The URL can be used to link to this page

CEB Minutes 10/28/2010 R 16 I TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE RECEIVED CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD DEC 0 2 2010 Naples, Florida .l Fiala poem of county Comrnlssones October 28, 2010 Henning Coyle Colette LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Kenneth Kelly Larry Dean Ron Doino, Alternate 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 Misc. Cones: Date: 0 3 02 i t Page 1 Item#: illbtk) CcpifeS to: CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA Date: October 28, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. Location: 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Building F, Naples, FL 34104 NOTICE: THE RESPONDENT MAYBE LIMITED TO TWENTY (20) MINUTES FOR CASE PRESENTATION UNLESS ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE BOARD. PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. ALL PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN THE PUBLIC HEARING ARE ASKED TO OBSERVE ROBERTS RULES OF ORDER AND SPEAK ONE AT A TIME SO THAT THE COURT REPORTER CAN RECORD ALL STATEMENTS BEING MADE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. l. ROLL CALL Kenneth Kelly, Chair Robert Kaufman, Vice Chair Gerald Lefebvre James Lavinski Larry Dean Lionel L' Esperance Herminio Ortega Tony Marino, Alternate Ronald Doino, Alternate 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - A. September 23, 2010 Hearing 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. MOTIONS Motion for Extension of Time 1. Charles D. Brown CESD20090013027 2. Mr. 99 Cents Inc. 2007050898 B. STIPULATIONS C. HEARINGS I. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: CESD20100009388 ALVUS M. PERKIN INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION I 0.02.06(B)(1 )(a) UNPERMITTED ANIMAL ENCLOSURE/SHEL TER 38160480008 631 I COPPER LEAF LANE NAPLES, FL CEsmOl00009316 MALCOLM GIANELLA INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(I)(a) GARAGE WAS CONVERTED TO STORAGE SPACE WITH NO PERMITS 36239440007 5097 20'H CT SW NAPLES, FL CEsmOl00017039 ERIC & DAYLE WESTOVER INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LA WS, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE ll, SECTION 22-26(b) SEBSECTlON (104.5.1.4.4) PERMIT # 1999110448 FOR THE POOL WAS ABANDONED AND NEVER COED 3822680001 5891 STAR GRASS LANE NAPLES, FL 4. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO.: VIOLA TlON ADDRESS: 5. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA nONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TlON ADDRESS: 7. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TlONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5. OLD BUSINESS CESD20090017892 JESSREAL ESTATE LLC.. LIS HOLDINGS LLC. INVESTIGATOR JOSEPH MUCHA COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(I)(a) PERMIT TO REPAIR THE ROOF THAT HAS NOT COMPLETED ALL INSPECTIONS AND NOT RECEIVED A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY/COMPLETION LAST INSPECTION WAS ON MARCH 4, 20 I 0 35767280002 1700 42NI) ST SW NAPLES, FL CELU20100008361 KATHERINE SMITH INVESTIGATOR JOSEPH MUCHA COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-4 I AS AMENDED, SECTION 2.02.03 UNLICENSED AND INOPERABLE VEHICLES BEING STORED ON THE PROPERTY 00188600005 210 ROSE BLVD. NAPLES, FL CELU20100009076 KATHERINE SMITH INVESTIGATOR JOSEPH MUCHA COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 1.04.01(A) AND 2.02.03 STRUCTURE PERMITTED AS A STORAGE BUILDING BEING UTILIZED FOR LIVING PURPOSES. RECREATIONAL VEHICLES LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY THA T ARE ALSO BEING UTILIZED FOR LIVING PURPOSES 00188600005 210 ROSE BLVD. NAPLES, FL CEsm0090014178 BIG CYPRESS VENTURES, INC. INVESTIGATOR JAMES SEABASTY FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2004 EDITION, CHAPTER I PERMITS, SECTION 105.1 BUILDING AND LAND ALTERATION PERMITS. COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(I)(a) SEVERAL ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS BEING MADE WITHOUT A PROPER PERMIT BEING ISSUED AND OR POSTED. SEVERAL STRUCTURES AND OR ADDITIONS/ALTERATIONS ERECTED INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: ELECTRIC, PLUMBING WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE REQUIRED COLLEIR COUNTY PERMITS I 15800003 18400 BURNS ROAD OCHOPEE, FL A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens I. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TlONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TlONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: CEAU20090015258 IVY JEAN NEBUS, JUDY ANN BLAKE, BETTY JO ROBERTSON INVESTIGATOR HEINZ BOX COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-4 I, AS AMENDED, SECTION 5.03.02(A) AND THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2004 EDITION, CHAPTER I SECTION, 105.1 UNMAINT AINED, UNPERMITTED FENCE 275560003 3991 MERCANTILE A VENUE NAPLES, FL CEsm0090002945 LISA DASHER INVESTIGA TOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(I)(e)(i), FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2004 EDlTlON, CHAPTER I PERMITS SECTION 105.1 PATIO IN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY WITHOUT A COLLIER COUNTY PERMIT 25577800404 3551 CARSON LAKES CIRCLE IMMOKALEE, FL CEsm0090017586 MARIA ALMA PLUNKETT INVESTIGA TOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-4 I, AS AMENDED, SECTION 1O.02.06(B)(I)(a) A CARPORT AND A ROOM ADDED TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A COLLIER COUNTY PERMIT 128520006 190IIMMOKALEE DR.IMMOKALEE, FL CESD200900 17585 MARIA ALMA PLUNKETT INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1 )(a) A CARPORT AND A SHED CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT PERMITS 128480007 1809 IMMOKALEE DR. IMMOKALEE, FL CENA20100002928 PALM LAKE, LLC. INVESTIGATOR AZURE SORRELS COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 54, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54-181 AND SECTION 54-179 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 E. NAPLES, FL 6. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 7. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 8. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 9. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION CEPM20100004292 PALM LAKE, LLC. INVESTIGATOR AZURE SORRELS COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22-231 (II) ELECTRICAL WIRING RUNNING TO THE MOBILE HOMES ARE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT NATIONAL 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 E. NAPLES, FL CEV20100003082 PALM LAKE, LLC. INVESTIGA TOR AZURE SORRELS COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 2.01 .OO(A) APPROXIMATELY NINE UNLICENSED/INOPERABLE VEHICLES ARE PARKED/STORED ON PROPERTY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOTS 38,31,27,18,9 AND TWO VEHICLES ACROSS FROM LOT 5 61842240009 3131 TAMIAMI TRAIL E. NAPLES, FL CESD20100004059 PALM LAKE, LLC. INVESTIGA TOR AZURE SORRELS COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION ] 0.02.06(B)( I )(a) AND I 0.02.06(B)( I )(e)(i) AND COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE ll, SECTION 22-26(B)(l04.1.3.5) PROPERTY HAS SEVERAL UNPERMITTED STRUCTURES, ADDITIONS, AND/OR ALTERATIONS TO SHEDS, CARPORTS, SCREENED ENCLOSURES, SCREENED SCREENED ENCLOSURES CONVERTED INTO LIVING SPACE, ADDITIONAL ROOMS, INSTALLAnON/ALTERATIONS MADE ELECTRICAL WIRING, AND INSTALLATION/ AL TERA TIONS MADE TO PLUMBING WORK 61842240009 3131 TAMIAMI TRAIL E. NAPLES, FL CEPM20100003098 PALM LAKE, LLC. INVESTIGATOR AZURE SORRELS COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LA WS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22-231(12)(n), SECTION 22-231(I2)(m), SECTION 22-23I(12)(b), SECTION 22-231(16), SECTION 22-231(I2)(c), SECTION 22-242(b), SECTION 22-23I(12)(i), AND SECTION 22-24 I (I)(e) MULTIPLE LOTS IN PALM LAKE HAVE SEVERAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE VIOLATIONS. 61842240009 ADDRESS: 3131 TAMIAMI TRAIL E. NAPLES, FL B. Motion for Reduction of Fines/Lien C, Motion to Rescind Order I. J. Peaceful LC. CELU20090010758 6, NEW BUSINESS 7, CONSENT AGENDA A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens B. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. 8. REPORTS 9, COMMENTS 10. NEXT MEETING DATE - November 18, 2010 located at Growth Management Division Planning & Regulation 2800 N, Horseshoe Dr, Naples, FL Conference Room 609/610 II. ADJOURN 16 hi B CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right, good morning. I'd like to call to order the Code Enforcement Board, Collier County, this October meeting. Notice: The respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation, unless additional time is granted by the Board. Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes, unless the time is adjusted by the Chair. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Robert's Rules of Order and speak one at a time so the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any 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, please. 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. LAVINSKI: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Larry Dean? Mr. Larry Dean? MR. DEAN: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. Larry, here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Herminio Ortega? Page 2 16111 tAer 28 2010 MR. ORTEGA: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Ron Doino? MR. DOINO: Here. MS. WALDRON: And Mr. Tony Marino is absent. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Moving on to the agenda, do we have any changes? MS. WALDRON: We do. Under number four, public hearings, motions, letter -- I'm sorry, under C, hearings, number four, case CESD20090017892, JESSREAL Estate LLC, LIS Holdings, LLC has been withdrawn. And number seven, Case No. CESD20090014178, Big Cypress Ventures, Inc, has been withdrawn. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, with that, do I hear an approval for the agenda? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve. MR. KAUFMAN: 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. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. Now on to the approval of the minutes from the September 23rd hearing. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to approve. Page 3 Q 1 6 1 1 ; 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. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? MR. DEAN: One abstain. CHAIRMAN KELLY: One abstention, Mr. Dean. Now moving on to public hearings, A, motions, number one, Charles D. Brown. We have a request for an extension of time. (Speaker duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: Good morning. Mr. Brown was supposed to be here this morning. I don't have any excuse why he's not here. He's asking for an extension of time. He does have one permit that the Board required him to get, but he also has another permit. The extenuating circumstances involved in this is that he hired a contractor that was not allowed to work in Collier County, he wasn't certified to work in Collier County. He paid for the gentleman up front for the work. And unfortunately, I guess, the gentleman invested his money that was paid to him in something else. And so he's in the process of getting his money back so he can hire another contractor. The contractor that he had for the first permit was not qualified to do the roof, that's why he had to get the second contractor. The county would not object to an extension of time. I talked with the investigator this morning. He requested that if you grant an extension of time, that would be no more than six months. No more Page 4 161 1 BCtOb28, 2OlO than six months. MR. KAUFMAN: Question. Was the $81.15 paid? MR. SCOTT: I don't believe so. MR. KAUFMAN: Can you hear me now? The Verizon commercial. He was given 120 days originally, February 5th. MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: Then he was given another 120 days. What has been done and when was it done? MR. SNOW: Well, he does have a permit that's had one inspection. The one permit was pulled on 6/1/2010. He does have an inspection for that. That has to do with the fascia and the toilet on the interior. He did pay the other contractor in good faith to get the roof permit. But again, the roof contractor was not certified to work in Collier County, that's why that part wasn't done. The investigator feels that he has been somewhat diligent in doing what he's supposed to do. MR. DEAN: Well, his letter also states that he's waiting to get his money back from the person he gave it to, which probably will never happen. So six months from now we're going to be in the same position. If he's waiting for money from someone he gave it to, they're not coming back. MR. SNOW: Well, I understand he's supposed to get it back this month, or back in November. That's what he says. It's up for the Board to decide is the veracity of his statements. MR. LEFEBVRE: How much work needs to be done on the roof? MR. SNOW: He replaced a couple of panels. It's a tin roof and he replaced some holes in that. Talking to the investigator this morning, this is a triplex and there are people living in it. I asked him the question did he feel it was a Page 5 1611 Q ys= U 6 ctosii 28, 2010 health and safety issue, and he said no. Again, that's up to the Board's discretion. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we extend it for 60 more days from today's hearing. MR. KAUFMAN: I second that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seeing none, all in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Grant it for 60 days. MR. SNOW: Thank the Board. MR. KAUFMAN: One quick item on this one. The 81.15 which was supposed to be paid 30 days after February 4th, I would expect that that would be paid within the 60 days also. MR. SNOW: We'll request that, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: You want me to amend my motion? CHAIRMAN KELLY: It was just a request. If you wanted to go through a full blown, we could. However, it is part of the original charging documents. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay, we'll leave it at that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next case would be Mr. 99 Cents, Inc. Again, this is a request for extension. Morning. Are you the attorney representing? If we could, let's go ahead and swear the other two parties in. Page 6 161 1 of?ober 18, 2010 (Speakers duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. MR. KRAUS: Michael Kraus (phonetic) on behalf of respondent Mr. 99 Cents. We're here today to request an extension of six months to comply with the board's decision on removal of the non-compliant structure. The extenuating circumstances requiring this request include that Mr. Hassam, the manager and officer of the corporation, was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma last year and has been unable to work at the store. In addition, as with many businesses, the business has suffered a severe reduction in revenue during the past 12 months in excess of almost 40 percent. So financially there's a hardship as well. We have just last month obtained a third estimate, which is the lowest estimate thus far, that we feel is an appropriate amount that we can move forward with and are therefore prepared within the next six-month period to complete the removal of the structure. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the Board? MR. KAUFMAN: I have two. Was the $86.71 paid within 30 days of the last hearing? CHAIRMAN KELLY: It's paid. MR. KAUFMAN: It is paid? MR. SNOW: I don't know the answer to that question. MS. WALDRON: (Nods head affirmatively.) MR. KRAUS: I do believe so, but I do not have an answer to that question. MR. KAUFMAN: And my next question is on number five, which is actually number six, it says respondent shall provide monthly updates in written form to code enforcement for the next year. Have any of those updates been presented? MR. SNOW: Every month, sir. And if I may add, part of the provisions of what this Board Page 7 1611 gt§ber 28, 2010 required, that the electric be turned off and there was no use associated with that particular structure on the property. They have done that well. So we do receive monthly updates. And they have vacated that part of-- that structure is not being utilized at all and the electricity is off on that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Again, what was the time frame you said? MR. KRAUS: Six months, please. MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion that we extend it for six months, as requested by the respondent's attorney. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Dean. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Granted a six-month extension. MR. SNOW: Thank the Board. MR. KRAUS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That concludes the motions -- or letter A, motions. There's no stipulations, so we now move on to hearings. Case number one, Alvus Perkin. Page 8 16U186 October 28, 2010 I saw Investigator Paul a second ago. He might be in the hall. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Chair, I believe we have two stipulations that are coming in as well from Investigator Mucha. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you have them now, we might be able to just quickly amend the agenda and get them in. MS. WALDRON: The first one is number five under hearings, Case CELU20100008361, Katherine Smith. And the second one is number six on the agenda, Case CELU20100009076, Katherine Smith. MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion that we amend the agenda. 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. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, we'll hear the first case for Smith, and that will end in 8361. (Speakers duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Cherie', you do have the respondents behind you. (Speakers duly sworn.) MR. MUCHA: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Joe Mucha, Collier County Code Enforcement. Page 9 1611 RA Oct l er 28, 2010 I met with the property owner Katherine Smith on both of these cases -- can I do them both at the same time or do one at a time or -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: We're going to vote on them separately, but if they're related, sure. MR. MUCHA: I'll start with CELU20100008361. I met with Respondent Katherine Smith this morning. She agreed that she was in violation. She also agrees to pay operational costs in the amount of $79.72 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; to abate all violations by: must obtain and affix current valid license plate to each vehicle/trailer not stored within the confines of a completely enclosed structure, and must repair defects so each vehicle is immediately operable or store said vehicles within a completely enclosed structure and/or remove offending vehicles/trailers from agriculturally zoned property within 14 days of this hearing or a fine of$50 a day until violation is abated. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator to perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Do you understand and agree to everything that the investigator just read and that you signed earlier? MS. SMITH: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN KELLY: The question the Board is going to have is 14 days long for you to get the license plates necessary and to get the vehicles in operable -- MR. SMITH: Well, all I have left is one vehicle, a semi truck. And my uncle is coming down at the first of the month, and I was going to cut it up and scrap it. I hate to do it because I've got a lot of Page 10 16 II 1 86 October 28, 2010 money invested in the truck. But he told me to hold off if I could until he got here. I think he had a buyer for it. If not, I'm just going to have to have them tow it to the scrapyard and get it out of there. And as far as the building goes, all it is is a matter of me just -- I have to pull the drywall back down. So -- MS. SMITH: That's on the -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: We'll take the vehicles first just so we can keep the conversation separate. Because we're going to vote on them separately. MR. SMITH: Well, everything else other than the semi is tagged. I have one in the back that I've already got three-quarters of the way cut up. And that shouldn't be no problem, you know, 14 days I should have that done. And like I say, the other truck, if he don't have a buyer for it where I can get it out there, I would just tow it to a scrapyard. I don't have no other choice. MR. KAUFMAN: Would you feel more comfortable if it was a month, 30 days rather than -- MR. SMITH: Yes, sir, I would, I would really appreciate that, because I'm not in very good health. It would help me a lot. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there any other discussion? MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion that we amend the stipulation that's written, extend the date to the 30 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. Page 11 161 1 ct er 28, 2010 MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: They're going to change the original copy, and they'll have you initial right where the changes were made. It's now 30 days. MR. SMITH: Thank you very much. MS. SMITH: Thank you, guys. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We'll go ahead and move just quickly to the second case. And Investigator, if you want to read it in. MR. MUCHA: Yes. For the record, Joe Mucha, Investigator, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is Case No. CELU20100009076. Met with respondent Katherine Smith this morning. She agrees that she is in violation. And she has agreed to pay operational costs in the amount of$80 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; abate all violations by: must cease all use of the storage building for living purposes immediately and obtain all applicable permits, inspections and certificates of completion/occupancy, remove unpermitted alterations to storage building and return storage building to a permitted state within 14 days of this hearing or a fine of$100 per day until violation is abated. Must cease all use of recreational vehicles for living purposes located on the property within 14 days of this hearing or a fine of$100 per day until violation is abated. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the County Page 12 16 14 b6 October 28, 2010 may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. I have to ask you again, do you agree with everything that the investigator just read? MS. SMITH: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And I'll open it up to the Board for any questions. MR. KAUFMAN: Is anybody living there right now? MR. SMITH: I was living there, sir. I've redone the house. She's got custody of two of her grandchildren -- MS. SMITH: Three of them. MR. SMITH: Three of her grand -- grand -- great-grand kids. And I just -- I had no place in the house where I could stay -- I just now got on my disability. I got no way of-- I can't afford no place else to live. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If I can, Investigator, it says here also permits necessary. Is this a demo situation or -- MR. MUCHA: He needs to remove some drywall and electrical stuff. So I believe it could be a demo situation. You know, that's why I'd recommend for them to go down to the Building Department and explain what they need to do and if they need to pull a permit to remove those items, yes. MS. SMITH: I went down and she wouldn't even talk to me about a permit because the garage was not joined to the house. MR. MUCHA: I think when you were trying to see if you could permit it to turn it into living space, correct? MS. SMITH: Yes, so he could sleep out there at night. I was going to make just a bedroom out of it. MR. LEFEBVRE: There would be impact fees and so forth that would have to be paid also, correct? MR. MUCHA: Correct. Page 13 16111 486 October 28, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: If we could just clarify your intentions, are they to remove the drywall and the electric and turn it back into a storage room, or do you plan on trying to live in it? MR. SMITH: Well, if they're not going to give me a permit, there's no way I can live in it. I would just have to remove the drywall and electric and store everything in it. I don't even have room in the house. I mean, you know, I have to store my clothes and stuff out there. I don't have no space whatsoever in the house. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sure, I appreciate that. But you understand that we're concerned about your safety as well, and if you're living in a structure that hasn't been permitted and properly inspected -- MR. SMITH: No, I was going to stay in the house. I'm just going to have to store my stuff out there in one of the rooms. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, the next question would be, again, would 14 days give you enough time to remove the drywall, the electric, and to -- MR. SMITH: That's what I would like to ask whether you can make that 30 days also so I could work on them both together. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any response from the Board? MR. KAUFMAN: No objection. MR. DOINO: I have a question. When you walk in -- have you been inside the structure? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. MR. DOINO: When you walk in there, what do you see? Rooms? MR. MUCHA: I have pictures, if you -- MR. DOINO: Can we -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'd rather not hear the case. If we show the pictures, we usually have to open it up to a full case, and then that becomes part of-- Page 14 161186 October 28, 2010 MR. DOINO: Okay. The reason for my question was that I don't think 14 days is going to be enough. MR. MUCHA: I agree with the 30 days. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I think the Board's in consensus with the extended time. MR. LEFEBVRE: Let me just -- maybe this will simplify it. How many square feet are we talking about? MR. MUCHA: It's not very big -- MR. LEFEBVRE: A one-car garage, two-car garage? MR. MUCHA: Well, it's not the whole garage. Only a section of the garage has been closed off, like, kind of like --just basically a bedroom. MR. LEFEBVRE: Like a 12 by 12 room? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: I think extending the time is certainly the right thing to do. Thirty days you think would be sufficient time? MR. SMITH: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: And if you can't get it done in 30 days, if you could notify Code Enforcement and then we can take a bite out of that apple when it comes about. MR. SMITH: Okay, I appreciate that, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: In the meantime, I would like to make a motion that we agree to the stipulation with the -- a modification of the date to 30 days. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah, the only thing I have, is typically when we have these situations we ask that the place be vacated. I'm wondering if that would be appropriate in this particular case within a shorter period of time. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I believe the respondent agreed to moving out of that and back into the house -- Page 15 1bIr 86 Fl October 28, 2010 MR. SMITH: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- and I think the request of the Board is that you would do that immediately because of the health and safety issue that it creates. MR. SMITH: I'm just going to use the garage like I said just to store my clothes in right now and to work out of. I've got to be there to try to work on it out there. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great, thank you. Will that suffice that we've put it on the record? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? MS. RAWSON: Can I ask a question? Are you leaving the second part, the 14 days to remove the recreational vehicles? MR. KAUFMAN: That was modified to 30 days. MS. RAWSON: I thought that was the first part. MR. KAUFMAN: That was the first case. MR. LEFEBVRE: Recreational vehicles are on this case also. MR. KAUFMAN: Oh, yes, same thing, 30 days. MS. RAWSON: Thirty days for both. MR. KAUFMAN: Right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And Gerald, do you agree with that? MR. LEFEBVRE: I didn't second it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oh, I'm sorry. Lionel? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Yes, I agree. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, sir? MR. SMITH: Yes, sir, the only recreational vehicle that is left out there -- I mean, like I say, I have one of them that's three-quarters of the way turned down. It's almost down to nothing but the frame. I've been scrapping on that every day. And the only other recreational vehicle out there is licensed and plated. And nobody is living in there. My uncle just left it. He lives Page 16 161186 r4 October 28, 2010 in Kentucky and he's got property down there. And when he was down there he bought a tractor and stuff and he left his trailer so he could haul his tractor back. But nobody's living in it and it is tagged. It's just tagged in Kentucky. But that's where it's titled at. CHAIRMAN KELLY: The investigator says that's acceptable. Very good. Okay, all in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. It's been 30 days on all of those. I appreciate your help. MS. SMITH: Thank you, guys. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You're welcome. Good luck. That's the end of our stipulations. Now moving on to hearings, part C, number one -- MS. WALDRON: Mr. Chair, we do have one more stipulation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oh, you do. MS. WALDRON: It is number two on the agenda, Case CESD20100009316, Malcolm Gianella. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We technically need to amend the agenda. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to amend the agenda. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? Page 17 1611861 ri October 28, 2010 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Amended. (Speakers duly sworn.) MR. PAUL: Good morning. For the record, Renald Paul, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20100009316, dealing with violations of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), garage was converted to storage space with no permits. Mr. Gianelli (sic) has agreed to the stipulation. He has agreed to pay the operational costs in the amount of$81.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days. Respondent is required to obtain any and all permits as required by Collier County for any and all improvements and alterations to the residence, or obtain permits for removal of all unpermitted improvements to this property and obtain all required inspections and certificate of completion within 120 days of this hearing or be fined $200 a day for each day the violation remains unabated. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may Page 18 1611 c obey 28, 2010 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. And he has signed the stipulation agreed to this. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. So you understand the stipulated agreement and agree to it? MR. GIANELLA: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Are there any questions from the Board? MR. KAUFMAN: I have one question that probably is more of a generic question. What's the difference between a garage and a storage area? Is that the door that -- MR. PAUL: Well, what's happened is whoever owned the property before him has put up walls, and you can't even fit a vehicle into this garage anymore. All it can be used is for storage now. There isn't very much room to even really walk into it now. A conversion -- well, some people when they do conversions, they make it into like a room you can actually live in. You can't live in this room. That's the only thing you can use it for is storage. MR. LEFEBVRE: And you bought this property through foreclosure; is that correct? MR. GIANELLA: Correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there electric and what-not added? MR. PAUL: I didn't see any electric that was added, but I was only there for a brief moment. I don't believe there's any electric that has been added, but Mr. Gianelli (sic) could confirm that for you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's okay. Just curious as to whether or not a violation exists if it's just a storage room. You're not -- MR. PAUL: Well, they still have to get a permit to permit it has a storage. But Mr. Gianelli (sic) as of right now, he has a permit that's in apply status to change the room to something different. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. Page 19 161R 6 Octo er 28, 2010 MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thanks very much. MR. GIANELLA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any further stips? MS. WALDRON: (Shakes head negatively.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sure? MR. DEAN: Going once. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Now moving on to hearings. Number one is Alvus Perkin. Renald, I was just trying to catch you before you took off for the hall. (Speaker duly sworn.) MR. PAUL: For the record, Renald Paul, Code Enforcement -- MS. WALDRON: I have to go first. This is in reference to violation of Ordinance Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Description of violation: Unpermitted animal enclosure/shelter. Location/address where violation exists: 6311 Copper Leaf Lane, Naples, Florida, 34116. Folio #38160480008. Page 20 161 ' 1 B6 Fl October 28, 2010 Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Alvus M. Perkins, 6311 Copper Leaf Lane, Naples, Florida, 34116. Date violation first observed: July 19th, 2010. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: August 25th, 2010. Day on/by which violation to be corrected: September 25th, 2010. Date of reinspection: September 30th, 2010. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. MR. PAUL: For the record, Renald Paul, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20100009388, dealing with violations of Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), unpermitted animal enclosure/shelter, location at 6311 Copper Leaf Lane, Naples, Florida, 34116. Service was given on August 25th, 2010. I'd like to present case evidence in the following exhibits. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibits. 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. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? Page 21 16I .' 6 October 28, 2010 (No response.) MR. PAUL: It will be Exhibits B-1 through 3 and C-1 and C-2. And as you'll see through the first three pictures, these are just pictures of animal enclosures. I'm assuming that's where the horses were going. And C-1 is the original building permit application from '77. This is quite old. I don't see anything on there that says animal enclosures as such. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Were permits required back in 1977 for these type of improvements? MR. PAUL: I would believe so. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Do we need to confirm that, or is that a fair assumption? MR. DOINO: That is a fair assumption. MR. PAUL: It's a fair assumption, I believe. And the next picture is a picture of the '77 survey. As you can see, none of these structures are on this survey. The only thing that's on there is the house and the driveway. MR. KAUFMAN: Could you go back to the previous page? So the application that we have in front of us now is for a building permit. Is that for the whole structure or is that for the animal structures? MR. PAUL: It's for the animal structures. MR. KAUFMAN: For almost $49,000 in 1977. It must have been quite a structure. MR. DOINO: This was the house permit, I believe. MR. PAUL: That's the house permit. I'm just showing that there's not showing any, like extra things on there that show any kind of animal structure or anything. I would assume it would have probably been under other or something like that. MR. KAUFMAN: And the zoning in that area does permit horses? Page 22 l6IrlB6 October 28, 2010 MR. PAUL: Yes. MR. DOINO: It would have been a separate permit anyway, it wouldn't have been a -- MR. PAUL: Correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Cherie', could you swear him in. (Speaker duly sworn.) MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Supervisor Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. rrequest to submit one more piece of evidence. Could we call this C-3. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. 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. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) MR. LETOURNEAU: This is the property card from the Property Appraiser's. As you can see, they've recorded every permit that's ever been issued for this particular piece of property. The original house permit is on that property card. There has been no other permits recorded for this piece of property. And I believe you can see there was an improvement -- I've got to look at it again here. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I was going to say, added in 1980. MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. That was -- I believe that was Page 23 16 1 B6 ctober 28, 2010 probably the improvements after the original house was built. And as you can see, there was no permit applied for or obtained for that improvement. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I think the question by Lionel was whether or not a permit was necessary for that type of structure in 1979 when it was built. MR. LETOURNEAU: I would -- to be honest with you, I believe it was, but I'm not the expert on -- I'm not the expert on that. I think it was, though. CHAIRMAN KELLY: In our packet, the charging packet, you're listing 04-41 referencing the building code and the ordinance to adhere to the code. But if this was built back then, I think we need to go to that code, and at that time did it require permits? MR. LEFEBVRE: Maybe one thing is, one way of determining when this was put on this property was look at aerials from -- a snapshot of aerials. If that's -- there's a way to do that. And first of all, I don't think that we should review this case. I think it maybe should be continued until we find out if in fact we can -- (Speaker duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: For the record, Kitchell Snow, Collier County Code Enforcement. We've had to do extensive research in Immokalee to go back, because Immokalee is such an old community. We've gone back all the way to -- the first available one is 1969, and permits were required for structures from 1969 on. That's the earliest one we've got. So the obvious truth is that permits were required for this structure, definitively. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I think the question is not necessarily a structure, but this particular type of structure, an ag. structure that's not really -- it's kind of one of those in between, it's not necessarily even a shed or a storage room. MR. SNOW: A structure on ag. property would not require a Page 24 16I p. B6 October 28, 2010 permit if it was in conjunction with a bona fide ag. use. And I don't believe there's any bona fide ag. use associated with this property. It has to be associated with that particular use on the property. For instance, if it was a cattle rancher and he wanted to place a pole barn out there, then that's associated with the use on that property. There was no use attached to this property, so therefore there can't be any ag. exemption. And that's what you're speaking of, an ag. exemption, correct? CHAIRMAN KELLY: I believe so. MR. KAUFMAN: Have you had any conversation with the respondent? MR. LETOURNEAU: I believe the respondent was pretty hostile to the investigator. We would agree with Mr. Lefebvre's request, though, to continue this at a future date and research it a little bit more as far as whether or not this permit was required at that time. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think if you determine when -- if you can determine through aerials when it was actually put on the property, then you can look at the LDC and make sure that in fact it was -- it needed a permit. And then I think that would make your case a lot stronger, just in my -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, I believe according to the property card, the appraiser went out there in 1980 and did observe the structure going up there. But I'll get a definitive answer on whether or not they needed a permit for this particular structure or not, if we can continue it at a later date. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Actually, just thinking out loud, I'm kind of opposed to that. I think we've been presented with a case. I don't think the documentation supports it. And I know that Supervisor Snow's knowledge is credible, but that's not necessarily definitive documentation. And I just think the county failed to prove this one, and I think it Page 25 161 1 B6 ml October 28, 2010 should be ruled that no violation exists. I don't think it should be tabled so the government gets the opportunity to find more ammunition to prove their case at a later date, especially if the respondent's not here. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is that a motion? CHAIRMAN KELLY: No, I can't make -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, this -- if it's continued, then it will give an opportunity for the respondent to be here. And I think that would be the way to go. I guess at this point should I make a motion? CHAIRMAN KELLY: It's up to you. All I was merely stating was, you know, we're not here to do the business of the county, we're really here as kind of a community advisory board to look at both sides. And we try to be as fair and as balanced as possible. That's not a Fox commercial, you know, I was just throwing that out. Whichever way the Board wants to go. I just figured I'd put that out there. MR. KAUFMAN: Can I ask some more questions on the discussion that you had with the respondent? Is there any particular reason why the respondent's not here today, or did the respondent say that I didn't need a -- how did the conversation go? MR. PAUL: Originally when I was at the residence, I was actually there for a different violation. He just made some threats he was going to shoot me and so on. So I left the property. That's pretty MR. KAUFMAN: Is that a code violation? MR. PAUL: But that's pretty much where the conversation ended. He just threatened me and then he told me to get off his property. And I've never had another conversation with him. MR. DEAN: Can I ask a question? How long has this Mr. Perkin lived at the residence? Any idea? Is he -- for his permit to be 19 -- Page 26 16 ! B6 '4, October 28, 2010 MR. PAUL: It's been quite a while. I don't know offhand -- MR. LEFEBVRE: January, 1987 is when the deed -- MR. DEAN: Is that what it said when he occupied? MR. LEFEBVRE: That's when there was a deed in the back of our package, the last page of our packet. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If it's the county's position to withdraw it, you have the right to. It's up to you. MR. LETOURNEAU: At this point the county would request to withdraw this case. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, case withdrawn. That brings us to number three under hearings, which would be Eric and Dayle Westover. And to the Board, there was a letter added at your seat this morning as part of this case. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of Ordinance Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Article 2, Section 22 to 26.B, subsection 104.5.1.4.4. Description of violation: Permit number 1999110448 for the pool was abandoned and never C.O.'d. Location/address where violation exists: 5891 Star Grass Lane, Naples, Florida, 34116. Folio #3822680001. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Eric and Dayle Westover, 312 West Thatch Palm Circle, Jupiter, Florida, 33458. Date violation first observed: August 16th, 2010. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: August 25th, 2010. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: September 19th, 2010. Date of reinspection: September 21st, 2010. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. Page 27 1611B6 w1 October 28, 2010 MR. PAUL: For the record, Renald Paul, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20100017039, dealing with violations of Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Article 2, Section 22-26.B, subsections 104.5.1.4, abandoned pool permit, location at 5891 Star Grass Lane, Naples, Florida. Service was given August 25th, 2010. I'd like to present case evidence in the following exhibits. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the evidence. 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. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. PAUL: I'd like to present Exhibit B-1, which shows a picture of the pool in the back of the residence. Kind of blurry. It's through a screen. And Exhibit C-1, which is the inspection history of the original permit. As you'll see towards the bottom, there was two inspections that was not completed. It was the final electrical and the final pool that was not completed. And at this time this permit is on canceled status. This case began on 8/16 of 2010. I was on-site. I observed that Page 28 161 1B6 October 28, 2010 -- the pool in the rear yard. At that time I took photos. And after research at the office found that prior owners had obtained Permit No. 1999110448 and had completed all inspections except for the two. As I said, at this time the permit is in canceled status. At that time the property was in lis pendens, and I had forwarded the case to our foreclosure team to see if they could work with the bank on getting this resolved. The notice of violation was sent out certified mail because property owners do not live in this county. On 9/21 of 2010 after research found that there was no permits applied for. I hadn't received a phone call from the property owner, and the return receipt was signed and returned to us. On 9/25 I returned to the site. Violation still remained. Still hadn't received a phone call from the property owner. And after that I prepped the case for the hearing. On 10/1 of 2010, I posted a notice of hearing at the residence and the courthouse and we're here today. Violation still remains. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. I think service was done well, because we did get a letter from the respondent stating to the facts. So I don't think that's an issue. Do we have any questions? MR. KAUFMAN: Is this also a violation because it's a pool that's obviously stagnant and green? MR. PAUL: Yes, it is. There is another case. MR. KAUFMAN: There's another case on that? MR. PAUL: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: First we need to find if a violation exists. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion that we find the respondent in violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) Page 29 B6 16I l i October 28, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, violation exists. Does the county have a recommendation? MR. PAUL: We ask that the Board order the respondents to pay all operational costs in the amount of$81.15 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Respondents' required to obtain any and all permits as required by Collier County for the pool or obtain permits for removal of the pool and obtain all required inspections and certificate of completion within "X" amount of days of this hearing or be fined "X" amount of dollars for each day that the violation remains unabated. 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: Any discussion, questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would anyone like to fill in the blanks? MR. KAUFMAN: I'll give it a stab. It looks like they're going to -- if this is -- I think this is in Page 30 16t1B6 October 28, 2010 foreclosure, which will probably muddy the waters a little bit. But should somebody try to fix this, they would have to get a permit. MR. PAUL: Correct. MR. KAUFMAN: And that would probably require, I don't think it's -- it would take more than 60 days to get a permit and have the last two inspections. I don't know if that existing permit can be redone or -- MR. PAUL: They would probably have to apply for a new one. MR. KAUFMAN: So I would recommend that fines start accruing after 60 days. The amount of fine would be $100 a day. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: To clarify, we're accepting county's recommendation, 60 days with $100 per day fine. Any discussion? MR. ORTEGA: Yes. Because they are final inspections, or the two are final inspections, the county may open that up to clean it up, so you don't have to redo it from day one. MR. KAUFMAN: I don't know if this is a separate case that may be before the magistrate as far as the maintenance on this pool. MR. PAUL: Yes, it would be a separate case -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Ortega -- MR. PAUL: -- if they choose not to clean it. MR. ORTEGA: For time's sake. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I think you're saying that they might not have to re-app it, they would just simply open it, just for the finals. MR. ORTEGA: Because it's finals now. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Maybe it would be quicker than -- MR. ORTEGA: Perhaps. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We do have a motion. We have a second. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? Page 31 16 I ' 1` B6 "I October 28, 2010 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sixty days and $100 per day. MR. PAUL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And that's the -- looks like the end of our public hearings. However, we do have one interesting situation. The attorney for Palm Lake, LLC, who has five cases being presented to us today for imposition of fines was in court this morning and wanted to come speak to us and I believe ask for an extension of time. He submitted a letter, two-page letter that basically describes all of the work that they have done towards the five cases. And in the conclusion he alludes to an extension request, but yet does not state it. If we start hearing those cases, you know, typically the way it works is we either vote up or down on it. And if that's the case, fines would start to accrue. I wanted to see if I could maybe poll the Board and see if the Board was willing to grant an extension given the written letter or if it's something where we just want to go ahead, impose the fines with the understanding that we could always abate them later. MR. LEFEBVRE: Mr. Kelly, question I have for you. Was he planning on coming to this meeting after the court case? CHAIRMAN KELLY: He said he would get out of court at 10:45, 10:15, something like that, today. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Chair, what we could do is hear these Page 32 1611 B6 October 28, 2010 other impositions of fine first and see if he is here, and then deal with it if he's not here. At that time then we can amend the agenda if he is here to request -- MR. KAUFMAN: Or we could take a one-hour break. MS. RAWSON: Well, you never know when you're going to get out of court. I mean, that was his best estimate, but, you know, without any control of that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I like Jen's idea. We do have respondents waiting in the audience. Let's go ahead and move on. We'll go ahead and move to old business. Case number one, which is Ivy Jean Nebus, Judy Aim Blake and Betty Jo Robertson. And I believe there is correspondence in your packet. It was part of your packet that was left here this morning to go with this case. Investigator, if we could swear you in, please. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. BOX: For the record, my name is Investigator Box. I'm with the Code Enforcement here in Collier County. This is the Board of County Commissioners versus Ivy Jean Nebus, Judy Ann Blake, Betty Jo Robertson, the respondents. The case number on this is CEAU20090015258. The violations are violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 5.03.02(A) and the Florida Building Code 2004 Edition, Chapter One, Section 105.1. The location of the violation is 3994 Mercantile Avenue, Naples, Florida. Folio number is 275560003. The description of the violation is an unmaintained and unpermitted fence. Past orders. On July 22nd, of 2010 the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board which is OR4591, Page 1673, for more information. Page 33 16t186 1 October 28, 2010 The respondent has replied (sic) with the CEB orders as of September 23rd of 2010. The fines to date are described as the following: Order item number one, fines at the rate of$100 a day for a period between September 21st, 2010 and September 23rd at 2010 for three days for a total of$300. Order item number five, operational costs of$81.15 have been paid. And the total amount due is $300. MR. LEFEBVRE: I have a question. What is the address once again? MR. BOX: 3994 Mercantile Avenue. MR. LEFEBVRE: Because on the imposition of fines and lien hearing, the address is 3991 Mercantile. MS. WALDRON: It should be 3994. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do I hear a motion? MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion we abate the fine. 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. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All the fines have been abated. Thank you, Investigator. Moving on to case number two, Lisa Dasher, Page 34 1bl1 4er28, 2010 CESD20090002945. And again, there was correspondence left at your desk this morning. (Speaker duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: For the record, Kitchell Snow, Collier County Code Enforcement. This concerns case CESD20090002945, Board of County Commissioners versus Lisa Dasher. Violations of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i) and the Florida Building Code 2004 Edition, Chapter One, Permits, Section 105.1. The location is 3551 Carson Lakes Circle, Immokalee, Florida. The folio is #25577800404. And description of violation is that patio in the rear of the property without Collier County permits. Past orders. On October 22nd, 2009, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact and conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See attached OR book and Page 4506 and 2523 for more information. The respondent has complied with the CEB orders as of September 7th, 2010. The fines and cost to date are described as follows: Order number two, fines at the rate of$100 per day for the period between June 26th, 2010 and September 7th, 2010, 74 days, for a total of$7,400. Item number one, operational costs of$86.43 have been paid. And the total amount due is $7,400. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the Board? MR. ORTEGA: Yes. When you say patio, was this a structure? MR. SNOW: Yes, it was. It was attached. MR. ORTEGA: Attached. MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any further discussion? Page 35 16111 ' 136 October 28, 2010 MR. LEFEBVRE: Originally it was a stipulated agreement where she agreed to correct the problem within 120 days. We did then give her another 120 days to correct the problem and she still went over basically two and a half months. So I think some kind of fine is in order. I think maybe not the $7,400, but I think there should be some kind of fine. MR. SNOW: If I may add, if the Board would remember, this is the woman who had to investigate was it feasible and financially possible for her to keep the structure. She did hire a contractor and the contractor gave her a quote on it. That was her original intent. And once she did that, it was not -- she felt it wasn't feasible for her to do that, that's what -- and then she had to get the permit and they did all the work themselves. So we do request some leniency from the Board. MR. KAUFMAN: Did she contact Code Enforcement during the time where the fines were accruing to say that she needed more time, or — MR. SNOW: That she was progressing. It had already gone past the time and she was progressing. She had the demolition permit and she and her family were removing it. It's just -- that's why she's not here today to plead her case before the Board, because she's at work. I think anybody that has a job in this economy is fortunate and I think that's the reason she's not here. And she was in the office, I would say, weekly, giving us status updates and letting us know. MR. DEAN: I'd like to make a motion to abate the fine. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. Page 36 1616 B6 October 28, 2010 MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Carries unanimously. Thank you. Moving on to the next case, which is CESD20090017586, Maria Alma Plunkett. We do have another case, but we have to read them separately. (Speakers duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: She does have an interpreter. Do you want to swear her interpreter in? (Speaker duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: This concerns case No. CEB -- CESD20090017586, the Board of County Commissioners versus Maria Alma Plunkett, violations of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41 as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). The location is 1901 Immokalee Drive, Immokalee, Florida. The Folio number is 128520006. And the description, a carport and room added to the primary structure without first obtaining Collier County permits. Past orders, on May 27th, 2010 the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact and conclusion of law and order. Respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4583 and Page 2962 for more information. The respondent has complied with the CEB order as of October 4th, 2010. The fines and cost to date are described as follows. Order number one and three, fines at the rate of$200 per day for the period between September 25th 2010 and October 4th, 2010, 10 days, for a Page 37 161 1 66 ri! October 28, 2010 total of$2,000. Order number six, operational costs of$80 have been paid. The total amount to date is $2,000. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, is there any questions from the Board? MR. KAUFMAN: You said that the operational costs have been paid? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: There was an amended imposition of fines charging document left at the desk. That's changed that and also changed the final amount to 2,000 instead of 2,080. If there's not any discussion, I'll entertain a motion. MR. KAUFMAN: Well, do you want to hear from the respondent? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we need to? It's up to you. Would you like to add anything? MR. SNOW: She doesn't hear well. INTERPRETER: No. MR. SNOW: They were diligent in trying to comply. Again, it's the financial issues involved with doing what they did. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to abate. 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. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Page 38 161 a 86 October 28, 2010 Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Tell her that there's no fines on the first case. We'll hear the second case now. MR. SNOW: This is CEB case number CESD20090017585, the Board of County Commissioners versus Maria Alma Plunkett, the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41 as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). The location is 1809 Immokalee Drive, Immokalee, Florida. Folio number is 128480007. A carport and shed constructed without permits. The past orders on May 27th, 2010, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact and conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board, OR 4583 and Page 2868 for more information. The respondent has complied with the CEB orders as of September 29th, 2010. The fines and cost to date are described as follows. Order number one and two, fines at the rate of$200 per day for the period between September 25th, 2010 and September 29th 2010, five days, for a total of$1,000. Order number five of the Board, operational cost of$80.29 have been paid. And the total amount to date is $1,000. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the Board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to abate. MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 39 161 1B6 October 28, 2010 MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, we also abated or completely got rid of the fines for the second case. Let her know that we say thank you very much for working hard to work with us. And have a good day. MR. SNOW: We thank the Board very much. MS. PLUNKETT: Thank you very much. INTERPRETER: Thank up very much. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Back to that attorney situation. We are now at our last five cases. All five of them are for the same respondent, Palm Lake, LLC. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Chairman, should we maybe take a 10, 15-minute break. We'll give the opportunity for the attorney to show up. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great idea. So moved. So we'll break and come back at 10:15. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, we'll call the meeting of the Code Enforcement Board back to order. Next case, actually next five, but we do have to rule on each one individually, is going to be Palm Lake, LLC. And Mr. Erickson, we are in receipt of your letter. And we're kind of at a junction here where we either need for hear the cases for the imposition of fine on all five of those or we amend our agenda and presume that the letter you submitted was a request or a motion for an Page 40 1641B6 October 28, 2010 extension of time on those cases. So we're kind of waiting to see, you know, kind of the intent of the letter. MR. ERICKSON: Well, the intention of the letter was twofold. One was to bring the Board up to date as to where we're at here and the problems we're incurring. And the second one is to -- obviously the imposition of fines is a critical juncture of these proceedings as I see it. And it's to request a continuance of the imposition of fines so that we can, quite frankly, figure out a methodology as to how to move forward with this. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, if I could, I'll stop you right there. We'll go ahead and amend our agenda, see this as a motion and then we'll hear more behind the reasons and we'll vote from there. MR. ERICKSON: That would be fine. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great. In that case I'll entertain a motion to amend the -- MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to extend the -- or change the agenda for today. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, so now this is a motion, which is part of our public hearings, and we can take each case individually or hear them as a whole and we just have to vote individually. Page 41 . � 16 In: B6 October 28, 2010 MR. ERICKSON: That would be fine. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Azure, do you have a recommendation, you want to do them all as once? (Speakers duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Azure, do you suggest we just -- sorry. MS. WALDRON: Let's let Mr. Erickson state what he's asking for since we moved these items from imposition of fines and it's his request at this time. MR. ERICKSON: So far this is a -- as the Board's aware, this is a difficult situation. It's a -- there's numerous violations that have festered in this park for years. And what we've done, I believe, is made substantial corrections and progress on the issues that are directly related and under the control, direct control, of the park owner. We may not have completed everything. For instance, the electrical, I understand there needs to be a final payment. There's been inspections. But other than that all the electrical's been completed, which was the most serious, I believe, certainly considered the most serious of the situations. The trash situation, trash and litter, it's been cleaned up, it's been looked at, it's been better. Then they come back and it's messy again. That's an ongoing problem with a community of this sort. I'm not sure -- in that respect they have certainly done things, they've cleaned up things and then it's gotten worse again. What we really have is a difficult situation on -- we've had -- another aspect is the unlicensed vehicles. I spoke with Ms. Sorrels yesterday and apparently most of the unlicensed vehicles were taken care of and then she tells me that she was back there recently and two more unlicensed vehicles are there. Again, park residents bring the vehicles on. An ongoing problem. But we did take care of about three or four of the unlicensed vehicles. So we have addressed those issues. The most significant issues clearly are the unpermitted structures Page 42 1611B6 . October 28, 2010 and flood issue -- you know, things built below the flood level. And the unpermitted structures, I believe just about all the unpermitted structures and setback violations, things of that nature are -- involve property, mobile homes, units owned by private individuals. And that's where the real problem comes in. And that's the concern I have is whether it is being properly addressed and what is the proper way to address it. One of the things I pointed out in the statutes I came across in doing research on these matters, is Florida Statute 723.083. And I'm not sure exactly where it fits in here but it's an interesting statute. It's in the mobile home park chapter of Florida Statutes. It's a short one and I'll read it to you. It's entitled Government Action Affecting Removal of Mobile Homeowners. And it says no agency of municipal, local, county or state government shall approve any application for rezoning or take any other official action which would result in the removal or relocation of mobile homeowners residing in a mobile home park without first determining that adequate mobile home parks or other suitable facilities exist for the relocation of the mobile homeowners. And I bring this out. I think it's -- I'm not sure if it applies to this situation or not. Clearly we have a situation to where when we were first -- when I was first before this Board, one of the discussions was whether or not the park owner could force these people, evict them because of these violations. Again, that's questionable as to whether they could evict them. But if we are talking about evictions, we're clearly talking about the removal or relocation of mobile homeowners. And that -- this statute, and I think the board is probably aware that the mobile home park statute has significant restrictions on a mobile home park owner's ability to remove people from the park. It's a very complicated process. And it is my view that basically what needs to be done is this is Page 43 161F1B6 Y October 28, 2010 not just an owner of land fighting code enforcement. It's much more than that. Because the entire park, with about 60 to 70 residential units in the park, all of them are affected by it. There has been, and my understanding is there has been disruptions. The people in the park have been told -- they're aware of these things going on. They're not really aware of the specifics. Most of them are lower income. Very few of them quite frankly speak English. They communicate. They do have a resident in the park who speaks both English and Spanish who communicates with them. They were told at the outset of these problems, and the unit owners have essentially ignored it. Nobody's gone out to correct the problems existing with their mobile homes. And so it would be my suggestion that we work out some sort of arrangement where code enforcement meets with these people individually. It almost has to be done on an individual basis with these people as to what needs to be done. Obviously the number overriding concern is the safety and well-being of the park residents. Next, you know, we do -- understandably at some point things have to be brought up to code, or I'm not sure what the means are, if there is even means for waiving certain matters, whether things would be grandfathered in. I mean, again, at the initial hearing on this we went through a history of this park, and the history indicated that it was started in I believe 65. Most of the development took place in the early '70's. I've been led -- I saw somewhere that there's never been a permit pulled in this park for like 15 years. Obviously there has been significant additions. Just about every mobile home in that park has an addition to it. When I walked around the park it's just obvious that just about every mobile home in that park as an addition. And my expectation is that probably 90 percent of those were done without proper permits. And so it is my view that this matter does have to be addressed Page 44 1611B6 ri October 28, 2010 but it has to be addressed through the government, through the park residents and the owner of the park in a more mutual workable solution to see what is available to people. And that's why we're requesting that the assessments, there has been improvements made here, and we're requesting that the Board refrain from imposing the fines. I mean, I looked at the fines here, it looks like it would probably be over $1,000 a day as to the fines that are to be imposed on this park for right now. And this is a park as I understand it that's upside down as far as the mortgage. It was purchased I believe by this current owner in 2006, and we all know what that generally means. And it's something that this community needs to deal with. And I'm just suggesting that there may be a better means of dealing with it to see if we get the park residents more involved in this. Because it's going to require the park residents' cooperation. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Erickson, one short question. The individual units that are in this park. Are they tenants or do they own the property? MR. ERICKSON: My understanding is that it's probably 80 percent, 70, 80 percent of them own their mobile home. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'm talking about the land. MR. ERICKSON: Oh, the land's owned by Palm Lake, LLC, no doubt about that. MR. L'ESPERANCE: So they rent the spaces. MR. ERICKSON: Yeah, they rent lots from the Palm Lake LLC. No question about that. And I have -- I've researched it. And I found that as the landowner, they're responsible for the code enforcement. That's my understanding as well. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Let me help bring some clarify. And if I'm wrong we can, you know, have that kind of discussion so that everybody is clear. Page 45 16111 B6 October 28, 2010 You mentioned the statute, the mobile home statute. I believe that the cases here revolve accessory structures added on to the original mobile homes. And I don't think we're talking about actual evictions for people from the home itself. I think it's just removing those accessory structures. You also stated that, you know, a lot of these were, maybe even all of them were added to these original mobile homes without permits, and that it was a long time ago that they were added. We know from prior case history that there's a definitive statute or ordinance here in Collier County since 1969 that requires all structures on a property be permitted. And even in '69 they talked about such items as setbacks, which is a few of the violations that we talked about today. Code enforcement and the violations that have been filed against the property will need to be addressed. Today we need to listen to the motion and try to come up with a time frame to give you the latitude necessary, or to say, you know, listen, we've given you enough time and that's how it's going to be. But I don't think there's anyone that's not willing to work with you. But I definitely -- we need to move past the fact that a violation exists or not, because we have found than it does. Now it's what can we do to work with you to get the violations corrected. MR. ERICKSON: I agree. I agree. There's no dispute that violations exist. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is the property currently for sale? MR. ERICKSON: It is listed for sale. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is it under contract? MR. ERICKSON: No, it's not under contract. MR. LEFEBVRE: He's not under contract. What I'm worried about is that currently this owner is biding his time, basically. And by not imposing any fines there won't be any more fees tacked on to this property when ultimately it goes to sale. And I'm worried here that Page 46 16i 'iB6 nw October 28, 2010 we're -- we have to weigh the safety and well-being of these people versus the owner. And it appears here that it seems to me that the owner is trying to skirt maybe some additional fees so when he faces the bank in a short sale situation he won't have these fees tacked on to them. It's been neglected for quite some time, and I feel that the safety of these people is of utmost importance, and we need to definitely take that into consideration. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Gerald, I want to add just a little bit to your concern. Correct me if I'm wrong, Diane, but if a property is sold short sale, there's no requirement for a code inspection; correct? MS. FLAGG: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So there is a real potential that if it does sell that the new owner unsuspectingly is buying all of these problems. MS. FLAGG: Because you have heard these cases and those orders were recorded, when the -- if there's a title company, an attorney involved in the search, they will find those orders in the record. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right, but what I'm worried about is if, let's say we grant another six months, it goes under contract, it closes, there won't be any fines attached and therefore the owner won't incur any extra cost or at this point potentially the bank won't incur any additional cost. I think that this problem has been ongoing for quite some time and that we need to take into consideration that he has a responsibility to these people to correct these issues. I know some of them are brought on by the tenants, but for the respondent to ask the county to go individually to the tenants there I think is totally, totally inappropriate. It was a problem that was brought on partially by the owner not keeping track of what was being done to the property or purchasing a property that had these issues already on them. So I think it's definitely the owner's responsibility to Page 47 l6I! iR6 '41 October 28, 2010 go to the tenants to get these issues corrected. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Further comments? MR. ORTEGA: I concur. MR. KAUFMAN: It seems to me that most of the problem seems to be you fix something, the tenants break it again. I remember that the original case, there were new documents drawn up as far as the tenants having to adhere to certain rules and regulations that were established in the park; is that correct? MR. ERICKSON: I believe so. I really haven't looked in -- I know we raised that issue and that was discussed. MR. KAUFMAN: And I agree with Mr. Lefebvre that it's not the job of Code Enforcement to go to the individuals, it's the property owner who Code Enforcement has gone to. And that's their responsibility, unless I'm wrong. But what has to happen between the owner of the property and the tenants to stop violations from occurring so that it can be fixed once and for all? MR. ERICKSON: Well, the main problem that I see is it's not really recurring new violations and things of that sort. The problem is the stuff that's already built. I just think -- and the concern is some owners have left just because there's a lot of concerns in the owner -- within the park that this park is going to end up being closed, which clearly is a possibility with these situations. So under that scenario, under that understanding, people quit paying rent. The people aren't going to spend money, go out and spend a few thousand dollars to take out their living room that they use that, especially if the park's going to be closed later anyway. And so that's why the concern I have is if in fact it's such that everybody just ends up moving out of the park, then there's no way to keep the parking going, he's going to end up in foreclosure and the county could very well have a bigger mess on its hands. That's the way I look at it from a practical point of view. Page 48 16I1 ' B6 _ October 28, 2010 What is Collier County facing? Yes, we can put the fines on here and we can impose fines of$2,000 a day, which are -- would add to the mortgage that's already, you know, I believe they would be subordinate to the mortgage. The mortgage comes first when it does sell or gets foreclosed. MR. KAUFMAN: I don't believe that's true. MR. LEFEBVRE: I don't think that's true either. Diane, do you know in fact, or Jean, do you know in fact if these assessments, if there is a fine if that is -- MS. RAWSON: I think it moves to the top, doesn't it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: It's primary. MS. FLAGG: The county has a super priority lien. MS. RAWSON: I think it does. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. MR. KAUFMAN: I guess you have to separate the cases. In the case with the cars with the untagged vehicles that were cleaned up and now others have come in there, has the owner of the park gone to those people to try to resolve that situation? MR. ERICKSON: Right, he's gone -- as far as my understanding is, they've gone to everybody with the cars and they've got them -- people working on getting the licensed vehicles. I believe there's a couple of RV trailers nobody really even knows who owns, and it's probably going to be almost impossible to figure out how to get licensed. MR. LEFEBVRE: Can I make a suggestion. I think the best way of doing this would be to go through each case individually and give a quick synopsis of what has been done to correct the issue. And then we can look at these individually and say okay, we can give more time for this case or no, we can't. I think that's probably the best way of going about it. We're talking about -- we're lumping these all together and we just can't do that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We do have a good general overall Page 49 1611B6 October 28, 2010 picture of where the respondent stands. So I agree, Gerald, great idea, we'll go through each one individually just as they are in order in our documents, and -- MR. ORTEGA: Quick question for the investigator. When you were out there, these structures that are unpermitted, are they habitable or non-habitable? MS. SORRELS: For the record, Azure Sorrels, investigator with Collier County Code Enforcement Board. They would be unhabitable. They are below flood and the additions are built onto the mobile homes. They were not elevated so they are below flood. MR. ORTEGA: Okay, let me rephrase the question. Is it a porch that's been added or is it a bedroom that's been added? MS. SORRELS: I can think of one, maybe two that are actually porches, the rest have been living space, living rooms, bedrooms, yes. MR. ORTEGA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right, so the first case is going to be CENA20100002928. This one is the litter situation. If the litter comes into compliance but then due to lack of policing litter then accumulates again, it turns into a situation where its a repeat offense, correct? MS. SORRELS: It would not be a repeat offense until it's been adjudicated and that violation has been abated. If it recurred, yes, correct, it would be a repeat. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I only ask you that because I wanted to point out that it would really behoove the owner to make sure that he not only comes into compliance but then stays in compliance, whether it's an on-site manager's responsibility to clean up the trash himself or what, because those fines will then almost -- they can go all the way up to four times the original amount. So in the litter situation, how are we doing? MS. SORRELS: If I could make a couple comments just so I could clarify a couple of things that he had mentioned. And I think Page 50 161iR6 October 28, 2010 Mr. Lefebvre or Mr. Kelly had already mentioned it. The county is not asking the park to be closed. I understand that there is a Florida statute that might apply to that. But they have the options of abating the violations, fixing the property maintenance and also obtaining the proper permits for the additions and so forth. So the county has never asked the park to be closed. As for this particular case, the county would recommend that we impose the fines on the litter case due to the fact -- excuse me, let me back up. It was mentioned about the property owner informing the residents, the tenants of the area about the laws that he might have in effect, which are from what I read through here, are pretty much in accordance with the county ordinances. And according to the property manager on-site, he had gone through and issued one of these to everything single one of the tenants and they had signed saying they had received it. So with that being said, when I went out and made the site visit yesterday and seen some of the violations in regards to this particular case in the litter, yes, in some of my site visits litter has been cleaned up. As of yesterday, I go back out and I see new litter in place. In my -- let me take that back. The way it comes across is that the property manager is not enforcing any of these with the tenants so they are, you know, choosing to do what they will. In the rules and regulations that he handed out, they are able to fine them, according to these rules and regulations. As far as -- I can't speak if they have been fined, but they have been made aware of what they can and cannot do inside that park. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If I could, just real quick, just to make sure we're all on the same page. It's not the Code Enforcement Board's duty to instruct a landowner how to go about enforcing these, just merely needs to get done. And I appreciate the information, but I also want to point out that it's just additional information on how he's attempting to take action. Page 51 161 1 j3 ct er 28, 2010 MS. SORRELS: Correct, understood. I just wanted to make sure that it was brought up, because it was questioned. So I just wanted to make sure everybody knew that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, it's good, because at least in my mind it looks as though the owner is trying to push some of that responsibility onto the residents, which is excellent. We just don't want to see it all get put to the residents and we continue to, you know, try to hide behind that as a defense. If you own the property, you own the responsibilities, unfortunately, Mr. Erickson. Okay. MS. SORRELS: Just as I had mentioned, I made my site visit yesterday and there was new litter that I had observed from the original pictures of the hearings throughout my different rechecks throughout this time frame. And it's everything from piles of beer cans that had been once -- has once been removed and now they're back, to tires to plywood, to bags, buckets, all types of different things that are newer than what was there the first time around. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Erickson, you can of course object to any of this because we don't have any proof to say -- except for the testimony. MR. ERICKSON: I believe she can testify as to what she observed, so I'm not going to -- you know, I don't question her, she's been very up front all along. MS. SORRELS: I do have photos, if that helps. MR. ERICKSON: My concern on that is that -- twofold. One is the report from the Health Department that I submitted at a previous hearing. And quite frankly, I believe that an issue such as the litter should be deferred to the Health Department. A lot of these issues I believe should be deferred to other agencies, to the Health Department. I understand Code Enforcement's responsible for the unpermitted structures and things. But the litter, when the Health Department Page 52 16 I a October 28, 2010 comes in and does their regular inspections and gives a report that yeah, there's problems, but it's cleaned up, overall it's satisfactory, I think that that should be given great weight. And here again, I don't think that a need to assess fines at this time on the litter, they cleaned up. Maybe we do have to come up with a little bit even better process as to how the litter is going to get cleaned up on a weekly basis. But again, there's been certainly no indication that the owner himself is causing the litter or that he's been excessively lax in allowing the litter. Apparently it was cleaned up from these initial reports, and it comes back. It's an ongoing problem that does have to be dealt with. But I don't think it's the most serious problem facing this park right now, and it's not a health-serious health-wise that has to be addressed and has to be maintained. But I believe that that quite frankly is something that the Health department reviews on a regular basis and has done so and has been satisfied with. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I can understand what you're saying, you know, using a third party to help justify to what level things are acceptable and whatnot. It's kind of a gray area in this particular case, since it was found that a violation exists. I believe we're looking to get to a point where no litter exists for a consecutive period of time. And I think once that occurs, then we can go ahead and close the case as complied with and, you know, move on. MR. KAUFMAN: I have one question. Would extending -- since we're taking this case by case. Would extending or doing a continuance on this particular case serve any purpose going forward if you had another month or two months to work the issues regarding this particular case to bring it into compliance? MR. ERICKSON: The only purpose I can see is that understanding now and establishing an ongoing policy as to how the litter situation is going to be addressed. My understanding is that the litter situation was essentially taken Page 53 1611 66 October 28, 2010 care of and it comes back. So that's what we've learned in the last couple of months is that it can be cleaned up but it's obviously going to come back, and it needs to be addressed in a way that there needs to be some park procedure is what I'm gathering right now. There needs to be some park procedure added that's going to take care of the litter, whether it's putting a dumpster out there that gets emptied every month or every week or every two weeks, whatever, something along those lines that could be worked out satisfactorily with Code Enforcement that's going to take care of this. Obviously we can't keep people from throwing beer cans in the adjacent -- or it's very difficult to. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think that policy and procedure should have been put in place within the period that we gave you to get this corrected, which was, I think 60 days, roughly. Those should have been put in place. I'm at a very hard juncture to give much more leeway on this. I feel that we should impose the fines and then if in fact this is corrected, we could then look and reevaluate the -- what fines there are at that point. So I make a motion to impose the fines. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Any further discussion? MR. KAUFMAN: I have. On the -- has anybody been -- they've probably been threatened. But has anybody been removed from the park for violating the that were established that were presented, I don't know, 30 or 60 days ago when you were here last? MR. ERICKSON: No, not that I'm aware of, not since these proceedings. We had two evictions that took place, that were taking place right about the time that these proceedings began. MR. KAUFMAN: But had nothing to do with -- MR. ERICKSON: One of the proceedings, one was one of the units that we have a demolition permit for that was kept unacceptable. Page 54 l6Iti B6 October 28, 2010 And the other was just some very rowdy problem residents that had to be taken care of, that had to be eliminated from the park. MS. RAWSON: Just a moment of clarification. Mr. Lefebvre's motion is really a motion to deny the respondent's motion for an extension of time. And then we'll get to the other. MR. LEFEBVRE: I modify my motion to deny the motion for extension of time. MR. L'ESPERANCE: And I modify my second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good catch. MR. LEFEBVRE: And now can I make a motion to impose the fines? MS. RAWSON: Well, let's -- I'm going to do separate orders, so let's do one thing at a time. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have to get through all the motions first. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. Any other discussion, Mr. Ortega? MR. ORTEGA: Just one comment that, we're looking at obviously trying to work with the situation. But at the end of the day it's the owner's responsibility regardless, whether it's Health Department, whether it's dumpsters, or whatever. I just want to bring that up to light. MR. LEFEBVRE: It just seems like the respondent here stated that he wanted Code Enforcement to work with the individual tenants. Now he's saying that he feels that there should be another department, Health Department working. He just keeps on -- he keeps on saying it's not our problem -- MR. ORTEGA: The owner is responsible, period. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right, exactly. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I think the implication was hey, the Health Department says it's okay, you know, come on, that's another government agency, give that some weight in your decision. I think Page 55 16111 Bb r October 28, 2010 that's -- if I'm correct. MR. ERICKSON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So any further discussion on this motion? MR. LAVINSKI: I'd like to ask the investigator, was there any date in time that you can say that was in compliance regarding the trash? MS. SORRELS: I'm glad you asked that because I was going to clarify that. There has never been one site inspection where the property has been completely clear and free of litter. There's been improvements, yes, but never completely where I could say the violation had been abated and closed. MR. LAVINSKI: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good question, Jim. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor of denying the motion for continuance, signify by saying aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, so that motion has been denied. No fines have been imposed yet, that's at a later juncture if we do that. Next case. This is going to be case number CEPM20100004292. And this is the electric issues, if I'm not mistaken, the pipes where the lines weren't buried and the electrical conduits and meter Page 56 I6ii 86 js October 28, 2010 boxes and whatnot that were exposed. MS. SORRELS: Correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sir? MR. ERICKSON: On this one briefly, it's my understanding that the only thing remaining to be completed is the payment of a final inspection cost, I believe and of a couple hundred dollars. And I spoke with the electrician yesterday and he indicated he's waiting for that check from the owner and expects to get it in the mail today or tomorrow and that that will be taken care of. MS. SORRELS: That is correct. Under the 13 permits that were issued for the FP&L stations and other electrical issues, all of them but four have been C.O.'d. The remaining four, the inspections have been conducted between August and September and they were passed on their final inspection. There are four pending fees, three of$60 and one at $5.00. So as soon as those pending fees are paid, they would receive their certification. MR. LEFEBVRE: Can we continue this till next month? CHAIRMAN KELLY: That was going to be my suggestion. Does the county wants to remove this case in the chance that it will be paid in the next 30 days. If not, you can put it on our next agenda. MS. SORRELS: We'll go ahead and withdraw then -- or continue it to the next hearing. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Under old business, imposition of fines, case number six has been withdrawn by the county. Okay, case number seven is CEV, as in Victor, 20100003082. And this is in reference to the unlicensed and inoperable vehicles that are stored on the property. We already talked about that generally, but MR. ERICKSON: I don't think I have anything further to add. CHAIRMAN KELLY: What's the position of the Board or the county on the reoccurrence of vehicles? Page 57 16111 B6 October 28, 2010 MR. LEFEBVRE: Have they ever been in compliance? MS. SORRELS: No, they have not. MR. KAUFMAN: Is there a particular vehicle or two that exists from day one that is the problem? MS. SORRELS: Well, yes, the travel trailers, the RV travel trailers that would require a currents license plate have not been licensed. And as Mr. Erickson had stated, it's because they're not sure who the owners are to get them licensed. All of the original unlicensed passenger vehicles have either been licensed or removed. However, due to my site visit yesterday, two new ones had been brought on to the property. I do have photos, if you would like to see that. And I did speak to one of the vehicle owners, who stated that yes, he was aware it was unlicensed and yes, that he had been spoken to -- he had been spoken to by the property manager that we could not have it there. So he was aware that unlicensed vehicles were not allowed. MR. LEFEBVRE: Are these two recreational vehicles occupied? MS. SORRELS: No. The one was originally and now it is not. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: And then there's still one that they use for maintenance, correct, of the park? There's a vehicle that's used for maintenance that is there? MS. SORRELS: That is correct. It's like a flatbed type pickup truck that they supposedly use for maintenance throughout the park, but it would still require, because it is considered a vehicle by DMV, would require to have a current license plate attached to it. MR. ERICKSON: Just briefly in response, it is my understanding that if you have a -- I'm not positive of this, but it's our understanding, this is what I was told by the park manager, it's his understanding as well as, that you are allowed to have a vehicle unlicensed that's used for maintenance that does not leave the premises. Page 58 16E! B6 October 28, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just as I understand motor vehicle law, that's true. For instance, farm equipment is allowed to not be licensed as long as it doesn't drive on a public road. But I mean, you would know better than I. MS. SORRELS: The way I understand it from the DMV, this vehicle has got the capability of traveling on a road, so therefore it would have to have a current license plate. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any suggestions from the Board? MR. KAUFMAN: Would granting a continuance on this offer the owner of the property sufficient time to have the unregistered vehicles removed, or we're going to be in the same position 30 or 60 days down the road? MR. ERICKSON: I think -- I'm not positive, I believe one of the units that we have a demolition for is maybe one of the RV's that were abandoned. I'm not positive about that. But if we're -- again, if we're down to getting that one vehicle registered that's used for park services, I would assume that could be taken care of. And then addressing specifically the two units that have to be removed, the RV's that have to be removed or demolished, I would assume that should be able to be taken care of if we -- to resolve this, rather than have fines imposed. MR. KAUFMAN: I'm just thinking, if I had a piece of property and there was a vehicle on the piece of property and nobody raised their hand that it's mine, it could have it towed off the property and it would be done. MR. ERICKSON: That problem -- and I'm not sure of this. There's a very good likelihood that these properties are being rented and the park is receiving rent from these properties. And the park needs as much income as they can get, obviously. And that may, you know, why I would assume the park manager or park owner is not interested in having the vehicle demolished. But again, that's his responsibility to either get a license or to Page 59 161 , 1' B6 " October 28, 2010 have it taken care of. I recognize that. MR. LEFEBVRE: He might be interested in removing it if he is charged a fine of$200 a day, so -- MR. ERICKSON: That's right. I agree. And then that involves having the tenant who lives there -- say again, I think that yes, it's the owner's responsibility. But there's other people involved here, there's citizens of Collier County, there's people that live in this place that lose their place to live under those circumstances that it definitely impacts the people of this county, the people that live in this park. CHAIRMAN KELLY: When you originally mentioned that other statute, there was a part two of that. And part of the requirements were to look into whether or not another form of housing was available to the people who were being evicted. And I'm not an attorney, but I think in this climate of economic housing glut availability, I think you would have a hard time proving that we couldn't find other housing here in the county if they were evicted. MR. ERICKSON: Probably -- interesting aspect of that, the way I read that is that would imply that these people can move their mobile homes to another mobile home place. Probably the reality of this is there's, I think, as most of these mobile parks, most of these mobile homes cannot be moved. MR. KAUFMAN: Especially if the license plates are not on the vehicle or not up to date. MR. ERICKSON: Again, I know I was involved very much in the Greystone case and I know there were very few mobile homes that were actually removed out of that park when it was closed down because quite simply these -- MR. KAUFMAN: So there are two types of homes there. There are trailers, mobile homes without license plates, probably without tires. MR. ERICKSON: Right. Page 60 161186 '11 October 28, 2010 MR. KAUFMAN: They don't need to be licensed by DMV. And then you have other ones who have tires and they do need to be licensed. MR. ERICKSON: I believe the vast majority of them are actually mobile homes. There's only a few of the RV's that have to have licenses, and these are things that have been there for a long time and again probably could not realistically -- I would assume that the two that have been referred to could not realistically be moved. MR. KAUFMAN: If the tires were removed and the license plates -- the expired or nonvalid license plates were removed and they fit the -- I don't know whether you put them on concrete blocks or whatever with the proper tie-downs, would that be in compliance? MR. LEFEBVRE: That was exactly where I was going to go. MS. SORRELS: That would actually have to be decided by the Building Department. And the reason being is if the tires were removed, they would have to meet the Land Development Code requiring tie-downs and other things, sewer, connecting to sewer and utilities and things of that nature. So I couldn't really say if they did that if it would be in compliance. If they did, they would have to obtain permits to do so. MR. KAUFMAN: So then there's another opportunity to resolve the situation by not cutting the baby in half, as you will, but maybe given sufficient time that could be tracked down and either fix it one way or the other. MR. ERICKSON: I would request that, that -- and we could get a definitive answer what we're going to do with these remaining units. MR. KAUFMAN: Why don't we grant a continuance on -- 30 days on that as well. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion to grant the 30-day extension. Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a second. Page 61 16# 1 1B6 October 28, 2010 Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: I would like to ask Mr. Erickson, if we do grant the 30 days, it wouldn't be just to find out what you want to do, it would actually be to comply. Would that be enough time, sir? MR. ERICKSON: It would be enough time to certainly get started -- you know, again, to comply, I'm not sure what would be involved. I don't think it would be enough time to get a title to an abandoned vehicle, but it would be enough time to have the process instigated to get a title to an abandoned vehicle. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, the scenario would be 30 days is up, the following meeting we'd be right back in this position, possibly imposing fines on something that wasn't in compliance yet. So -- go ahead, Azure. I just don't want to extend and then be in the same position. MR. ERICKSON: I agree. MS. SORRELS: Gentlemen, my apologies. I spoke too quickly, I should have thought before I answered. To -- again, I would still leave it up to the Building Department and the Zoning Department. But from past history on other cases that I have had, those type of vehicles, with the tires removed and tied down would still be considered -- it would have to be zoned TTRVC, travel trailer rental park, not -- and this is zoned mobile home. So I don't -- I'm not saying that it's not -- it can't be done, but it would possibly be required to have the property zoned TTRVC for travel trailer. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Still, given the assumption that we can't do that and it would be a situation we would just have to remove the unit, would 30 days be enough to remove the unit? MR. ERICKSON: It should be enough to remove the unit. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, do we have any -- MR. LEFEBVRE: So to be perfectly clear, we're looking at 30 Page 62 161 1 B6 October 28, 2010 days, if you come in front of us that the problem will be resolved, abated. I just want to make that perfectly clear. Correct? MR. ERICKSON: I understand that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Correct, Mr. Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Yes, absolutely. MR. LEFEBVRE: And the respondent has stated yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, on that case it's 30-day extension. And Jean, you've got the case number on that one? MS. RAWSON: 3082, yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good. Next case, CESD20100004059. This is the big one. This is the one that refers to the additions and structures and carports that were added to the mobile homes without permits. MS. SORRELS: I'm sorry, gentlemen, my apologies. CHAIRMAN KELLY: No, that's all right. There's a lot of paperwork. MS. SORRELS: Just for clarification, we are discussing the ones for the unpermitted structures and additions; is that correct? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Right. Page 63 16 In B6 October 28, 2010 MS. SORRELS: There hasn't been any changes regarding the additions or the alterations made to the mobile homes. There has been two demo permits that have been issued. One is for lot three, which is actually -- it applies to this case, but there's actually its own separate case with the Special Magistrate. And then lot 49, which is completely about this case, the demo permits have been issued. When I spoke with the contractor earlier, he has not received the okay from the owner to start demolish. But as other permits being applied for, there has not been any other permits applied for. However, lot 33 did remove a carport. Unfortunately they did not obtain a permit to do so. CHAIRMAN KELLY: They get an after-the-fact and just paid the fees? MS. SORRELS: Again, it was at my site visit yesterday, and I had not had an opportunity to speak with anyone. And as a matter of fact, when I spoke with Mr. Erickson yesterday, amongst everything else I forgot to mention that that had been removed. I do have a picture, if you'd like to see it. But that's where my status is for the permits. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question. If there was no permit to put it up, why would you need a permit to take it down? CHAIRMAN KELLY: It's one of those anomalies. But it is an actual ordinance, and it's real. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Was this one of the -- MR. ERICKSON: The question I had for Ms. Sorrels, is how many -- if she knows, how many units are we talking about? MS. SORRELS: For -- that has unpermitted -- MR. ERICKSON: Unpermitted. MS. SORRELS: Out of-- there's 60 lots. I don't believe all of them are occupied. I believe two or three are vacant. And then there's two mobile homes that appear to meet all of the Land Developments Page 64 1611 .E 6 October 28, 2010 codes, and they're part of the mobile homes, which would be the screened porches. So the exception of the five, all of them have additions that are illegal, whether it be carports, living space. MR. ERICKSON: So that's what I was getting at here. We have basically 55 homes that people are living in that are not in compliance. And how do we -- I don't have the answer right off the top of my head as to how to deal with this. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Let me address that statute again, because the statute refers to evicting someone from the home. We're not evicting them from the home, we're just evicting them from the part that wasn't permitted, that was built onto the home. So I don't think the statute applies. Although, like I said, I'm not an attorney so I really don't know. MR. ERICKSON: I agree. I could argue one thing, and I certainly would expect the county to argue that it's not -- that the -- taking off an improperly added room does not mean somebody has to move out of there. CHAIRMAN KELLY: The problem that -- and we're not the county, we're really the go-between between both parties, and we try to be as fair in all our rulings. But the part that weighs on my mind is -- this is just a scenario, we hope it's not true -- somebody built this little addition onto the side of a mobile home, they ran some electric, the electric wasn't run properly, it starts a fire and someone dies in the fire. And we have to diligently try to work with landowners to abate those situations so that they don't happen. Even though they might not have happened for the previous 15 years, the fact remains that without an inspector properly looking at these, you know, the potential of threat remains. MR. ERICKSON: But the concern I have is that obviously I suppose the alternative of the landowner is to evict everybody that Page 65 1611 B6 October 28, 2010 doesn't comply. Well, if he's evicting people that aren't complying, he is essentially -- the statute says which would result -- you cannot do an official action which would result in the removal or relocation. Obviously that would result in the removal or relocation of these people. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I think what we're stating is that you're not evicting the people from their home, you're simply telling them they can't use a room of that home that isn't really supposed to be there in the first place. So they might not have enough space or it might be a little cramped, or they might have to -- some of the people might have to seek other places to live. But the truth is it's more of a real security issue to have them stay in something that hasn't been approved to live in. MR. ERICKSON: I understand that. And I understand that's the crux of all the issues here. The concern again I have, this has been a security issue that has gone through how many hurricanes and how many -- it's been going 15, 20 years, and can we resolve it or do it -- does it need to be resolved in a matter of four months or is resolving it in a year excessive? That's where I'm coming from, basically. If this takes a year to resolve, I don't see that as a huge detriment to this county. And that's what I'm looking at. Because if we've got 55 units that have to be dealt with, I think we can't -- we need to talk with each unit owner I guess and find out what they're going to do, what can be done or whether that effectively shuts down the -- to me that effectively shuts down the park. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I don't think we need to rehear this particular -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: No, okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: I guess the question I have is, since our ruling, what has the respondent done to try to enforce or try to get Page 66 161' i B 6 October 28, 2010 these people to get the problem corrected. Obviously we know that something's been done, because one carport's been removed. What has been done -- I mean, I hear all the time that oh, it's the tenant's responsibility, tenant's responsibility. But these issues run with the landowner. And if it takes -- and I don't know what the law is, but if it takes the landowner going in there and removing the unpermitted parts of homes, since he owns the land, if that's possible, he needs to be held accountable. Again, we need to have some accountability. What has he done so far to have this corrected? MR. ERICKSON: He's notified the people and they've done nothing. That basically is my understanding. He's notified the people, and quite frankly, as I expected, these people don't -- most of them don't have the money to do it. The landowner, the owner does not have the money to go in and take out the added-on rooms, and simply doesn't have the means to do that. And whether he has the legal authority to go in and take away their private property, I think that's very questionable too. I don't know what legal authority he has to do that. I think he would have to go through a process of evicting them first and taking care of it that way. That's why I say this is a very problematic issue here. MR. KAUFMAN: I'm harking back to the extension of time issue that's in front of us. If a year was granted, is there any reason why anything would be any different than it is today? And quite frankly, I don't think a year, six months or two weeks would have any change. If you're not listening to me in 60 days, why would you listen to me in 90 days? So I don't think that granting an extension of time on this would serve any purpose. MR. LEFEBVRE: All I see is if we grant an extension time, be it 65 days, 180 days, it only gives the landowner more opportunity to sell this property and not have any fines attached. I just don't see it to Page 67 16l1 B6 October 28, 2010 be any benefit at all. I make a motion -- MR. ERICKSON: May I respond to that? This is the benefit: There's nothing that would help better than to have this property sold, and obviously a new owner who takes over this property is going to be taking over this property with full knowledge of this situation. And so in my view that is the overall answer to this whole problem is getting the property sold. Now again, whether a property like this can sell in this environment is another issue. But quite frankly, the sale of the property, I've always thought that that is the most likely and -- the best remedy to this problem. Because a sale of the property, it's either going to have to be sold to somebody who's going to come in and spend the millions of dollars that's going to be necessary to reconvert this to a qualified mobile home park or it's going to be torn down and developed into something else. MS. SORRELS: Gentlemen, if I may, I'm sorry, can I say something? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sure. MS. SORRELS: The county is going to leave it up to you to guys to make the decision of this, but I just wanted to at least mention -- and Mr. Kelly did address this already, but two instances I really want to point out is two different lots. I don't know if you recall from the pictures, but we actually have a kitchen that's been moved out of a mobile home -- sorry. We have a situation on two different lots, and if you recall the pictures, one is a lot where the kitchen has actually been removed from the mobile home and is now into an unpermitted addition that is -- in no way meets Florida Building Code, Land Development Code. We also have another lot that has an addition made to the mobile home, and we have a family of four living in this one room with a bedroom and a hot plate. Page 68 161186 October 28, 2010 MR. LEFEBVRE: Let me stop you right there. I make a motion to deny the extension. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: My discussion was -- is just real quick to add to this before the vote. I was really pushing for this one to try to get some more time for you, but then you admitted that the only way to fix this is to sell it and then I was like, all right, no sense pushing anymore. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, so the motion for extension has been denied, and that was on Case 4059. Got that one, Jean? MS. RAWSON: Got it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: The last case is going to be CEPM20100003098. This is the one pertaining to maintenance violations. MS. SORRELS: Correct. And my testimony's pretty much going to be the same as the site development case, which is for the Page 69 16111 B6 October 28, 2010 unpermitted structures. Nothing has been changed, repaired, altered or even permits applied for or issued to fix some of the property maintenance issues on these particular units. And then also, no boarding certificate has been issued for the windows that have been boarded on multiple, multiple mobile homes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there any questions from the Board? Or Mr. Erickson, do you have anything to say? MR. ERICKSON: No, the only comment I would make on this one, and it kind of relates back to the other one too. Again I understand, as Ms. Sorrels says, as she pointed out in the last one, there's two units in particular that have serious problems. I was not aware -- you know, as we said, there's 55 units in the last one to have problems. Two of them in particular have very significant problems. Those are the type of things that I think clearly need to be dealt with and I will work with her to deal with that whether the fines are being assessed or not being assessed, quite frankly. And the same applies to this one. That's what I've done. You know, it's been my view on this all along is the ones that do -- are safety and serious problems of that sort do need to be addressed. And clearly we need to make sure there's no broken glass windows in the place and things of that nature. In this particular case I wasn't really aware until I got the motion for imposition of fines that this is actually -- looks like three cases in one. There's three different fines being imposed in this one case. And I did not quite -- I did not even fully understand it. One issue is flood elevation, one is improper permits, and then one is maintenance, as I understand it. So I find this one somewhat confusing in the fact that there's three sets of fines from this one case. MR. LEFEBVRE: Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Does this case exceed what is allowed per Page 70 1611 Bb October 28, 2010 day per fine on a first offense? So it's 750 a day. MS. RAWSON: Yes, I think you can give it 500, isn't it? CHAIRMAN KELLY: But it's on each violation. MS. RAWSON: Right, you can do so much on each violation. I don't have the old -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: There's the three -- MS. RAWSON: -- order in front of me. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Three different violations, $250 per day each, but all in the same order. So is it by order or is it by violation? MS. RAWSON: No, it's by violation. MR. ORTEGA: Is there people living in these places? MS. SORRELS: Most of them are occupied, yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Let me ask a question. What has been done to try to rectify this? MR. ERICKSON: Well, dealing with the -- again, this is part, as far as I can see, part and parcel to a large extent with the previous case, that things that are there for flood level violations are much the same as things that are there that -- without permits or encroachments. And so again, this is something that has to be dealt with on a unit-by-unit basis. And we were quite frankly looking for direction and cooperation from the Board as to how best to deal with this with the community, with the Palm Lake community. Everybody in the community is involved in basically this one or the other one. And these are the ones that I believe would be best handled by addressing the most serious problematic situations, getting them dealt with and then figuring out where to go on the others. MS. RAWSON: I can answer the first question. On the order of July 27th, I think paragraphs six and seven are incorrect. Paragraph five is a $250 fine for each day the violation in paragraph one is not corrected. Paragraph six should read paragraph two. And paragraph seven should read paragraph three. So we need to probably correct that, not only on the record, but Page 71 jj R i 161 ' l 6 October 28, 2010 I'll do a nunc pro tunc order. So that makes this a valid order, because it's per -- $250 per violation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is it a situation where we should pull this case, get the order correct before we go and try to impose any fines? MS. RAWSON: Well, that probably would be the legal thing to do. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, in that case you've batted better than a 500 today. Out of the five cases, three went positive for you. There then leaves two. If the county agrees to withdraw that case that ends in 3098, then it leaves the two. We'll go ahead and move on from public hearings. We'll go back to old business, imposition of fines. The two cases that remains, we'll do the first one. This is the litter violation. It is CENA20100002928. (Speaker duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. This may be just a formality, unless somebody from the Board or the county or the respondent has anything else to add. We denied the motion for an extension of time. We're now looking to possibly impose fines. If we could, Azure, would you like to read this into the record, please. MS. SORRELS: Yes. Violation, Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 54, Article 6, Section 54-181 and Section 54-179. Location: 3131 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 61842240009. Description: Litter consisting of but not limited to wood, metal, buckets, glass, furniture, plastic, and other debris scattered throughout the property. Past order: On July 22nd, 2010 the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to Page 72 161 O'cto48 2010 correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board, OR 4591, Page 1636 for more information. The respondent has not complied with the CEB orders as of October 28th, 2010. The fines and cost to date are described as the following: Order item number one and two, fines at a rate of$200 per day for the period between September 21st, 2010 through October 28th, 2010, a total of 38 days, for the total amount of$7,600. Fines continue to accrue. Order item number five, operational costs of$80.86 have been paid. Total amount to date, $7,600. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Anything further from the Board or from the respondent? MR. ERICKSON: Well, I would just ask the Board to consider what has been discussed here, that there has been substantial improvements. I think the testimony, as I recall, the evidence was that it got a lot better, it's gotten worse, it's gotten better, and so that should be taken into consideration that it has been addressed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: In that case, any further discussion from the Board? If not -- MR. LAVINSKI: I think this obviously appears to be one of the easiest ones to correct. And even if the manager has to go out there at 6:00 every morning and just double check. But yet it hasn't been done, hasn't been corrected. So I think if the easiest one hasn't been done, I don't have much hope for the rest of them. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Entertain a motion to either impose or not to impose. MR. LAVINSKI: I'll make a motion we impose the fines as stated. CHAIRMAN KELLY: A motion. Do we have a second? MR. ORTEGA: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Ortega. Any discussion? Page 73 16 i 1 86 October 28, 2010 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response). CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries unanimously. The next case is going to be CESD20100004059. This is the case related to the structures and additions added without a permit. Azure, would you like to read it? MS. SORRELS: Violations, Collier County Land Development Code, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(1) and Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article 2, Section 22-26(B)(104.1.3.5). Location: 3131 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 61842240009. Description: Property has several unpermitted structures, additions and/or alteration to sheds, carports, screened enclosures -- screened enclosures converted into living space, additional rooms, installation, alterations made to electrical wiring and installation alteration made to plumbing work. Past order: On July 22nd, 2010 the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board, OR 4591, Page 1651. The respondent has not complied with the CEB order as of Page 74 1611 Ric Oc o 1 er 28, 2010 October 28th, 2010. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order item number one and three, fines at a rate of$250 per day for the period between October 21st, 2010 through October 28th, 2010, eight days, for the total of$2,000. Fines continue to accrue. Order item number five, operational costs of$81.15 have been paid. Total amount to date, $2,000. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there any discussion by the Board or comments from the respondent? (No response.) MR. ERICKSON: No comments. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to impose. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a 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. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the fines will be imposed. That is the end of our imposition of fines. Moving on to letter C, a motion to rescind the original order of J. Peaceful, LLC, I think it's supposed to be. CELU20090010758. (Speaker duly sworn.) Page 75 1611 B6 October 28, 2010 MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. Mr. Chami, who is the owner of J. Peaceful, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to look into this matter. And the BCC, acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals, granted the use of the U-Haul business as a permitted use on this property, so that thereby pretty much nulling the code case. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Entertain a motion to remove the case -- the order. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to remove. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Remove or rescind? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Rescind, sorry. I really messed that one up. It's rescind the order. Any discussion? MR. DEAN: Is that a must? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Under the consent agenda, which we already approved, there were five items that were sent to the County Attorney's Office. Is there any reports? MS. FLAGG: Yes. The current Blight Prevention Program, as Page 76 16I1 B6 October 28, 2010 of last week, the banks have spent $1,833,500 to abate code violations in Collier County. They've abated 1,478 violations. So just last week that was a savings of$15,412 to the Collier County taxpayers. In addition, last week there were 257 new code cases opened, just in that week. There were 803 property inspections. There were 116 cases closed with voluntary compliance. There were 92 lien searches requested. And as you recall, that's that new program that we worked in coordination with the Naples Area Board of Realtors. It's really catching on. The realtors are doing a good job in informing their clients that they need to do a lien search. And we are continuing to find that when they do request that lien search, the buyer of the property has learned that there are open code violations on the property, so that prevents them from buying the property and not knowing that there were issues on the property. And the investigators are still averaging 53 cases each as an average across the department. Just a quick report on the Economic Recovery Task Force that one of your members participates in. There's a SWAT team led by Brad Schiffer, which is the commercial retrofitting SWAT team. That program is now fully operational in that if a company is seeking a permit to either retrofit an existing commercial building and/or to build a commercial building, that that SWAT team, which is comprised of professionals, fire code officials, architects, permitting officials will sit down with them at no charge, review the permits -- review the plans with them to make sure that the plans are in accordance with the codes, and then the permitting section will actually assign someone to carry that permit request through. And most recently there's a new business that created 110 jobs on Vanderbilt Beach Road, Bokamper's, Kim Bokamper, the Miami Dolphins football player, and that business has already been opened. He got his permit in 20 days and the business is now opened and Page 77 1611 B6 October 28, 2010 operational. That concludes the report. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good, thank you. The next meeting date is going to be November 18th. It is going to be located down at CEDS on Horseshoe Drive. So don't come here. And if there's nothing further, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. DEAN: Motion to adjourn. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: See you next month. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:34 a.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD KENNETH KELLY, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on , as presented or as corrected Page 78