. Many additions built below flood elevation are being utilized as habitable space. Roofs and defects which admit rain. Windows boarded on vacant dwelling units without a current boarding certificate. Windows and exterior doors boarded on occupied dwelling units, which could possibly affect the means of ingress and egress. Warehouse on property has broken windows. Location/address where violation exists: 3131 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida, 34112. Folio 061842240009. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation Page 78 July 22, 2010 location: Palm Lake LLC, 1000 Jorie Boulevard, Suite 44, Oak Brook, Illinois 60523. Registered agent, Gregory L. Urbancic, 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300, Naples, Florida 34103. Date violation first observed: March 9th, 2010. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: March 12th, 2010. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: April 12th, 2010. Date of reinspection: April 16th, 2010. Results of reinspection: The violations remain. For next case, Case No. CESD20100004059, violation of ordinance Florida Building Code, 2007 Edition, Chapter One, Permits, Section 105.1, 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), Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Article 2, Section 22 to 26B, 1 04.1. 3 .5. Description of violation: Property has several unpermitted structures, additions and/or alterations consisting of but not limited to sheds, carports, screened enclosures converted into living space, additional rooms, installation/alterations made to electrical wiring and installation/alterations made to plumbing work. Location/address where violations exists: 3131 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida 34112. Folio 61842240009. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Palm Lake LLC, 1000 Jorie Boulevard, Suite 44, Oak Brook, Illinois 60523. Registered agent Gregory L. Urbancic, 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300, Naples, Florida, 34103. Date violation first observed: March 9th, 2010. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: April 2nd, 2010. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: April 29th, 2010. Date of reinspection: June 16th, 2010. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. Page 79 July 22, 2010 (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. SORRELS: This will be in reference to two different cases. The first case is CEPM20100003098 pertaining to the violations of several property maintenance violations on multiple mobile homes throughout park. The other case is CESD20100004059 pertaining to the violations of unpermitted structures, additions and alterations throughout the park. I just wanted to make -- all the site visits are the same. I just wanted to make note that personal service on the case ending in 3098 was on March 12th, 2010 and the case ending in 4059, personal service was April 2nd, 2010. I'm combining these cases together. As you review the pictures you're going to see that a lot of the property maintenance issues and the permitting issues go hand-in-hand. I want to just set forth for you kind of a history of this property. You had seen the most current -- I'm talking too fast, I'm sorry -- the most current 2010 aerial. I wanted to put -- the next one up will be a 1975 aerial from the Property Appraiser's website indicating that the park -- yes, sir? CHAIRMAN KELLY: We just have to make a motion to accept it. Go ahead. MS. SORRELS: It's an aerial of the park, the property in 1975. I have another aerial from the Naples City website which is provided by The Conservancy, an aerial of 1973 and an aerial of 1953. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And do you have photographs as well or is this going to be a separate issue? MS. SORRELS: They'll be separate. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, so this Exhibit A, the aerials -- MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibit. MR. LA VINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? Page 80 July 22, 2010 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Ayes have it. MS. SORRELS: This is the property in 1975, clearly showing that it was there and in existence with probably just the proper amount of lots. MR. KAUFMAN: Clearly it's not, but it's there. MS. SORRELS: The next aerial is going to be from the Naples City's website, and the pictures are from The Conservancy. And I apologize, it wouldn't print any bigger for me. This is 1973. And again, if you look there, you'll see the intersection of Airport and Tamiami Trail East, and the park is located in the same area. The last aerial is 1953, and showing that it was not in existence in 1953. I spoke with Kim Bochek at the Property Appraiser's, and she did some research for me, and she did indicate that the Property Appraiser's did not pick up improvements up on this property until 1961. So the question remains is permits. We have several structures that clearly do not meet Florida Building Code, it would not be permitted. So I did research. I searched all of our softwares: CD Plus, I researched WHIPS, I also researched microfilm. Was not able Page 81 July 22, 2010 to locate permits for carports, additions and sheds and things of that nature. The only thing that was most recent was in the late Nineties several permits were issued for re-roofings. Since the Property Appraisers gave me a year of the early -- the property clearly was improved in 1961, according to the Property Appraisers. Real quick, I did research from the zoning codes from '61, '65, '68 and '75 to show that setbacks or side yard requirements would be required, therefore not allowing some of these structures to be even permitted. Would you guys like to review them? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just that if they're consistent. MS. SORRELS: They are consistent, yes, sir. Would you like me just to breeze through them real quick? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just the setback amounts, like the footage, if you will. Is that where you're going with this, that some of these -- MS. SORRELS: Correct, correct. In 1961 they -- I just need to define a side yard so you would understand where I'm getting my information. A side yard is an open unoccupied space on the same lot with a building between the building and the sideline of the lot extending through from the front building line to the rear yard. So that would be considered a side yard. In 1961 R-4 was the zoning for mobile homes. And it indicates that a minimum lot width, that building line shall be 40 feet with front yard of 25 feet, a minimum side yard of seven and a half feet. With a definition of a side yard, it has to be an open unoccupied space. So a structure would not be permitted to be built within that seven and a half feet. That would be consistent also with the 1965. The definition of a side yard remains the same. And the minimum side yard requirement is seven and a half feet as well. Page 82 July 22, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: I have a question. MS. SORRELS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So that would mean you couldn't build a structure; in other words, a concrete pad would not be allowed. But what about mobile homes, how do they fit into this? MS. SORRELS: When you look at the pictures, the mobile homes aren't in question, what's in question is all the additions that have been made to them. And we have measurements showing some of them as close as five feet between the structures. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great, thanks. MS. SORRELS: 1968, they zoned this -- or this particular use is zoned a mobile home and travel trailer park. And they actually start providing more setbacks in these -- this ordinance. The setbacks for that zoning is eight feet between side -- side yard to structure, eight feet, and then a minimum setback from building or structures of 10 feet. So between -- so if you have the two lots side by side, they would have to have at least 16 feet between structures, or if the building was on the same property, like a shed and a mobile home, there would have to be 10 feet between structures. MR. KAUFMAN: So it's gone from 14 feet to 16 feet. MS. SORRELS: Correct. MR. KAUFMAN: Can you tell me how many of these units were built during that time frame or the pads set up for the trailers? Were they all done at once or -- MS. SORRELS: From what I can see on the Property Appraiser's card, there was a few improvements made in 1961, maybe two or three, maybe -- well, I'll say about four or five, what I can see on here, maybe mobile homes were put in place. That was in 1961. But most of the property card shows everything happening in the mid-Seventies. In 19 -- excuse me, Ordinance 74-42, it's -- now they've zoned Page 83 July 22, 2010 what they title as a mobile home rental park. And the setbacks for a mobile home rental park in 1974 would be five feet from the side. So it would be a total of 10 feet between structures on different lots and 10 feet between structures. MR. ORTEGA: I have a question, if I may. MS. SORRELS: Yes. MR. ORTEGA: When you speak of structures, you're talking about the mobile home? MS. SORRELS: I'm speaking of the additions to the mobile homes. We're not questioning the mobile homes, we're questioning the additions. Some of them are additions built, like living space additions, others are porches, others are carports, some of them have a combination of both. MR. KAUFMAN: So you're saying that we went from 14 feet to 16 feet and then we went to 10 feet. MS. SORRELS: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. SORRELS: All right, with that being said, and understanding my whole process of the permitting and showing that a lot of these structures do not meet the codes, even back in the early Sixties through the mid-Seventies, I'll go through the pictures and I'll point out the unpermitted structures. I have over 200 pictures. Obviously we're not going to see that many. But I'm going to try to hit on the most important properties __ or lots, I should say. And I'll point out as we go along and go from there. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I've got a question procedurally. So that the respondent understands exactly what's required, how do we admit this into evidence, which will then become part of the order? If she's not going to show all 200, if we're not going to see all of the violations, how do we include them if they're -- MS. RAWSON: You're going to have to do it in a sort of general Page 84 July 22, 2010 overall term. And she's going to have to describe them for me so I can describe them as best I can. And I'm going to e-mail all these orders to Mr. Erickson before they go out in the regular mail. MS. SORRELS: But I understand what you're saying, if we're only touching on a few lots, how do we get the whole spectrum. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Maybe a suggestion would be to have the building department identify those when it comes time to correct them. We can just say that all violations of the building code would be addressed. I don't think -- you know, you and I, we're not qualified to make that distinction anyway, so let's have the building department come up with a master list. MR. KAUFMAN: Will the respondent stipulate that he has seen all those pictures and -- without going through all 200 pictures? MR. ERICKSON: This is an issue -- this is kind of new to me, this particular aspect of it. I've dealt with it in other cases, other matters, but this is one that does bring significant concern to me, because I am familiar with these mobile home parks and I understand what happens. The people that own the mobile homes add on to it and most of the parks say you're supposed to get at permit, some people do it without permits. And obviously that's I think what we're going to have here. And half the people that bought these things don't know where, when they came from, and who -- I assume they're owned by the people who own the mobile homes again. And I think my concern is that each one is basically a separate issue. And if we've got 200 pictures of200 violations or whether it's 100 violations, I don't think I'd be in a position and I don't know if we're in a position to acknowledge that each of these are violations. There could be reasons that one is or one isn't a screen porch as opposed to a shed, something like that. So this is one, and this is one where I see very thorny issues as far as the park residents, you know. It's fine for the owner to come in and say we've got to rip out all these things, and all of a suddenA Page 85 July 22, 2010 everybody loses their porch or their various parts. And I can see a significant problem here that, unlike the other ones that are easily addressed and clear -- you know, this is one that I can see is going to require more time to resolve with everybody involved. Because this could be -- I mean, I don't even know exactly what structures we're talking about. I'm assuming they're all basically the mobile homes, each individual mobile homes. But this is one where I see the general public of the people, the residents of the park being very directly affected by it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I don't foresee there being an issue if there was additions put on for like a carport or a screened-in enclosure, even a shed in the back to store items. The issue that our board has is if inhabited structures were added on without proper permits. Because then they didn't get the electrical inspections or the plumbing inspections that could cause a health Issue. So we'll have to go through and see, you know, where it relates. But I don't foresee an issue granting extension of times, you know, or being lenient on the time frame for the issues that aren't health related. Let's go ahead and look. We're going to need a motion to see these pictures, because this will be Exhibit B. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibits. MR. LA VINSKI: Second it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Second by Mr. Lavinsky. He beat you to it. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. Page 86 July 22, 2010 MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And you can pick and choose, if you want. If you have multiple structures that are similar, however you want to do it. MS. SORRELS: Okay. Yeah, I'm going to try to pick and choose and make this a little bit shorter. The first lot you're going to be looking at is lot nine. Again, we're not questioning the mobile homes but we are questioning -- or we are indicating that the additions are not permitted. What you're looking as here is an addition, a doorway obviously here at the top. But the walls don't even go all the way up. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Let me -- if you put that back, I just want to show Mr. Erickson what we're looking at. So this would be great example of like a screened-in porch. You know, the board might grant time to get that whole thing sorted out and pull a demolition permit and have it removed. But if someone was living inside there, that was a bedroom, that would be a different situation, we'd be concerned about that. Okay, thanks. MS. SORRELS: With that being said, this is showing down the side where further down the wall it does go all the way up to the ceiling and go all the way back. This is the rear of the structure. The permit is one of the things we're addressing. But also wanted to point out on a property maintenance point of view that the wood is not -- the paint's chipping, it needs to have a protective covering on the wood. Again, this is the rear now looking down. The next one is Lot 17. This is the one I believe -- I'm not sure if Page 87 July 22, 2010 Mike Nelson, Corporal Nelson had spoken of the kitchen, but Lot 17 has an addition on it as well. This is the front view, just kind of showing some of the wood being exposed to the weather. This is looking down the side. It's a screened enclosure. You can see how it's kind of built. The screening is attached to the two-by- fours. This little room that you see back here is actually their kitchen. They have taken their kitchen out of their mobile home and it's now in this room right here. Lot 23. Here's the front view of Lot 23, the addition and the carport. A shed that is underneath the carport. And it clearly does not meet the separations of the structures. Inside of the carport -- or excuse me, inside the shed we have electrical and plumbing, obviously not to code, showing that would not -- had been permitted. This is just the view underneath the mobile home. This is more of a property maintenance issue. The mobile home flooring has actually deteriorated, from what we can see outside, and the actual insulation is now falling down. Y .? es, SIr. CHAIRMAN KELLY: When you're going through, if you see a property maintenance issue only, can you tag that as maintenance only? If it's a structural issue where it's an unpermitted structure or it doesn't meet setbacks and we couldn't even get a permit for it, could you vocalize that as well? MS. SORRELS: Sure. CHAIRMAN KELLY: What I don't want you to, you know, get into is starting to talk about maintenance on a structure that's not even supposed to be there in the first place. MS. SORRELS: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So that we start getting confused. Page 88 July 22, 2010 MR. ORTEGA: Or if in your opinion any of these poses a life safety hazard. MS. SORRELS: Okay, right. We're still on Lot 23. This is inside the shed that you had seen the electrical work. This is a -- the toilet that is in there that is connected to plumbing. Lot 23 appears to be vacant. One of the windows had been -- or there was an AC unit here, so when that was removed I could see inside. This would be part of the unpermitted enclosure. Lot 27, this will be a property maintenance issue on one particular area. This is the front view. If you look down the side, which would be the right-hand side, you'll see that the mobile home is actually bowing out. The framing underneath has actually broken, and we're going to show a picture of where they've tried to brace the mobile home. I would say that this might be a definite health and safety, being that it is already starting to collapse. Here you can see where the insulation and everything has dropped down. If you look underneath here, there's a piece of plywood that has -- a brand new piece of -- or two-by-four that's been put in place to help anchor or support the caving floor. MR. KAUFMAN: This is occupied? MS. SORRELS: Yes, this one is occupied. They're actually stealing electric, which I'm going to show you here in a second. Just again just showing the insulation and the debris. If you look here, there's an extension cord that's running across the lot, running into the neighbor's lot, which is vacant. We tried to take a picture of the two-by-four put in place to support the broken flooring. So this is the two-by-four showing up underneath the mobile home. I know it's kind of discombobulated; it wasn't a very easy picture to take. All right, we'll go into Lot 27. Here is the front view of Lot 27. This is the side view of Lot 27. The addition would be not Page 89 July 22, 2010 permitted, so we'll just leave it at that. There's property maintenance issues, but you told me to keep it straightened, so we'll just say not permitted. I'm sorry, I knew I had misplaced a picture. This is kind of out of order. This is Lot 25, which is next to the lot that's stealing the electricity. It went across the lot, and here's the extension cord going into the vacant mobile home and plugged in. My apologies. This is between Lot 33 and 31. Clearly the carports overhang each other, not meeting the separations that would be required. On Lot 35 -- I'm just going to give you the front view of Lot 35. And here is where we had measured between the structures. This is Lot 35 on this side, and this is Lot 33. The tape measure is a little upside down, but it's clearly indicating there's only eight feet between the structures. On Lot 54 -- excuse me, 56. Lot 56, I just want to show these to you. Lot 56 has an addition on it. The addition is not permitted, but I wanted to point out the roof that is covered and caving in. MR. LA VINSKI: Is that roof to code. MS. SORRELS: No. MR. KAUFMAN: You would have to ask Ken on that. MS. SORRELS: If you give me one second, gentlemen, there's two properties I want to show you, and then I'll cut it short, unless there's more pictures you'd like to review. Lot 12 is a vacant lot. And this is definitely a health and safety, because the building is completely exposed, the windows are broken out, and again, we have children that run around in this park. So Lot 12, here's the front view. Down the right side is the carport. The carport has been ripped off, probably throughout a storm. Of course it's dilapidated and falling down on the roof line. The windows have all been broken out in the mobile home. This would be strictly a property maintenance issue on this one. The door along the side here is boarded up. I'm not sure, I Page 90 July 22, 2010 couldn't really see if it was the glass was broken or they were just trying to secure the door from being opened. The front here, the windows are broken out. On the right hand -- the left-hand side of the mobile home is an addition. The glass windows are all broke out. MR. KAUFMAN: The addition wasn't permitted? MS. SORRELS: That one I'm going to -- it appears to meet setbacks and it also is above FEMA flood level. So I would not actually say it would be permitted or not permitted. I'm more or less going with the property maintenance on this one. MR. ORTEGA: How was it determined that it's above FEMA flood level? MS. SORRELS: This is the addition. And see the concrete elevation and the flooring right here, where they actually step up into the room? It's the same level as the mobile home. Mobile homes are required to be set at certain height for FEMA flood. MR. ORTEGA: Most likely they are all below the floodplain, but -- MS. SORRELS: Pardon? MR. ORTEGA: Most likely they are all below the floodplain. MS. SORRELS: Okay. I'm just going by my experience in the field, sir. This is the addition on the same mobile home with the soffits and everything falling out. Lot 67 we wanted to definitely bring to your attention. Lot 67 has a mobile home with an addition. Right here is the addition. The mobile home has a family living it. This addition, which I'm going to show you a different view of, has a family living in it with a makeshift kitchen and a bedroom all in the same room. And then the shed back here you're going to see pictures of also has somebody living in it. This is at the back of the carport. This is the shed and the construction of the shed that somebody was living in. Page 91 July 22, 2010 Here's the door to the shed as you come through the carport. You pass that front wall and you walk to the door. This is the door to the addition to the mobile home. When you open this door, you look in, you see a bed. And up against this wall is a little makeshift kitchen that a family is using to live in. MR. LEFEBVRE: Can you just go back to the -- not that picture, the one before that, please? MS. SORRELS: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: If you look in -- well, you look to the right, you can see electrical boxes. I guess we're not looking at the electrical boxes in this case. But then right where the post is you can see another series of electrical boxes, correct? MS. SORRELS: Yes, that is correct. And if we went back to the FP &L -- or the meter pictures, you would see this exact meter is actually all barricaded in with this construction material is where the hot water was is sitting, one of the litter pictures. This is the entrance to the -- this is the door to the entrance of the main mobile home. You actually have to walk into the carport past the addition. And in between the addition and the shed is this door, and that's how they access their home and the mobile home. Yeah, and they all -- from our understanding, communication was a little difficult, but from our understanding all three families was using the one bathroom inside the main unit. MR. ORTEGA: Is this mobile park on sewer or septic? MS. SORRELS: It's county, it's sewer. The last lot I want to show you is Lot 24. This was a big concern. The fire department, they weren't out here addressing fire violations, fire codes with us, but they were just as a general professional firefighter went out there with us to kind of give us some indications of concerns they might have. I do want to say that this mobile home now is vacant. I'm sorry. This mobile home is now vacant, but there was a family with two Page 92 July 22, 2010 small children living in this home. Lot 24, this is the front part of the mobile home. On the mobile home, a property maintenance issue would be that this is separated, allowing moisture and water to enter into the insulation in the inside of the mobile home. The windows also being busted out along the side here, down the side. This is in the rear of the addition that's on the left-hand side. This is electrical wiring, piping, conduit coming out. And it stops right here. And then this exposed wire actually runs down the whole back side of the mobile home into the ground. Here was a concern of the fire department's. This addition that was on the left-hand side of the mobile home, this is actually the back view of it. They have taken a Florida-type screened room and they've actually mounted metal studs and they've insulated it and hung drywall, turning it into living space. The firefighter's concern is that a mobile home is already very insulated, so the fire heats quickly and it goes up quickly in flames. They basically blocked off all their egress and ingress, and, you know, of course adding insulation and stuff, causing it to, you know, burn quicker. This is just a side view of the windows. The windows were left in place, so you can actually see here's the metal studs and all the insulation. One of the windows was broken out, so I was able to take a view of a picture of the inside of the addition. That was looking at what the inside of the addition looked like. Here's electrical and stuff obviously hanging out of the walls. And a closer up of the electrical also, the mildew and stuff along the drywall. Again I have, you know, tons of lots in here that you could see pictures of, but I tried to get the most important ones for you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, thank you. Page 93 July 22, 2010 Does anybody from the board have questions for Azure? MR. LEFEBVRE: I have a few questions. First of all, did you ascertain if there was ever a site development plan on this property? MS. SORRELS: No, I could not locate a site development plan. The closest thing I found was a '98 permit of that site plan. MR. LEFEBVRE: Are there individual lots that are -- are there individual lots here, or is it just one piece, one property? MS. SORRELS: This is all one piece of property. MR. LEFEBVRE: So when you talk about lot lines, how do you know where a lot line is if there's no separate lots, per se? Like in a development you'll see individual lots when you have an aerial. So how can you distinguish if there's 10 feet, 15 feet, 16 feet, whatever numbers we're throwing out? MS. SORRELS: In the zoning regulations through the Sixties and Seventies, it gives an area regulation, so a minimum lot size shall be 4,000 square feet. Now, I can't testify to how that would work. I don't know, you know, how they go through and draw those lines, but clearly there's imaginary lines put there saying okay, this is your lot and this is your lot. How it actually breaks down, I don't know. All I can tell you is that there were requirements for these, the size that their lots were supposed to be. MR. LEFEBVRE: How many acres is this property? MR. ORTEGA: Most likely back then there were no SDP's, they basically had a site plan is what they went by. So at some point there must have been one in existence. MS. SORRELS: It's 4.3 acres. MR. LEFEBVRE: 4.3 acres? MS. SORRELS: Correct. And to confirm, yes, we couldn't find anything recorded. And no subdivision, no plats, no nothing recorded of any kind. Page 94 July 22, 2010 MR. LEFEBVRE: How many units is this zoned for again? You said R-4? MS. SORRELS: Well, that's the zoning that was in the 1960's, they called it R-4. Like today we have RSF-l, you know, residential single-family. Then they called it R-4, and that's what they used for mobile homes. MR. LEFEBVRE: So what's the maximum amount of units that would be allowed on this property under the current zoning? MS. SORRELS: Can you give me one second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Sure. MR. ORTEGA: Can you really apply current zoning to something that was -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Going back when this was developed. MS. SORRELS: Right, I wasn't going to look for current zoning because we do have clear indication that it was established, definitely improvements in the early Sixties, but most of it throughout the -- MR. LEFEBVRE: So the Land Development Code, LDC, in the Sixties when this was developed, if you can -- I mean, was this develop -- what I'm trying to get at, I know we're probably not looking at it as a zoning case, but I mean, these may not even be -- MR. ORTEGA: Allowed. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- allowed, period. But I have a problem with not knowing. I know the lots have to be 4,000 square feet. And if that's the case, you have to have 40 feet frontage, so it would be a 40 by 100-foot lot. But to try to find a violation based on some imaginary line, that's kind of hard. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I have a question, actually for you, Gerald. If this is all one lot, the four acres, four plus acres, how do you divide the individual sections for each home site? Is that what the code is referring to, or is it referring to the entire parcel as the lot? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah, that's what I'm kind of-- Page 95 July 22, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: If that's the case, then it just reverts back to every structure has to be a minimum of 10 feet from another, which is fairly consist to the property lines anyway. So if we use that 10 foot, maybe that will suffice. MS. SORRELS: Just to kind of clarify, actually it was in what I had read earlier, area regulations. It says a minimum lot width at building line shall be 40 feet with front yard of 25 feet. Now, to me that doesn't make sense, because being on-site I would, you know, say there's definitely not 25 feet in the front. But again, I'm not a zoning expert, I don't do any kind of zoning, so I can only tell you what I have in writing. MR. KAUFMAN: I don't think that's going to be the problem with this particular case. MS. SORRELS: It's all-- the way code enforcement looks at it is it's one piece of property. I understand there's different lots and they're owned -- the mobile homes are owned by different people. And I definitely understand the legalities in it, but it's all -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just, when Cherie' sighs, I feel so bad. MS. SORRELS: I already apologized to her. I feel so bad. I'm so sorry. MR. LEFEBVRE: I just did some quick math, and if you have 60 units and each unit has to have -- or each lot has to have a 40 by -- 4,000 square feet, so it would be 40 by 100. 4,000 square feet times 60, which is how many mobile homes we have, you would need 240,000 square feet. If you divide that by 43,560, which is an acre, that's more than 4.3. MR. KAUFMAN: That's without any roads. MR. LEFEBVRE: That's right, that's just without any roads. So, I mean, I'm almost wondering why this isn't a zoning case. MS. SORRELS: I'm sorry. MR. ORTEGA: Did you say this was an R-4. MS. SORRELS: Through the Sixties and Seventies it was zoned Page 96 July 22, 2010 R-4. MR. ORTEGA: Isn't that four units per acre. MR. LEFEBVRE: That's what I'm trying to find -- I didn't want to answer -- MR. ORTEGA: I know where you're going with this-- MR. LEFEBVRE: I didn't want to answer the question for her. MS. SORRELS: Gentlemen, gentlemen, I don't know when this was done, but on the property card there is a clear indication that says acreage reduced to equalize. I don't have a date of when that was written, but at one point in time the Property Appraisers noted that the acreage had been reduced to equalize. MR. KAUFMAN: So they probably grandfathered it. MS. SORRELS: Possibly. MR. LEFEBVRE: What do you mean by equalize? I'm not sure what that term means. MS. SORRELS: I don't know. I should have brought someone from the Property Appraisers with me-- MR. ORTEGA: Even area for each individual unit or space? MR. LEFEBVRE: I don't know what that means. MS. SORRELS: Well, it says acreage, so I'm assuming the total acreage of the property. I mean, we just discussed it was 4.38 acres. According to what I was reading -- and again, I'm not a zoning expert, but what I was reading, it says a minimum of 10 acres was required. So maybe they had the 10 acres and at one point, and somewhere for some reason -- and again, this is all speculation, I'm not -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. We're not hearing a zoning case, per se, but I'm just trying to figure out the spacing between the units and individual lots. You're talking about -- there's not an individual lot, per see MS. SORRELS: Correct. I mean, there's a site plan showing lots of the mobile homes, like mobile home two is, you know, they're just saying that's Lot 2. Page 97 July 22, 2010 MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay, here's another question. What are they leasing? If there's not individual lots, what are they leasing? I mean, there's no specifics on what they're leasing, so -- MR. ORTEGA: Space? It's not a lot. MR. LEFEBVRE: It's not a defined space. I mean, this -- I don't know, for me this case is just --I've been on the board for eight years, this is probably one of the worst cases I've seen. There's just a multitude of things here. MR. ERICKSON: This, I think, is very clear. And that's why especially these two particular cases we're addressing right now, we've got a situation here that affects everybody living in the mobile home park. As you say, based upon the zoning, based upon the setbacks, this whole park could very well be able for the -- one authority or another to shut it down. The question is in part is that what we do or how do we handle the people that are there? I mean, it's very clear there's going to be issues as to whether it even can be remedied, some of these situations that we brought up. MR. KAUFMAN: I've been around for a while. This is the biggest blight I've seen. I don't know what the remedy other than a bulldozer to flatten the whole property and start from square one. There are just so many violations here. There isn't a picture that you haven't put up that somebody can't find something. It's probably not right for the people who are living there and it's certainly not right for the other citizens of Collier. I couldn't even dream of what could be done to remediate the situation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, to act as Chair for a little while, and to try to mediate this whole debacle, who would be the agency that would determine which of these individual homes have problems and which ones don't, which ones could be permitted, which ones can't, you know, meet setback, don't meet setback, whatever? Who would handle that? Page 98 July 22, 2010 MS. SORRELS: You're looking at her. I'm the one that enforces those ordinances. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So if, let's say, for instance the respondent came to you and said here's a mobile home, what do you want me to do with this carport that's been built onto it, you would go through and pinpoint, all right, that one has to be removed or permitted? MS. SORRELS: Correct. I would have to -- I would say that it's a violation. Unless you can provide me and show proof of a permit from the Sixties or Seventies clearly saying that it was permitted, it would either have to be permitted or removed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I almost wanted to go to a rhetorical 101 on code enforcement, just to bring us all back to what we really need to decide here. And I don't want to see the board get off on tangents and run down this road of, you know, dictating what that particular unit must do or this one must do. I think the charging documents are very clear as to what the violations are. It's not really the board's position to decide how they're rectified, just as long as those violations are abated within whatever time frame we decide. So sticking with that, can we discuss amongst the board time frames to just simply get these unpermitted structures either permitted or demo'd and the property maintenance issues corrected. MR. KAUFMAN: Shouldn't we find them in violation first? CHAIRMAN KELLY : Yes, there you go. MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion we find them in violation on both of those. If you want to vote separately -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: We need to vote separately, so let's take property maintenance issue ending in 3098. MR. KAUFMAN: Make the motion that they're in violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Page 99 July 22, 2010 Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, that's that one. And then the other would be unpermitted structures, and that's ending in 4059. MR. KAUFMAN: I'll make a motion they're in violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the ayes have it. Okay, now, do you have a recommendation for both of these? MS. SORRELS: Yes. And I am so going to try and go really slow. Page 100 July 22, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Which one is this? MS. SORRELS: This would be the property maintenance ending in 3098. County recommends Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $81.72 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Obtain all required Collier County building permits, inspections, Certificate of Completions and repair all accessory structures, returning them to sound structural condition and in good repaIr. Repair all exterior walls from holes, breaks, or loose rotting material, returning them to a weatherproof and watertight condition. Provide all exterior surfaces other than decay-resistent woods with protective treatment by painting or other protective covering to protect exterior surface from the elements. Repair all roofs that have defects, returning the roofs to a safe condition which is watertight and weatherproof, or obtain a demolition permit and demolish all said structures which are in violation within "X" number of days of this hearing or an "X" amount fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains. All permitted space below flood level must be returned to a storage or utilitarian space and must cease using these spaces as habitable, or obtain demolition permit for the removal of any unpermitted work below flood level within an "X" number of days of this hearing or an "X" amount fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains. Must remove any and all non-approved boarding or securing materials and methods on building openings and/or must apply for and obtain an improved boarding certificate for any vacant unsecured structure from the Code Enforcement Department to include an improved property maintenance plan within "X" number of days of this hearing or an "X" amount fine will be imposed for each day the Page 101 July 22, 2010 violation remains. The respondent must notify code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct final inspection to confirm abatement. If the abatement fails to -- 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. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Question. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sure. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Before we go any further. I just want to inquire as to the county staffs thought or maybe to our attorney's opinion as to whether or not there might be any criminal charges against the owner of this property for these conditions. Possible. MS. RAWSON: Well, the Sheriff probably can answer the question better than I could. But whether that is or isn't is not the purview of this board. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Correct. MS. RAWSON: All you have to do is say there's been a violation and this is how you should correct it. She's given you a pretty specific way. It covers everything, you know, that you can correct it. If there are criminal violations, I mean, that's aside and apart from what you're doing. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you very much. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question for Jean as well. I'm a little uncomfortable with one person owns the property, somebody else has a unit on the property where they put an addition on. We are saying to the property owner you have to do A, B, C when it's not his property. I don't know how that fits in. Page 102 July 22, 2010 I know that if you're in a condo and you do some construction work that's not part of what the condo association permits, that's a different story. This seems to be very difficult to pinpoint. MS. RAWSON: Well, yes and no. Because they did those wonderful rules and regulations and because I think that all of these properties that have these problems violate those rules and regulations, we go back to the property owner who's responsible for all this and then he's going to say to the tenants, you know, this is what you have to do, because it violates the rules and regulations because you're not up to code. And if you don't do it, well, then you're going to have to leave. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. That makes it simple for me to understand. MR. ERICKSON: The only question I would put on that is those rules and regulations were established March of this year. I don't know if all those people signed those rules and regulations. And so whether some of those rules and regulations modify existing leases and are enforceable, I wouldn't know. But, I mean, it would be my expectation that one way or another everybody has to comply with code enforcement. But I agree with you, that is a key problem with respect to my client is the possibility that he gets substantial fines for repairs that he's not authorized to make. He certainly cannot just go onto someone's mobile home and start taking out their screen porch-- MR. KAUFMAN: So would you foresee this going --I'm trying to -- foresee this going where you go back to your client and say you need to enforce the rules that you distributed and you need to give those people "X" amount of days to do it. And if you don't do it, something is going to happen. I don't know whether that should be part of our motion or not, to give them the time to enforce their rules to resolve the situation. MR. ERICKSON: That's why this aspect in particular I think, Page 103 July 22, 2010 before -- I would like before the board rules, I would like these two issues perhaps to be continued so that we can look at it and find out what is a better way, an order that can be formulated that protects everybody's interest, including the county's interest, so that we can get this resolved. Because I'm concerned we may come up with an order today that may not even be enforceable one way or another and may not get the job completed the way people want to get it completed. I think we see that there's major issues that have to be addressed here. MS. RAWSON: And if he's going to have to evict these people, that's not going to happen within the time frame that you're going to give him to fix these violations, I'll bet. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, again, if -- we may have an order. Ifhe doesn't comply within the time frames that we give him, he has the ability to come in front of us and explain why and ask for an extension of time. But I think with the -- from the pictures and everything, that we need as a board to have a strict time line on when they have to be abated. However he abates these violations, it's not up to us to tell him how to run his business. He's run it the way so far that he needs to get corrected, the issues. So I think we just have to layout what he needs to do and not tell him -- give him a strict time frame -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Azure? MS. SORRELS: I just kind of wanted to follow up with what Mr. Lefebvre was saying. There is definite health and safety welfare issues on some of these units. And in respect -- again, we've clearly stated that he owns the property. So who's going to be there to stop the mobile homeowner to put another tenant back into that mobile home into those conditions? So we have to -- I feel that we need to proceed forward. MR. ORTEGA: Did you not say there was a property manager? MS. SORRELS: There is a property manager, correct. Page 104 July 22, 2010 MR. ORTEGA: And I find it hard to believe that as the owner of the property he's not aware of all this work being conducted, because it's extensive. MS. SORRELS: I would agree, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So what does the board think as far as time frames? MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to give them a specified amount of time, and we'd need to see some progress during that period of time or come back and ask for an extension. What that time is, I think it's a significant amount. It's a serious violation, no question about it. I'm thinking, and I look to the board, I would think 120 days to be well under way of resolving all of the problems, but I'm open as far as the days are concerned. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think 120 days -- to wait 120 days for a respondent to come in front of us and say well, I've done a couple things and I'm looking for another 120 days is the wrong message to send. I think we need to have a shorter time period and have him come in front of us knowing that the fine is going to be occurring every day. We need to have his feet to the fire on this. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is there a way for him to report back to us at regular intervals? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes, we can put that into the order. We did get away from that for awhile because it just became tedious, but maybe in this situation it might be best. Herminio and then Azure. MR. ORTEGA: I think that the respondent made a request that needs some time, and maybe it may not be in favor of this board, but perhaps come back in a month with a plan. Because I believe he needs to discuss it with his client. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Azure? MS. SORRELS: I just wanted to make clarification, I do believe that you guys right now are trying to resolve the -- provide a Page 105 July 22, 2010 recommendation for the property maintenance case. The property maintenance case, the property maintenance issues are strictly going to be on the mobile homes, broken out windows, boarded windows, the exterior structure of the mobile home, separating, exposing the insulation and everything on the inside. So property maintenance issues, those would not require a permit. So if you're ruling on the property maintenance case, maybe that might help clarify. CHAIRMAN KELLY: No, I understand what you're saying, that permits aren't required, which is good, because the owner of the property would have to pull them. And since it's a commercial property, they'd have to get a contractor. But it's good that the homeowners can make these repairs. The question is, can the owner of the property, you know, can he tell his tenants you have 30 days to fix that broken window? And I think that's the issue the respondent's asking for additional time. So I think it applies in both cases. MR. ERICKSON: One thing I'd like to point out, that one -- Lot 12, the one that was the most devastated lot, that was a lot we had the biggest problem with trying to get people out. There was like 12 people living in that lot, none of them with a lease. We couldn't get them -- the Sheriffs Department couldn't take them out because somebody had an address there. We had to go to court, get a judge to throw them out. And when they were leaving, they did the vast majority of that destruction in the last two to three weeks. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Patti, if you want to add something, you can be sworn in. MS. PETRULLI: Yes, for the record, Supervisor Patti Petrulli with Collier County Code Enforcement. I just want -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Wait, before-- Page 106 July 22, 2010 (Ms. Petrulli was duly sworn.) MS. PETRULLI: I'm sorry, she's rubbing off on me. I just wanted to bring up a point that I have some concerns. I think this mobile home park is a disaster just waiting to happen, especially the units where there's three families living in there, with makeshift kitchens and so forth. And I also have concerns that we were there in April and took the time to walk the mobile home park with the manager and with the owner who flew in from Chicago. But we had no communication with him at all until Investigator Sorrels called him. And we had told him at that time if he did not move forward we would take this to a hearing. I get concerned when we're saying about giving this person more time when we had no communication at all with the owner of this property until we initiated it when we were going to a hearing. So I would just like you to take that into consideration. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Patti. Okay, any further questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have 120 days thrown out. Does anyone else have a suggestion for days out? Yeah, just a suggestion is what you made? MR. KAUFMAN : Yeah, I think -- I'm thinking about what the county has said. Let's reduce that to 90 days to show good faith. But I agree with having them come back to code enforcement within the next 30 days with some sort of an action plan. And lacking that, the penalties are going to be severe on this. This is a real blight on the community. We also have two other cases that we decided earlier at 60 days and one at seven days, so we're going to see some activity out there immediately. So I would like to modify it from 120 to 90. I think that probably would be more in line. Page 107 July 22, 2010 MR. LEFEBVRE: Do you have -- you want them to come in front of us, let's say next board hearing in August. And is there going to be a penalty if there's not progress being made, or will the penalties just start at 90 days? MR. ERICKSON: I would request that -- I don't know if the court has this auth -- or if the board has this authority, is to reserve on the penalty until we come -- give us at the next meeting. I think that's an appropriate resolution in part, that we show up at the next meeting with a plan as to what we're going to do and find out, because right now we don't know how much can be done in 90 days or 120 days. And clearly this requires a plan. And for another 30 days to develop a plan, I think that is the best way to proceed. And the board could assess -- decide what type of penalties to assess after that. MR. LEFEBVRE: With all due respect, I think that's inappropriate. I think 90 days is more than ample time to get a plan of action. As Patti has stated, that in April this was brought to your attention. You had an opportunity to sit down and come up with a plan through a stipulated agreement. That was not brought forth. I see very little good faith put forward by this owner. MR. ERICKSON: No, excuse me, I'm saying 30 days for the plan. That's what I'm saying. That we -- I've not been involved at all in establishing a plan, and I think it's going to take 30 days to establish a plan. MR. LEFEBVRE: I understand. But what I'm trying to get at is, since March this has been brought to the owner's attention. And April he had more communication. And I just don't see this being dragged out another month for a plan of action. You should have had a plan of action when you came here on what to do. And it just seems like you want us to tell -- you want us as a board to tell you what to do when now you're just telling us we want to work out a plan. You had a chance to work out a plan three months Page 108 July 22, 2010 ago, four months ago when this was brought to your attention and that wasn't done. So I have a real problem with you now telling us we want to come up with a plan. It seems like you're just trying to drag this out, to be honest with you. MR. ERICKSON: I don't see it that way, because I see today's board meeting the crux of this. Yes, there's negotiations with the county and now we're dealing with the board that we will be dealing with that makes the decisions. And again, I'm not going to make excuses for my client not having addressed it earlier. I don't know exactly why he hadn't or didn't. But I know he has addressed -- there was two other issues that have been before, as I said, Magistrate Garretson that have been -- that we are addressing and have been addressed. And clearly this needs to be addressed immediately. CHAIRMAN KELLY: In the essence of time, I want to clarify the motion and see where it is from here. Right now it's at, at next meeting we have a full report as to an action plan which identifies all the structures that need to be maintained, replaced, permitted, demo'd, and that report given to the board. And then that action plan also to detail corrective actions and when they'll be completed. So not only identifying the problem but also letting us know what the plan is to fix them and how long it's going to take. And then all of those actions to be 90 days from today? MR. KAUFMAN: Today, completed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: Should you not have the time to complete it in 90 days, just the same as we did with the other two cases, they could come back and say, you know, that we need an extension of time. But at that time we'll see what progress is going on. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So basically what we're going to do here is we're going to fill in the blanks. Everything's going to be 90 Page 109 July 22, 2010 days. And what is the fine amount? MR. KAUFMAN: 250 a day. CHAIRMAN KELLY: $250 per day. MS. RAWSON: Now, is the 90 days not going to start until next month, so you're really talking about 120? MR. KAUFMAN: No, 90 days starts today. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Starts today. Which will give them an additional 60 days on top of their plan. I mean, we're not really going to approve or deny your plan, we just want to see that it was done. So 30 days or the next meeting have the plan completed or $250 per day until it is completed. Ninety days from today to have that plan completely implemented. So it shows some good faith, not only had the plan but actually started working on it. MR. ERICKSON: No, I understand. The board seems to be very understanding if problems do come up that can be addressed. So I don't have any problem with that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great. Now, is there anything else? MR. ORTEGA: I have a major concern. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Go ahead. MR. ORTEGA: And I concur with my colleague. We're not in the position to establish or dictate zoning regulations or when it was done or whatever, but what if -- and we are basically telling our respondent that he needs to make certain repairs. But what if the repairs that are being made are being made to units that cannot even exist? CHAIRMAN KELLY: If that's the case, then the county will tell them they have to be demo'd. MR. ERICKSON: I would address that by saying yes, I see that as a very clear problem on my client's behalf. And I would not Page 110 July 22, 2010 recommend to him to make repairs on something that's going to not get him beyond the zoning issue if there's a zoning issue that has to be addressed -- MR. KAUFMAN: This what we're talking now is just the property maintenance. MR. ORTEGA: Right. That's why I brought it up. Because you might be fixing windows and whatever to structures that cannot even exist or not supposed to exist. MR. ERICKSON: And that will have to be dealt with in that plan, that we -- you know, that he will have to consider all those in formulating his plan. MR. ORTEGA: Sir, are we in a position -- this question is for the Chair -- where they come back to us with a plan and they're going to fix everything they're supposed to fix. But are we to determine or bring into light or request of what is legal and what is not? CHAIRMAN KELLY: No, it's not our jurisdiction. Our jurisdiction is just to get it in compliance. So the only reason why the plan was brought up is because we want to make sure that there's an action, it doesn't just sit until the end of the 90 days, and oh, yeah, fines are occurring, I'm going to sell the property or it's in foreclosure. MR. ORTEGA: No, I concur with that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So this is on the property maintenance. The motion is ending in 3098. Do you have the motion clarified, Jean? MS. RAWSON: I hope so. I think so. CHAIRMAN KELLY: There was just the one additional paragraph on the plan. Okay, all those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. Page 111 July 22, 2010 MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? MR. LEFEBVRE: Opposed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have one opposed, Gerald. THE COURT REPORTER: Who seconded it? MR. KAUFMAN: I made the motion. I don't know. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Who did second that? I'm a horrible chairman. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Lionel seconded it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, let's try it again. I apologize. MR. KAUFMAN: I make the motion. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Now let's call it to a vote. All in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? MR. LEFEBVRE: Still opposed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Gerald is opposed. Okay, there we go. Thank you for keeping us in line. Now, do you want to do -- can we use the same as the last plan and just duplicate it for this one? Because I believe we were talking about them together as the same. MS. WALDRON: No, it's a completely different recommendation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I know, but what I'm saying is I think we want a plan, I think -- because we were bringing them together, I think everything was discussed in the same manner. Because we're not Page 112 July 22, 2010 going to suggest to maintain something that's not supposed to be there in the first place, so I would really like to see the dates and everything to be the same. MS. SORRELS: I see what you're saying. We're now addressing the permit phase. And you're saying that you're looking to do the same recommendation for this case as the property maintenance case, that way it balances out with each other so that way we're not having individuals doing work to things that are not even supposed to be there. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Exactly right. Do I have it right? Anyone from the board object to that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: In that case, do you want to make a -- MR. KAUFMAN: I make the same motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And this is on case 4059. MS. WALDRON: We still have to address the permitting issue, though, which is in the recommendation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So if you would, could you read the description of the violation, and then we'll use the time frame blanks similar to what we did the last time. MS. SORRELS: All right. Operational costs to be paid at $81.15. Respondent must obtain all required Collier County building permits, inspections, Certificate of Completions for all the mentioned unpermitted structures, additions and/or alterations, or obtain a demolition permit and demolish the mentioned unpermitted structures, additions and alterations within "X" amount of days of this hearing or "X" amount fine per day will be imposed for each day the violation . remaIns. MR. ERICKSON: For the record, I would -- I don't even know if it's appropriate, but I would like to make an objection, because I'm not sure he can obtain demolition -- obtain either the repairs or the demolitions to these properties that he does not own. Page 113 July 22, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: I understand that -- MR. ERICKSON: I just don't want to waive that possibility -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: It's been noted that the objection is there. And I believe we've tried to be lenient -- MR. ERICKSON: I agree. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If that's the case, if there is some kind of open litigation or legal matters that are going on, that would be a strong argument for that particular unit and why you're not able to abate that fine. MR. ERICKSON: I agree. MR. KAUFMAN: We don't have the cost list on this one. CHAIRMAN KELLY: There wasn't on the other one either, but she mentioned them verbally. MS. WALDRON: Yeah, it's 81.15. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make the same motion, the 90 days, $250 fine, with the addition of the 30-day paragraph that our illustrious Chairman has put forth. CHAIRMAN KELLY: For the report at the next meeting. MR. KAUFMAN: Right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. ORTEGA: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Herminio. Any discussion? MR. LA VINSKI: Yeah, doesn't this case have a little bit more life and safety impact where you've got converted spaces that people are living in today that we have no idea whether it meets anything? Whereas the last case didn't, it was kind of a maintenance issue. Here we say that we have alterations consisting of but not limited to sheds, carports converted to living space. You have people living in these spaces now. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You're exactly right. And that's why we Page 114 July 22, 2010 originally -- when we started talking about it, that's why we took into consideration the fact that we might not be able to do anything to somebody else's property. We're basically giving the 90 days because we feel as though that's a reasonable time frame to evict or to notice or to give the tenants time to correct. I think that's the intent behind the motion. But if you have another thought? MR. LA VINSKI: No, I guess the only thought is if we still have people living there for 90 days. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Anyone else second that thought? Do you want to do something different? MR. DEAN: I don't know how you can do anything different, because you don't know who lives where, you don't have any leases, and they run electric from one place across the place to another place. I mean, it's a mess. What do you do? So I think we're doing a good job just getting as far as we got. And I think that gentleman -- I hope he goes back to Mr. McKay and explains how our heartfelt thought goes out to those people if they do have a problem. And I think we're doing that step about getting the FPL out there right away in fixing that issue. And so I hope we get it in the right direction. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. With that we'll go ahead and call a vote. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? MR. LEFEBVRE: Opposed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: One. Jim, I didn't -- were you an aye? MR. LA VINSKI: No, I was still thinking. Yeah, I'd vote no. Page 115 July 22, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So we have two no's and the rest of the board for. So the motion does pass. And that will mimic the first one. Now, since we're through all the cases, just to recap, the electrical issues, the emergency imminent electrical issues within seven days or $500 per day. There is the general electrical litter and vehicles within 60 days or $200 per day. Then there's the maintenance and non-permitted structure repair plan to be presented at the next meeting or a fine of $250 per day. And then to fix those maintenance and non-permitted structures within 90 days from today or $250 per day fine will accrue. All operational costs are to be paid within 30 days of today. And as representing the board, I'd like to take a moment to express how severe the situation is to the owner. If you could relay that information. MR. ERICKSON: I think it's very clear. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. This is very serious. And I appreciate your assistance. MR. ERICKSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. We're about to lose our attorney, so if you're okay, we'll just keep trudging along? MS. SORRELS: Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN KELLY : You're welcome. N ow moving on to imposition of fines. First one is going to be Lisa Dasher. MS. WALDRON: The county is requesting to withdraw this case. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, we're withdrawing Dasher. MR. LEFEBVRE: Are we going to have to amend the agenda at all, or no? Page 116 July 22, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: It's that we heard the case at that timeframe and then it was withdrawn, so I think it's good. And then the next one is going to be Gilot. MS. WALDRON: The county's also requesting to withdraw this case. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Then how about Moran? I appreciate your patience, sir. MS. WALDRON: In the essence of time, I believe that Mr. Moran is going to request a reduction of fines, so if we could not read all the information and just let him ask for that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Absolutely. We do have to read at least the minimum of the case and we do have to swear the two in. MS. WALDRON: Sure. I can state the case. The case is CESD20080007126, Manuel F. and Ana L. Moran. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. If you just want to speak to the board about, you know, maybe why you're requesting the reduction of the fines. And I understand that it is now in compliance? MR. MORAN: Yes, sir. The problem is I don't build the building. I buy the house with the building. And one of the steps on my contract when I buy the house was to finish the building first, and then finish a physical. But not on the papers. And I don't nothing about legal things on this cases. I seen the paper outside there, I suppose to contact the Collier County review the house before I buy it. I know that for my next. But anyway, I request abate the fine because the house is still in foreclosure now. And anyway, I know that, I finish that to be nice with the Collier County. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I appreciate you going through those motions. Here's a home that's actually in foreclosure and the gentleman still stood up and fixed the violation even though he bought the home Page 11 7 July 22, 2010 with them preexisting. That's very admirable. Thank you, sir. He's asking for a reduction or possibly abatement of the fines. Do I hear a motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll make a motion to abate. MR. ORTEGA: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Herminio. All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good. No fines. MR. MORAN: Thank you everybody. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next one is Salgat. Did we have respondents waiting and then I guess left? MS. WALDRON: One of them was for the case that we -- one of them that we withdrew. MR. KAUFMAN: Somebody in a red shirt? (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just real quick, let's read this case in. I'll do it. This is Case No. CESD20100002534, and it is Herbert A. Salgat, Jr. Investigator Paul, is this still not in compliance? MR. PAUL: This is still not in compliance. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you know if they've made any attempts to -- Page 118 July 22, 2010 MR. PAUL: He's not going to do anything. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to impose the fines. MR. LA VINSKI: Second. MS. WALDRON: Let me just state real fast. It's 250 a day for the period between June 27, 2010 to July 22, 2010, 26 days, for a total of 6,500. Fines continue to accrue. Operational cost of 80.57 not paid. Total lien amount $6,580.57. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? MR. ORTEGA: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sir. MR. ORTEGA: You made the statement that he's not going to do anything. How do we know? MR. PAUL: He's told me prior that he's just going to allow the bank to take the house. MR. ORTEGA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. MR. PAUL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next case. This is an imposition of fines, Department Case No. CESD20090015779, Alexander and Joanka C. Diaz Dominguez. The violation still exists. Page 119 July 22, 2010 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. This was a grow house that was-- (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. RODRIGUEZ: This particular property is in Naples Park, and it was a grow house. The property owner, the husband is injail and the wife, we don't expect that she'll be doing anything. It is still out of compliance and so we just want to impose the fines at this point. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to impose-- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Wait, wait. Let's hear Jen. MS. WALDRON: It's $500 a day for the period between June 27,2010 to July 22nd, 2010, 26 days, total of$13,000. Fines continue to accrue. Operational cost of $80.57 have not been paid. Total lien amount, $13,080.57. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to impose. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion passes unanimously. Are there any reports, comments? MS. WALDRON: Yes, I have Ms. Flagg's foreclosure report. As of today, there have been 19,351 foreclosures since January of 2008. There were 7,872 foreclosures in 2008. 8,366 foreclosures in Page 120 July 22, 2010 2009. 3,113 foreclosures in 2010 through the month of June. As of through July 19th, 2010, the banks have expended $1,642,000 to abate violations and have abated 1,247 cases. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good. Thank you. Thanks for all your hard work. If there's nothing else, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to adjourn. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: We'll see you next month, August 26th, 2010, back here in the chambers. Thank you. ***** Page 121 July 22, 2010 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:41 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Kenneth Kelly, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on presented or as corrected as Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 122