Loading...
CEB Minutes 11/18/2010 R November 18, 2010 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, November 18, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9 a.m. at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following present: CHAIRMAN: Kenneth Kelly Robert Kaufman Gerald Lefebvre Lionel L'Esperance Herminio Ortega ALSO PRESNET: Jean M. Rawson, Esq., Attorney to Board Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director Jen Waldron, Code Enforcement Specialist Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA Date: November IS, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. Location: 2S00 N. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Growth Management Division Planning & Regulation Conference Room 609/610 NOTICE: THE RESPONDENT MAYBE LIMITED TO TWENTY (20) MINUTES FOR CASE PRESENTATION UNLESS ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE BOARD. PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. ALL PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN THE PUBLIC HEARING ARE ASKED TO OBSERVE ROBERTS RULES OF ORDER AND SPEAK ONE AT A TIME SO THAT THE COURT REPORTER CAN RECORD ALL STATEMENTS BEING MADE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBA TIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. l. ROLL CALL 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. October 2S, 2010 Hearing 4. PUBLIC HEARINGSIMOTIONS A. MOTIONS Motion for Extension of Time I. Emma Houston CESD20090017445 2. Felipe & Isabel Cristina Ramirez CESD2009000 1803 B. STIPULATIONS C. HEARINGS I. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TlONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA nONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4.. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: CESD20100018779 B & B PROPERTIES OF NAPLES LLC. INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE II, SECTION 22-26(b)(104.5.1.4.4) PERMIT # 1999050654 FOR THE POOL AND ELECTRICAL WERE ISSUED BUT NOT COED. PERMIT WAS ABANDONED 38334840005 6025 GREEN BLVD. NAPLES, FL CESD20100017221 CARLOS BRETT MACIAS/MARISOL MACIAS INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 1O.02.06(B)(I)(a) UNPERMITTED POOL AND POOL CAGE 38220760008 6290 WESTPORT LANE NAPLES, FL CEPM20100017211 LA SALLE BANK NA TR MLMI TRUST INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22-234 BUILDING SUFFERED SEVERE FIRE DAMAGE 36323880007 2592 SANTA BARBARA BLVD. NAPLES, FL CESD20100005695 DA VID & MARGARET L. SMITH INVESTIGATOR CAROL SYKORA COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE II, FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, SECTION 22-26(b)(104.5. 1.4.4) COLLIER COUNTY PERMIT # 940007386 FOR A STORAGE SHED AND COLLIER COUNTY PERMIT # 2005101 151 FOR A POOL WITH ELECTRIC, EXPIRED WITHOUT OBTAINING ALL INSPECTIONS AND CERTIF1CA TE OF COMPLETION 36760160005 691 WEBER BLVD. S. NAPLES, FL 5. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA T10N ADDRESS: 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: VIOLA TlONS: CESD20100004792 ENRIQUE & MARIA RUIZ INVESTIGATOR WELDON WALKER COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-4 I AS AMENDED, SECTION 1O.02.06(B)(I)(a) SHED ERECTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS 73181160003 545 CLIFTON ST. IMMOKALEE, FL CESD20100006940 MICHAEL & AMY FACUNDO INVESTIGA TOR WELDON W Al.KER COl.L1ER COUNTY CODE OF l.A WS, CHAPTER 22, BUIl.DINGS & BUIl.DING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE II, FLORIDA BUIl.DING CODE, ADOPTION & AMENDMENT OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, SECTION 22-26(b)(1 04.5. 1.4.4) EXPIRED COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT 63860280007 318 WASHINGTON AVE. IMMOKALEE, FL CEPM20100017181 SCOTT CAMPBELL INVESTIGATOR CARMEl.O GOMEZ COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LA WS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUIl.DINGS & BUIl.DING REGUl.ATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22-231, SUBSECTION IS A POOL NOT BEING MAINTAINED IN A SANITARY CONDITION 52250111140 3726 WHIDBEY WAY NAPLES, FL CEPM20100009420 GOMAA ELSAID & KAREN AMAL ELSHERBEINI INVESTIGATOR CARMELO GOMEZ COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LA WS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUIl.DING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE SECTION 22-231, SUBSECTION 15 POOL NOT BEING MAINTAINED IN SANIT AR Y 5610160007 11334 LONGSHORE WAY W. NAPLES, FL CEROW20090000973 MARIA L. RAMIREZ INVESTIGATOR ANTHONY ASARO COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 110, ARTICLE II, DIVISION I GENERALLY, SECTION 110-31(a) EXPIRED RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT 07-0945-E. CONSTURCTlON DEBRIS STILL ON THE PROPERTY DRIVEWAY NOT COMPLETE FOLIO NO: VIOLA T10N ADDRESS: 10. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TlONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: II. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 12. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TlON ADDRESS: 13. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA nONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 39956600004 3440 35TII AVE NE NAPLES, FL CESD20090000972 MARIA L. RAMIREZ INVESTIGA TOR ANTHONY ASARO COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE II, OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE SECTION 22-26(b)(104.5.104o4) PERMIT 2007052601 FOR FENCE HAS EXPIRED WITHOUT CO. FENCE CONSTRUCTION STARTED ON PROPERTY 39956600004 3440 35TII AVE NE NAPLES, FL CESD20090000975 MARIA L. RAMIREZ INVESTIGATOR ANTHONY ASARO COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LA WS, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE II, SECTION 22-26 (b)(I04. 1.3.5) STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY PERMIT 39956600004 3440 35'" AVE NE NAPLES, FL CESD20090000978 MARIA L. RAMIREZ INVESTIGATOR ANTHONY ASARO COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE II, SECTION 22-26(b) (104.1.3.5) FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2004 EDITION, CHAPTER, SECTION 105.1 AND SECTION 111.1, COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(b)(I)(a) AND 10.02.06(B)(I)(e)(i) REPORTED REMODEL CONVERSION CONSISTED OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO ELECTRIC REWIRE, PLUMBING WALLS REMOVED/REPLACED 39956600004 3440 35TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL CESD20100008711 ROBERT A. FLICK INVESTIGA TOR AZURE SORRELS FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1, SECTION 105.1, COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 10.02.06(B)( I)(a), 10.02.06(B)( 1)(e)(I), AND 1O.02.06(B)(I)(e) REPA1RS/AL TERATIONS CONSISTING OF ELECTR1CL, PLUMBING, AND STRUCTURAL BOTH INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR HAVE BEGUN ON RESIDENTIAL DWELLING WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING ALL REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY BUIl.DING PERMITS 71800000307 3339 CANAl. STREET NAPLES, Fl. 14. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOl.ATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOl.A TION ADDRESS: 15. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA T10NS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 16. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOl.ATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOl.ATlON ADDRESS: 17. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TlONS: FOLIO NO: VIOl.ATlON ADDRESS: CEPM20100001331 ROMONA GARCIA 1NVESTIGA TOR HEINZ BOX COl.L1ER COUNTY CODE OF l.A WS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS & BUIl.DlNG REGUl.A TlONS, ARTICLE VI, PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22-231(12)(c) ROOF DAMAGE COVERED WITH A BLUE TARP 67284960006 6872 TRAIl. BLVD. NAPl.ES, FL CESD20090010558 SIL V ANO DELGADO & JORGE CHAVEZ INVESTIGATOR ANTHONY ASARO COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE II, FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, SECTION 22-26(b)(I04.5.104o4) PARTlAl.LY BUIl.T STRUCTURE ON PROPERTY WITH CANCELED AND VOIDED PERMIT 40233560005 2556 RANDALL BLVD. NAPLES, FL CESD20100007736 GARY MURPHY INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1 COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-4 I AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(I)(a) SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PERMITS. BUILDING OR LAND ALTERATION PERMITS. IMPROVEMENT OF PROPERTY PROHIBITED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT. COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION I 0.02.06(B)( I )(e)(I). CONVERTED GARAGE INTO A GUEST HOUSE WITH A FULL KITCHEN AND A BATHROOM WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS 37284640000 441 4T11 ST. NE NAPLES, FL CESD20090010167 JEFFREY C & TAMMY J TAYLOR INVESTIGA TOR PA TRlCK BALDWIN COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(I)(a) SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PERMITS. BUIl.DING OR l.AND Al. TERA T10N PERMITS. IMPROVEMENT OF PROPERTY PROHIBITED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT. COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-4 I AS AMENDED, SECTION 1 0.02.06(B)( 1 )(e)(i). CONVERTED GARAGE TO LIVING SPACE WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS 40681720002 3220 6TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL 18. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOl.A TlON ADDRESS: 19. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 20. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 21. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 22. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: CEPM20100018257 ROBERT E & SERITA D BROWN INVESTIGATOR CARMELO GOMEZ COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LA WS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS & BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI, PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22-231, SUBSECTION 15 A POOL NOT BEING MAINTAINED IN A SANITARY CONDITION 66262006349 8622 PEBBLEBROOKE DR. NAPl.ES, FL 2007110390 DANIEL S, DEEREY INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, ABANDONED OR SUSPENDED PERMIT COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LA WS, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE II, FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, ADOPTION AND AMENDMENT OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, SECTION 22-26(b)(I04.5.lo404) EXPIRED PERMIT NUMBER 2006120034 FOR A "GAME ROOM" 72650003728 1405 KING SAGO CT. NAPLES, FL CEOCC20080006147 MAINSCAPE NAPLES, LLC. INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF l.AWS, CHAPTER 126 TAXATION, ARTICLE IV, OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE TAX, DIVISION 1 GENERALLY, SECTION 126-116 MAINSCAPE NAPLES LLC. IS OPERATING A BUSINESS AT 3080 RAVENNA WITHOUT AN OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE 00209160602 3080 RA VENN A A VE. NAPLES, FL CEPM20100010050 PHILIP R. BRADLEY IV & NANCY F. BRADLEY INVESTIGATOR REGGIE SMITH COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTlCl.E VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECION 22-231(15) POOL WATER UNMAINTAINED AND DARK IN COLOR 63102120003 4945 BARCEl.ONA CIRCLE NAPl.ES, FL CEPM20100007809 ROBERT & JULIE SLUMAN INVESTIGATOR REGGIE SMITH COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS & BU1l.DING REGULATIONS, ARTlCl.E VI, PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22-231(15) UNMAINTAINED PRIVATE SWIMMING POOL, WATER IS DARK IN COl.OR 67284960006 6872 TRAIL BLVD. NAPLES, FL 23. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 24. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOl.A TION ADDRESS: 25. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOl.A TION ADDRESS: 5. OLD BUSINESS CEPM20100018316 MICHAEL BONELLI INVESTIGATOR JOE MUCHA COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LA WS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI SECTION 22-231(15) SWIMMING POOl. THAT IS NOT BEING MAINTAINED. V ACANT HOME 33160001123 935 FOUNTAIN RUN NAPLES, FL CEROW20100017549 PIERINO & LORETA PENSENTI INVESTIGA TOR JOE MUCHA COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 110, ARTICLE II SECTION 110-31(a) UNPERMITTED TEMPORARY 2ND DRIVEWAY FOR THE PROPERTY THAT HAS BEEN PARTIALLY PLACED ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. 36616480004 4110 3RD AVE SW. NAPLES, FL CESD20100001344 REUBEN REINSTEIN EST. C/O LAIRD LILE PRo INVESTIGATOR JOE MUCHA COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(I)(a) PERMIT # 1999032149 FOR SWIMMING POOL NEVER RECEIVED CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. PERMIT HAS SINCE BEEN CANCELLED 36613600007 4460 3RD AVE SW NAPLES, FL A. Motion for 1m position of FineslLiens 1. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: CEPM20100007867 JOSEPH & MARIA RANGHELLI INVESTIGATOR CARMELO GOMEZ COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LA WS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, BUILDINGS & BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICl.E VI, PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22-231(15) DIRTY GREEN POOL 56101040007 11169 LONGSHORE WAY W. 2. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: CESD20100003695 MARIA D & SERGIO GOMEZ INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE 11, FLORIDA BUILDING CODE ADOPTION AND AMENDMENT OF THE FLORIDA BUILDIN CODE, SECTION 22-26(b)(I04.5.104o4) PERMIT# 2004030440 FOR THE FENCE AND PERMIT # 2004032107 FOR THE TIKI HUT WERE BOTH ABANDONED AND THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY NEVER OBTAINED 36130560002 4983 17TH AVE SW NAPl.ES, FL CESD20090013290 MARC SHAPIRO PA TR., COLLIER 5151 TERRACE TRUST INVESTIGATOR JOE MUCHA COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(I)(a) GARAGE THAT WAS CONVERTED TO LIVING SPACE AND AN ENCLOSED LAUNDRY ROOM ADDED TO THE REAR OF THE STRUCTURE WITHOUT PERMITS 36313040006 2320 51sT TERRACE SW NAPLES, FL B. Motion for Reduction of FineslLien 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 - January 27, 2011located at Growth Management Division Planning & Regulation 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL Conference Room 609/610 II. ADJOURN November 18, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Good morning. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board meeting to order for November 18th, 2010. Notice, 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 that Karen can record all of the statements being made. Any persons wishing to decide -- to -- to appeal this board decision 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. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Herminio Ortega? MR. ORTEGA: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. James Lavinski, Mr. Tony Marino, Mr. Ron Doino and -- CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Larry Dean. MS. WALDRON: -- Mr. Larry Dean all have excused absences for today. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And do we have a quorum? Page 2 November 18,2010 Approval of the agenda. Do we have changes? MS. WALDRON: Yes, we do. Under No.4, "Public Hearings/Motions, Letter B, "Stipulations," we have five additions under "Stipulations." The first stipulation will be Case CESD201 00004792, Enrique and Maria Ruiz. The second will be Case CESD20100006940, Michael and Amy Facundo. Number 3 will be 2007110390, Daniel S. Deerey. Fourth will be Case CEOCC20080006147, Mainscape Naples, LLC. Fifth will be Case CESD20 1 00008711, Robert A. Flick. Under Letter C, "Hearings," No.1, Case CESD20100018779, B & B Properties of Naples, LLC has been withdrawn. Number 16, Case CESD20100007736, Gary Murphy, has been withdrawn. Number 22, Case CEPM20100007809, Robert and Julie Sluman, has been withdrawn. And that is all the changes I have to the agenda. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. With that, I'll entertain a motion to approve the agenda. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to approve. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All in favor? Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries unanimously. Moving on to the approval of the minutes from the October 28th, 2010, hearing. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve. Page 3 November 18,2010 MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All those in favor? Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Now on to "Public Hearings," A, "Motions." We have two motions: No.1, motion for extension of time, Emma Houston. Karen, would you like to swear both parties in. (Witnesses sworn by court reporter.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Miss Houston, technically, since you brought the motion, if you'd like to explain just briefly about the extension of time that you're requesting and the reasons behind it. MS. HOUSTON: Yes. The last time it was to get the tenant out of the house that was there for 14 years. And we finally got her out. Then I went to -- I came to the hearing, and I asked for the 90 days, and they gave me the 90 days. So in the 90 days, beginning, I did call the manager of the code enforcement. I had been to the office in Immokalee to discuss it with him. And he told me that I had to do certain things, and it must be done by a con -- a contractor. So then I proceed to go back to Mr. Tyler and ask him to do it for me, and he had a hard time finding the house. So one night after his work and after my job, I went over and showed him the house. Then I had people tear everything out, like, rugs and stuff, so he can go in and inspect it and see could he fix it. And he said that -- that it looked like it had some brackets that Page 4 November 18,2010 was loose at the top. And I asked him what do he recommend, and he was, like, very skeptical, but he did finally said that -- you know, he told me the condition and it was up to me. And by thinking about all of the things that would have to be done and the -- that I did not know. I had no diagram on how the electricity worked. Then I said, "Well, I guess, where he's talking and what he'd give me, we will go ahead and demolition it." And I did not want the county to do it; I wanted me to do it, because I have some interest in the side meters and stuff. And in that transaction back and forth -- and he said that he would give me a write-down of what the price is and -- you know, and everything. And by that time I had missed -- knowing my deadline was over, going back and forth and everything I'm doing, not only with that but other things and concerns. And so I said, "Well, give me a letter of the breakdown so they would know that I'm working on it. He did give me a letter earlier, and I mailed it to you in the extension. Then he give me one again, which was yesterday, but I didn't get the breakdown. So I am asking for another extension, which the people that even helped me are going away for a month for a couple of things. And he told that he had some problem with his paperwork, I don't know what, and he recommend that I get another contractor. So right now I have no one, and I'm starting just almost like the beginning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MS. HOUSTON: So I ask for another extension. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Is -- does the county have a position on this? MR. SNOW: Just for the record, Kitchell Snow, Collier County Code Enforcement. Mrs. Houston is correct. Mr. Tyler, or Tyler Construction, does not have an active license with the county. He is state certified, so he could work under somebody else's GC ifhe desired, but he can't pull permits, which this is going to require. Page 5 November 18, 2010 The county doesn't have any objection to anything the board would like to do other than the operational costs have not been paid, and we would request those costs be paid before any extension is granted on the condition that, if the costs are paid, if the board decides to do an extension, that's fine. But we would like the costs paid within 24 hours. MS. HOUSTON: Excuse me. Can I ask what -- what -- what is the cost and what is the cost for. MR. SNOW: Eighty-one fifteen. It's operational costs -- it's the administrative costs for -- MS. HOUSTON: I am not operating. It was closed down. MR. SNOW: No, ma'am, the operational cost for bringing this case to hearing. That's what operational costs are. MS. HOUSTON: I have no money. I have no money. I am really -- have been -- lost about over thousands of dollars going through this. I'm off today at work. I am a single parent, and -- and in the last year, I have lost -- I'm losing, like, two thousand dollars a month, not only for that, for other things. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Miss -- Miss Houston, we do have one question here on the board. MR. KAUFMAN: On the -- on the letter from Tyler Construction, it's not dated. Do you have a copy of the letter that was dated? MR. SNOW: No, sir. We have the same one that you see. MR. KAUFMAN: The same one that's in here? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: So there's no date on this (indicating), so I don't know if they were contacted prior to the date that this was supposed to be resolved by or after that date. MS. HOUSTON: It's-- MR. SNOW: We -- there's further issues involving Tyler Construction in a later case. I don't want to go into that, but we will Page 6 November 18,2010 later. He's supposed to be here this morning. MS. HOUSTON: Yeah, he's here. Mr. Tyler is here. MR. SNOW: Oh, Mr. Tyler, good. Mr. Tyler can probably testify to some things as far as when he contacted her, if you would like to call him as a witness -- MR. KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. SNOW: -- or Mrs. Houston would like to call him as a witness. MS. HOUSTON: Do you mind? (Witnesses sworn by court reporter.) MR. KAUFMAN: My only question is: When was the letter that we have in our -- the one that you sent to the county, when was that written? MS. HOUSTON: Last month. It was written last month. MR. TYLER: I really don't know exactly the date on it. I don't know why I didn't put a date on it. MS. HOUSTON: That's (indicating) not the date. That's the date of this month; it was written last month. MR. TYLER: I wrote her one last night as well which we had -- you know, we had told her that I'm not able to do the job for her at this time due to some issues, and we'll go through that later. I would assume this was probably about a month or so ago. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. The -- it says that this was supposed to be completed October 20th if I'm not mistaken; is that correct? MR. SNOW: 22nd, October 22nd. MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. So my question is: Do you think that the letter that you wrote was before October or -- 22nd or after that? MR. TYLER: It was before October. It was before October 20th, I know, but it was during October. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. I mean, it seems like the last time that an extension was granted nothing happened until almost in October. So by granting an additional 90 days, we may be in the same position Page 7 November 18,2010 that we're in today. MS. HOUSTON: I -- okay. Can I speak now? CHAIRMAN KELLY: May I have you speak into the microphone, please. Thank you. MS. HOUSTON: When it was granted, I went in to Immokalee code enforcement office, and they went over some things that I did not know. At beginning, I think -- I thought that, because it was a family business and because I could get friends to demolition the place -- then I found out I could not. So then I had to look for someone to do a permit to do it, which I did not understand the code. So I went, told him to go and talk to the code enforcement and find out what we need. But the first thing they asked me to do is to see can I repair the place. And that's what I did. And after we found out that it would be unrepairable in those length of time -- and as you know, when you're working with other people, you are not structured in the time. You have to wait until they get to it. Even if you put an appointment in to your doctor, you have to wait until the doctor can see you unless it's emergency. And they will not stop their job to get on your job. You have to stand in line. So it just -- the order of timing of the person who can do it and get there to the office and do it -- find the house, which the house was hard to find and all the other things. Well, I had a misconcept that this building that we are talking about and that's -- you know, spent a lot of time and money on, that it just -- we just could not come to the conclusion that it needs to tear down, even though it had been there 30-some years. So that's where we are. I'm sorry -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Can I ask another question: Is this property occupied? MS. HOUSTON: Pardon me? MR. L'ESPERANCE: This property's not occupied, correct? MS. HOUSTON: No. I had -- it took me, I don't know, three Page 8 November 18,2010 months to get the lady out of the house. I mean, we are -- almost like -- you would have had to pull her out, because she'd been there 14 years, and she liked the house. And so that's -- it's -- you know, it took time. I mean, her daughter even moved her stuff out, like I told -- talked about last time in the minutes in your meeting -- moved all her stuff out, she still stayed in that house. And then finally she gived up and she moved out. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. On -- on the -- Item 7 on the original order, it said that the -- to your point, Investigator, that the 81.15 would be paid within 30 days, I believe, of April 27th, which it has not been done, and it sounds as though that you don't have the funds right now to pay that right -- immediately. MS. HOUSTON: No, I don't. And I did not know I was charged, and I did not get a letter on it saying I was charged. And unless he told me and I didn't hear him, so how would you to know if you don't -- how would you know? MR. KAUFMAN: I have to ask the county. MS. WALDRON: Miss Houston, did you get a copy of the order, the original order, from the original hearing in the mail? MS. HOUSTON: No, I didn't. MS. WALDRON: Okay. Were you at the original hearing? MS. HOUSTON: Yes, I was. MS. WALDRON: Okay. It was stated at the original hearing-- MS. HOUSTON: I did-- MS. WALDRON: -- of what the operational cost was. MS. HOUSTON: They did not state a fine to be paid at the original hearing. You can check your minutes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah, it was stated during -- during the original meeting. It's what we ordered as a board. So the actual amount was stated, and it was also stated that it was to be paid within 30 days. MS. HOUSTON: I did not hear the actual amount. Page 9 November 18,2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's okay. MS. HOUSTON: And if you give me the minutes or a paper on it, I'll be glad to read it. I did not hear it. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: We can provide a copy of the actual order for you right now. MS. HOUSTON: But I know that you extended me the 90 days, and I went out outside, and they explained some things to me. So I don't know if it happened after I left or before I got here, because I was a minute short. And I don't think that would have been done. It would have been done after my hearing. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Well, I'd love to help you, but, as a board, we cannot waive operational costs. Those have to be paid. They're hard costs incurred by the county, so that's something that would have to be paid. MS. HOUSTON: No, the question was I knew and I didn't pay, and that's what the question is today. What I'm talking -- I didn't hear it. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd like to make a motion. I'd like to make a motion that we deny the request for extension of time. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a denial and a second. Any discussion? MR. ORTEGA: I have two questions. MS. HOUSTON: Ex -- can I speak again? CHAIRMAN KELL Y: One moment. Let's -- let's ask the question first. MR. ORTEGA: Is it your intent to demolish the existing structure? MS. HOUSTON: Yes. MR. ORTEGA: Okay. The other one is: Presently does that pose a life safety hazard? MR. SNOW: I can't testify to -- there's no one in -- inside that. Page 10 November 18,2010 At one time there was somebody living there, I would say yes, but there's nobody living there. The question is is we've already extended them a 90-day period, and are we extending another 90-day period for -- and would the county agree with whatever the board decides to do in this instance. But to answer your question, no, I can't testify on that. MR. ORTEGA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Lionel, anything? MR. L'ESPERANCE: No. No further questions. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'd be in favor of extending providing the operational costs were paid first. If they weren't paid within, let's say, for instance, 24, 48 hours, then it would render any extension null and void. It would show goodwill. But that's the only comment that I have. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Would you be willing to modify your original motion to reflect this line of thinking? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, ifhe's denying it -- I'm sorry. MR. LEFEBVRE: That wasn't the motion that's on -- on the table. And the reason for the denial is we are very clear when we tell a respondent that the operational costs are to be paid within 30 days. That is standard. We do that every single time we have an order. And to come up here and say that that's not the case, I'm very slighted by that. And she's -- she's been in front of us several times. So I feel that we would just be back here in another 90 days with the same situation. And I'd like to see this corrected, so my motion stands. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any further discussion? MS. HOUSTON: Can I say something, sir? CHAIRMAN KELLY: We've -- we've closed the public portion. We'll go ahead and call to a vote, and then you can comment afterwards. MS. HOUSTON: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. All those in favor of denying the Page 11 November 18,2010 motion, signify by saying "Aye." Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries unanimously. Mrs. Houston, go ahead. MS. HOUSTON: I said to him I did not hear it. Before when I came before the code enforcement and they fined me, I paid it immediately. If I knew that I had or -- I will -- you know, things that I've got to do, I wouldn't have done it. I said that I didn't hear it. Now, I might have been too nervous to hear it, but I said, "Okay, they didn't fine me this time. They gave me another" -- you know. So I did not hear it, and I did not -- so I'm sorry that I didn't hear you and -- and like he said, now, you might not give me extension, but one thing I'm saying today, that even right now, I will have to start from new because of his situation who was working on it as close as he could. I don't have a contractor right now. So when the contractor came and said -- and you have it on your book, that I have a contractor working on it, which I gave you proof. I have it not now, because it was told to me last night that he couldn't do it. So now I have to start from new, so if you want to fine me because -- you know, for this, I don't know what to say. I'll just say n CHAIRMAN KELLY: Here-- MS. HOUSTON: -- I do what you want me to do. That's all I know. But I don't have a worker on this now. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Here is a suggestion: You work as diligently as possible to get the home demolished. The fine of $250 per day will continue to accrue until that's done and you receive a certificate of completion/occupancy from the county.a Page 12 November 18,2010 Once that happens, you do have the right to come back to us and request a reduction or possibly a full abatement of the fines. So we as a board -- I'm not saying that we will, but we as a board have the option to reduce or completely get rid of all of those fines that may accrue if we see good faith working towards demolishing a home. MS. HOUSTON: Okay. Right now, I don't have anyone to represent me, right? I do not -- you know, I've been -- I'm, like, 58 years old, and I believe in the rights of the country. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Uh-huh. MS. HOUSTON: But I believe that some extension need to be done if you don't have someone to do the work, if they could not get there in time. And they said that they did this and they did that. I don't see why I am going to be fined -- even though you said, "Come back," I don't see why I should be fined at this time for a work that someone was working on, it could not be done. He worked on his time limit. I went to him. And now, the day before I come to court, I cannot show because he -- last night he told me that -- so now I'm starting from new. So this is going to take even some time to find someone that will do it. I have to be on their deadline to see what number I'm on, just like you put me on your deadline. So what I'm saying to you, I just ask mercy on the Court, because I am the person that have been going through two and a half years in a court battle with my son. Now I'm trying to straighten my life with my kids, which I am pressed on every measure. I am doing my ministry, yes, and I'm going to continue to do my ministry in Immokalee and -- feeding the hungry and servicing them. As a matter of fact, we're going to have a big day Saturday. But I think you should be just and, you know, some kind of stuff should have been given. I mean, I really would like it if you had given me the 24 to pay -- and I think I have 24 hours to pay it. I'll still pay it in 24 hours. Page 13 November 18,2010 CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Miss Houston, I agree with you when it comes to our justice system. And there is a balance here. Even though fines are accruing, they have not yet been assessed against the property. We have the right as the board to reduce or completely get rid of all of those fines so they never do go against the property. My suggestion, again, would be to work as diligently as possible and to find a contractor who could help you do the work, get everybody together, take care of it. And then come back and tell us about all of your good ministry and deeds, and we'll take that into consideration about abatement or -- or reduction of those fines then, okay? You're doing a fine job representing yourself. MS. HOUSTON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Thank you. MS. HOUSTON: I do my best, and I am a citizen. You can look at my record. I really try to do what's right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. Thank you. Kitchell? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Could you let her know that the $81 cannot be abated in any way. MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Moving on to the second request for an extension of time, that would be Felipe and Isabel Cristina Maria -- Ramirez. Are the respondents here? MR. SNOW: Yes, they are. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. We'll have the court reporter swear you and the county -- MR. SNOW: We have an interpreter too-- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oh, okay. MR. SNOW: -- Mr. Chair, the daughter. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Page 14 November 18, 2010 (Interpreter and witnesses sworn by court reporter.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. Good morning. Technically, since you are requesting the extension of time, we usually give you the opportunity to tell us why you're requesting it, basically what's happening that is requiring additional time. MR. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, can I elaborate for you? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sure. MR. SNOW: This is obviously his daughter. He is a worker that is normally out of state. He owns a mobile home park in Immokalee. He has obtained an engineer and has continued to -- continues to try to abate the violations. He -- the SIP is approved. He does have permits; he has paid his operational costs. But to -- along with the SIP, he has to put some infrastructure inside the park; he has to move some mobile homes; he has to do some landscaping; he has to do some other things. So he's worked very, very diligently to try to abate the violation. It's just taking a lot of time. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So the county's position then is to allow any extension? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir, we enthusiastically endorse that. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Judging by the amount of time that it's taken so far, where he is, and how much do you think is -- how much time do you think would be required? MR. SNOW: I talked to him this morning. They were thinking about six months, but I think about nine -- nine months is -- because it's -- it's extensive. It's almost totally remodeling the property. And he's really been diligent about what he needs to do, so I would suggest nine months. CHAIRMANKELLY: Okay. MR. L'ESPERANCE: There are no life safety issues on this particular consideration? MR. SNOW: No, sir. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. Page 15 November 18, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Do you understand that the county has recommended nine months of an extension? Would you like to ask if that's agreeable, nine months? THE INTERPRETER: Yeah, it's okay with him. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: And he'll be able to finish everything in nine months? THE INTERPRETER: Yes. MR. SNOW: Tell your -- your father that, ifhe can't finish that in nine months, to contact us like he always has and that we can come back to the board and request more time as long as he's dil -- as long as he's diligent, which he has been. That means progressing, making progress with the property, then -- that he could request more time before the board. But he has to come back and ask if we get close to that. And we'll work on that. THE INTERPRETER: He is okay with that. He understands that. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Okay. Great. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd like to make a motion to grant an extension of time for nine months, 270 days, from this hearing. MR. ORTEGA: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. You have a nine-month extension. Thank you very much for your hard work. And like the investigator said, if you need more time, please let us Page 16 November 18, 2010 know before this time expires. THE INTERPRETER: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. No other motions? Now we're moving on to "Public Hearings/Motions," B, "Stipulations." The first stipulation is going to be Enrique and Maria Ruiz. Good morning. Are you an interpreter as well? THE INTERPRETER: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We're going to swear you in first. (Interpreter and witnesses sworn by court reporter.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. SNOW: This is concerning Case No. CESD20100004792. "The violations noted in the referenced notice of violation are accurate, and I stipulate to their existence. Therefore, it is agreed that the parties shall -- respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of 80.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of the date of this hearing and abate violations by -- abate all violations by -- must apply for and obtain a Collier County building permit or demolition permit and request required inspections to be performed and passed through a certificate of completion/occupancy within 120 days of the date of the hearing, or a fine of $100 a day will be imposed. "The 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." (As read.) Excuse me. It's a -- it's the agreement we signed yesterday. THE INTERPRETER: Yes. Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. That -- that's what I was going to Page 17 November 18, 2010 say. Good. MR. SNOW: Sorry, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: No problem. Do you believe that 120 days would be a long enough time to get the permit for the shed? THE INTERPRETER: Okay. And how much is the permit? Was it eighty-nine seven-- CHAIRMAN KELL Y: I'm not sure of the cost. I just know that we're giving you 120 days, and that's what you agreed to. THE INTERPRETER: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: And as a board, we want to make sure that that's enough time. THE INTERPRETER: Yep. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the place that you would get the permit is right here in this building up front, so you'll be able to maybe check on the pricing on the way out today. THE INTERPRETER: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. SNOW: Just for some information, remember that we have permitting in Immokalee on every Tuesday of the month, so you don't have to come to Horseshoe Drive. You can acquire the information as Mr. Chair advised you, but we have permitting there. So all you have to do is come to the code enforcement office. Maria Rodriguez, if you go up today, stop by the office and talk to her, she'll be more than happy to help you and figure out what you need to do. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Is there any questions from the board? MR. ORTEGA: Yes. The description detail is a "shed." And they're utilizing it as a habitable structure? MR. SNOW: They were, but it's not. It's a very large shed, and there's nobody in the interior. We looked at that, so it is not occupied. The problem is it meets setback -- it's two feet over the setbacks, and Page 18 November 18, 2010 there is a slab there, so they're going to figure out what they want to do with that. They're going to have to cut it down. MR. ORTEGA: Are they aligning themselves more with a demolition permit or trying to reconstruct? MR. SNOW: I don't know. Are you wanting to keep the structure, or are you going to try to reconstruct the structure? THE INTERPRETER: She wants to keep it. MR. ORTEGA: All right. Is this structure movable? MR. SNOW: It is attached to the slab, so they're -- they're obviously going to have to get a contractor to do that. Is it movable? I can't answer that question, sir. It's not a mobile structure, no. It was built. MR. ORTEGA: Do they understand that they're encroaching into a setback? MR. SNOW: Yes, they do. MR. ORTEGA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: What's your thought about time frame? MR. ORTEGA: A hundred twenty days may not be sufficient, especially if -- and I'm not sure if the property -- if it's on septic and they're going to try to maintain the habitable structure. I mean -- MR. SNOW: Well, they can't have a habitable. It's going to have to be a shed. MR. ORTEGA: When you say "shed," I'm thinking Ted's Sheds. MR. SNOW: Well, it's a large -- it's not a Ted's Shed, sir; it's very large. So they're going to have to get engineered drawings and some other things for it. So we thought 120 days was reasonable. They can always come back before the board and ask for more time, but it's a -- just to let them know that, "Listen, you have 120 days now, and if you need more time you can come back." MR. KAUFMAN: Is there plumbing in that shed? MR. SNOW: No, sir. Page 19 November 18, 2010 MR. KAUFMAN: Is there electrical in the shed? MR. SNOW: No, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. So there's no electrical, no plumbing. That's it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Gerald? MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm just -- again, if the shed is going to stay where it is, they're going to need a variance thing. MR. SNOW: If -- if they decide to go that route, sir-- MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. SNOW: -- and -- and I don't think that they are financially able to do that. So I believe it's going to have to be moved or cut back. Two feet is not a whole lot -- is not a lot. So I don't know what -- they're going to have to figure out what they want to do. If the board desires to give them more days, then we're not objecting to that. MR. KAUFMAN: Is it encroaching in the right-of-way and not on the property line? MR. SNOW: No, sir, on the property line. MR. KAUFMAN: It's on the property line? MR. SNOW: Two feet, sir, yes, sir -- not on the property line. Setbacks are 10 feet, so they're two feet on -- encroaching on the setbacks. MR. KAUFMAN: On the setbacks. Okay. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any other comments or questions? MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that we approve the stipulation as written. If they need more time, obviously, they can come back to the board. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 20 November 18,2010 MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries unanimously. Again, if you do need more time, please let us know before this expires. THE INTERPRETER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Thank you. Good luck. The next stipulated agreement is Michael and Amy -- Facundo? MR. KAUFMAN: Close enough. (Witnesses sworn by court reporter.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Tyler, right? MR. TYLER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Are you representing the respondent today? MR. TYLER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Jean-- MR. SNOW: For the record, we do have an affidavit giving Tyler Construction permission to do that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. SNOW: We didn't make copies of it; we didn't want to submit it. We just did get the affidavit just to cover any legalities. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: As long as Jean's happy with it, we're happy with it. MS. RAWSON: If you have an affidavit and he represents him, it's fine. MR. SNOW: I knew you would ask me for it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. If you'd like to read the stipulated agreement into the record -- MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thanks. MR. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, there are some mitigating Page 21 November 18,2010 circumstances involved in this, and we'll explain those after we read the stipulation. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Okay. MR. SNOW: We beg the indulgence of the board on -- on hearing the full disclosure before a decision is made. This concerns Case No. CESD20100006940. "The violations found on the referenced notice of violation are accurate, and I stipulate to their existence. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $81.15 incurred in the prosecution of the case within 30 days of the hearing and abate all violations by -- must reapply for and obtain a Collier County building permit within 180 days of the hearing, or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed and a request for county inspections to be performed and passed through a certificate of completion within 365 days of the hearing, or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed. "The 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." (As read.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: I have a quick question about how this is written real quick. Gerald, remember those cases we used to have where it was kind of like a double jeopardy; they were being find $200 a day for the first part -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: -- and then, if they went over that and then they went over the second part, they were being charged $400 a day? Is that -- is that this situation here? It's like -- let's say we went two years and nothing was done. It then turns into $400 per day, doesn't it? Page 22 November 18,2010 MS. RAWSON: It does. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Is that the intent? MR. SNOW: Well, let me explain. Mr. Tyler is obviously the owner of Tyler Construction. There were some circumstances involved when he was hired to build this structure. A permit was in applied status and ready to be issued. There were some financial constraints which, ifMr. Tyler wishes to talk about, I will let him do that. I don't wish to belabor that other than the permit was not issued. There was some construction done, and there was some inspection performed. Unfortunately, the home is also encroaching on some setbacks and some -- some things have to be removed. Mr. Facundo desires to retain Tyler Construction to do -- to finish his property. He's very dedicated to making sure that Mr. Tyler does that. He's discussed with Mr. Tyler that he has 45 days to take care of what he needs to do to obtain this permit. We just felt that 180 days to get the permit is very important. And we need to get it finished within 365 days because it's remaining unfinished. It's got walls up, but some things have to be done. So that's why that -- we had the two -- the two different things. We just didn't want to say, "You have 365 days." We wanted the onus on getting the permit and completing and finishing the permit -- that was -- that was our desire, to do that. Mr. Tyler, do you have anything, sir, you would like to add? And I believe Mr. Tyler's going to do the right thing. I believe that he is dedicated to doing this and that Mr. Facundo, who was unavailable today -- I sat over an hour with him, and he's dedicated to that also. MR. LEFEBVRE: Mr. Kelly, a comment or question. In previous testimony from a previous case, Mr. Tyler is not able to pull permits in the county. So how would he be able to complete the work unless he has another general contractor's license that he can use and that's -- that's currently registered in Collier County? Page 23 November 18,2010 MR. TYLER: Yes, sir. I actually own -- I mean, I own Tyler Construction. My licenses are active in the state. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. TYLER: I'm doing work right now in Orange County. And what's -- the problem is is that I have money coming in, and I'm due to have that within 30 days or so. And that money is the money that I'm going to take care of the financial situation that we have here in Collier County, and then my license will be re-active. I've came -- I've come in, I've also put in my -- my occupational license. I did -- redone that. I redone all the necessary stuff except for taking care of the situation as far as the financial part, which that's what -- the 45 days that Mike Facundo has given me, to pay that and then get his house back on track. MR. LEFEBVRE: It to me sounds very speculative. MR. SNOW: Well, that's why, sir -- we had the same situation and same thoughts. And that's why my discussion ended where it did, sir, obviously, that he said in 45 days that's when he's going to do it. If he doesn't do it in 45 days, he already has another contractor on line; he already has a contractor, the property owner, to take over. He -- Mr. Facundo is committed to Immokalee, and he -- he sits on a few boards up in Immokalee. Mr. Tyler is from Immokalee, and he has his business in Immokalee, and he's very dedicated and -- and wants to make sure that local businesses prosper. Mr. Tyler's already told me, if it wasn't for Mr. Facundo and his wishes, he may have closed his doors already. Mr. Facundo believes in what Mr. Tyler will do; he believes in giving him the opportunity to do the right thing and obtain this. And I have to -- I have to stand by what Mr. Facundo wishes. If he doesn't do it in 45 days, he's given me his word that another contractor will be on site. And I think Mr. Tyler knows that. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, Mr. Tyler can't do any work on the structure until he is current in Collier County; is that correct? Page 24 November 18,2010 MR. SNOW: That is correct, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. So hypothetically, 30 -- Mr. Facundo gave him 45 days. Hypothetically, ifhe gets his money in 30 days -- he said 30 days or somewhere in -- not his exact words, but some -- somewhere around there. That's leaving very little time for him to actually -- I don't know what kind of work needs to be done, but it's leaving him very little time to get the work done. So I'm -- I'm kind of skeptical on this -- all -- all the gears meshing up. I just -- I'd like to be an optimist, but I'm not -- really not. I'm not in this case. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Mr. Tyler, would you want to help clear it up? MR. TYLER: Yeah. I mean, 30 days is to get the funding to get the permit back applicate -- back on the application back here -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. TYLER: -- and get everything taken care of, so that's the 30 days. Now, he's giving us 365 days to complete the project. Now, there's money that's -- that's there for the project, so the money's not a problem for us finishing the project. The money is now -- it's for me to be able to take care of my obligations as far as my financial part. MR. LEFEBVRE: I understand that. But the testimony here from the investigator states that Mr. Facundo gave you 45 days, I would assume from today, to get everything done, not to get ready to start. That's-- MR. SNOW: No, sir, 45 days to get the permit. MR. LEFEBVRE: To get the permit. Okay. MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. I'm sorry. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: It's actually 180 days. MR. TYLER: It's 180 days to get the permit, 45 days to get my stuff active in this county. Page 25 November 18,2010 MR. SNOW: Correct. When we're -- when we're thinking about this -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Uh-huh. MR. SNOW: -- think about it as this is an obligation for this contractor and Mr. Facundo to this board. Ifhe doesn't get that in 45 days, then he's going to have another contractor on line. If another contractor comes on line, there will probably be some work that needs to be done. That's why there's a -- we're talking about 180 days because, if the 45 days expires and Mr. Tyler doesn't do what he needs to do, then we need to give him some time if he has to obtain the permit. And that's where the 180 days comes in. We want a definitive line on that. MR. ORTEGA: I'm sorry. I'm a little bit fuzzy on this whole thing. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Go ahead. MR. ORTEGA: The permit is in issued status? MR. SNOW: No, sir. The permit -- the per -- the permit has been revoked. MR. ORTEGA: Revoked? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. MR. ORTEGA: Has the work started? MR. SNOW: It had started on the premise that the permit was issued at one time. But the funds were not available and the check bounced, so -- MR. ORTEGA: Okay. So the work started without a permit. MR. SNOW: No, sir, there was a permit issued. MR. ORTEGA: It was -- MR. SNOW: But when the check bounced, they revoked it. MR. ORTEGA: Understood. Now, did I hear you say that the structure was encroaching? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. MR. ORTEGA: Into the property line, setbacks-- Page 26 November 18,2010 MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. And they have previously applied for a demolition permit to -- yesterday to try to do that, but the county's not going to issue anything until the issue is taken care of with the funds that are owed. MR. ORTEGA: I understand. Thank you. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a couple of questions. One has nothing to do with the case but more to do with Mr. Tyler. As far as the case is concerned, I have no problem with it. You have a commitment of -- of getting this done. My question to you is: Have you had discussions with the contractor licensing board to know that you're on -- as soon as you do A, B, or C, they will approve your application, and you'll be able to pull permits in the county? MR. TYLER: Yes, sir. I've come into the licensing board. I gave them all the information they need, updated, as far as even paying $45 to -- for them. So I did everything, but I cannot pull the permit unless I take care of this situation. They cannot put me active until I take care of the financial part of the situation -- MR. KAUFMAN: Right. MR. TYLER: -- as far as the returned check. MR. KAUFMAN: Which will be done as soon as you receive the funds from -- MR. TYLER: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: -- ajob you're doing in another county. MR. TYLER: Yes. You know, I asked Mr. Facundo to give me 30 days or so. Normally the checks come in within two weeks in Orange County. But I wanted to give myself a little time to make sure that the money's there, just in case it took longer than two weeks. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I don't have a problem with the actual stipulation and the time frames. It's more just the wording than anything else. In the past what we've done is we've given them, you know, 180 days to pull a permit and then 180 days after that to Page 27 November 18,2010 complete the work with one fine of $200. The fact that it was listed twice in there could be a double-jeopardy situation. MR. SNOW: Whatever you want to do, Mr. Chairman. MS. WALDRON: I think a solution to that would be we can -- we can keep the 180 days from the date of this hearing for the first part and then reword the second part as you have, 185 days from the issuance of the permit to -- and then that would -- that would eliminate the double -- the double fines. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Is that -- does everyone on the board agree with that? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah. I'm not sure ifit would be also prudent to maybe, in our January meeting, have someone come back and say, "Yes, we're -- we're moving forward." That might be a progress report for us to know, that he actually either received everything he needs to operate within the county or not, if a new contractor was hired. Would that be -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: That wouldn't be a problem. We could, of course, put that in there. If we grant an order of 180 days plus 180 days, let's say a year, the progress reports, if they came back negative and no work was being done, the order still sits for a year and -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- you know, there's not much we can do. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. SNOW: Well, if the board desires, what you can do is give them -- require them to come back in January to get a status report, just like you've done on -- on other properties. If you -- if you desire to do that, that could be part of your order, that you want a progress report every month. And we can come back and report on that. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm not sure if it's -- I mean, just, I guess -- I'm not sure if it really matters that -- who does the job as long as it gets done. So we can leave the order as is. MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion that we accept the stipulation Page 28 November 18,2010 with the addition to it that -- that we have a report generated to code enforcement sometime during the month of January to see what the progress IS. MS. WALDRON: Did you also want to change the wording? MR. KAUFMAN: Yeah, change the wording. It's 180 and then 185 days. MS. WALDRON: And it's 185 days from the date of the permit issuance? MR. KAUFMAN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Got it, Jean? MS. RAWSON: Got it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All those in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. All we did was just a little technical changing on the words. It's a $200 fine. It gives you 180 days to get your permit on -- taken care of and then another 185 days to get the work done, so basically a year. MR. TYLER: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: And then the fines will accrue after the 180 days, the first 180 days, if we don't get a permit. And then they'll continue to accrue if the work's not done at the end of the year. MR. TYLER: Yes, sir. Page 29 November 18,2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay? MR. TYLER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right. Good luck. MR. TYLER: Do I need to pay -- do I need to pay the $81 or-- MR. SNOW: That's up -- between -- that's between you and Mr. Facundo, but it is charged to him. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: And -- and he does have 30 days to pay it. It has to be paid within 30 days. MR. TYLER: So who do we actually pay that to? MR. SNOW: Sir, I'll talk to you. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: He can take care of it. Good luck, Mr. Tyler. MR. TYLER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Okay. The next item on the hearings is another stipulation. It is Daniel S. Deerey. Is the respondent here today? MR. BALDWIN: No, sir. (Witness sworn by court reporter.) COURT REPORTER: Can you state your name for the record. MR. BALDWIN: For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you'd like to read the stip into the record. MR. BALDWIN: Sure. Case No. 2007110390. "The violation noted in the referenced notice of violation are accurate, and I stipulate to their existence. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $81.41 -- 43 cents incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. "Two, abate all violations by applying for and obtaining a Collier County building permit or a Collier County demolition permit for all construction additions and/or alterations, obtain all related inspections Page 30 November 18,2010 and certificate -- certificate of completion within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. "Three, the respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm abatement. "Four, if the" vie -- if --I'm sorry. "Four, if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions ofthis agreement." (As read.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And the respondent signed the stipulated agreement? MR. BALDWIN: Yesterday, sir. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Are there any questions from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah, I have a couple questions. The violation was first observed on the -- on November 13th of '017 MR. BALDWIN: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: And then the notice of violation was given a year and a half later almost. MR. BALDWIN: Well, there was a -- first a notice of violation given for -- way back for not having the correct permits for it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. BALDWIN: But then the owner did apply for a permit. The permit number is 2006-120034. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. BALDWIN: That had expired, so we re-served him for a new notice of violation for having expired permits. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is it his intention to complete the -- MR. BALDWIN: Yes, it is. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- the room or whatever it is? MR. BALDWIN: He said everything should be done within 60 days. He -- his architect had passed away, and he thought everything Page 3 1 November 18,2010 was okay. So he's hired a new architect to resubmit the plans. And he tried to just go re-app the permit, but he had to resubmit the plans, so he had to go back and hire a new architect. There's only four inspections remaining on it: And I think it's the final electric, plumbing, and -- and the final one, one other one. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions? Entertain a motion. MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion we accept the stipulation as written. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All those in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. Thank you, Investigator. The next stipulation is going to be Mainscape Naples, LLC. Good morning. MR. TORRANCE: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Are you the registered agent? MR. TORRANCE: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. TORRANCE: Actually, I'm one of the owners. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oh, excellent. Ifwe could, we'll have the court reporter swear you in. (Witnesses sworn by court reporter.) MR. BALDWIN: Case No. CEOCC20080006147. "The violations noted in the referenced notice of violation are accurate, and Page 32 November 18,2010 I stipulate to their existence. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: "One, pay operational costs in the amount of $80.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of the hearing; "Two, abate all violations by applying for and obtaining an applicable business tax receipt from the tax collector for a maintenance landscape company approved as a permitted use on the said agriculturally-zoned property in Site Development Plan No. 2008-AR-13355 or cease and desist all said business-related activities on the agriculturally-zoned property within 30 days of this hearing, or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; "Three, 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; and, "Four, if the respondent fails to abate the violation of the county, they 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." (As read.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Just for clarification, the information on the top part of the stipulated agreement is just background information, right? MR. BALDWIN: Correct. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All we're looking for is just an updated occupational basically? MR. BALDWIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any questions from the board? Do you agree to the information that was read? MR. TORRANCE: Yes, we do. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: In that case, I'll entertain a motion. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. LEFEBVRE: Did the respondent state his name for the Page 33 November 18, 2010 record? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sure, please. For the court reporter's record, could you state your name, please. MR. TORRANCE: My name is Bruce Torrance. I'm one of the owners of Mainscape Naples. MR. LEFEBVRE: And you are the one that actually signed the stipulated agreement, correct? MR. TORRANCE: Yes, I am. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Very good. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: We have a motion to accept the stipulated agreement as written by Mr. Kaufman. Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: It carries unanimously. Thanks for your time, sir. MR. TORRANCE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: And the last stipulated agreement, unless there's any new ones, is Mr. Flick. (Witnesses sworn by court reporter.) MS. SORRELS: For the record, Azure Sorrels, Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Azure, would you spell your name for November 18,2010 MS. SORRELS: Sure. Azure is A-z-u-r-e, and S-o-r-r-e-l-s. This is in reference to Case No. CESD2010000871 1. Mr. Flick and the county entered into a stipulation agreement as follows: "Pay the operational costs in the amount of $81.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; abate all violations by -- the respondent must obtain all required Collier County building permits, inspections, and certificate of completion for repairs, alterations, or obtain a demolition permit, inspections, certificate of completion, and demolish the structure within 120 days of this hearing, or a 200-per-day -- $200-per-day fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains. "Respondent was note -- must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of a violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner." (As read.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: I hope you feel better soon. MS. SORRELS: I do too. Thank you. MR. KAUFMAN: But it has slowed you down a little bit, so the court reporter can keep up with you. MS. SORRELS: Just to reference, Mr. Flick did come in on Monday. He does have all of the blueprints and drawings that are required and the affidavit -- permit by affidavit. He was missing a couple of things on Monday, so they wouldn't accept his permit application, but I do believe that he is prepared to submit that within the next couple of days. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Excellent. Mr. Flick, do you understand and agree to everything that was just read from the stipulated agreement? MR. FLICK: Yeah. Page 35 November 18, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All those in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Flick. Good luck, sir. MS. SORRELS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right. That ends our stipulated agreements. We'll move now to our "Hearings," C, Case No.2 -- CESD201 000 17221. Investigator Paul, is the respondent here? MR. PAUL: No, he's not. MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to Case CESD20 1 000 17221, violation of ordinance: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41 as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(l)(a). Description of violation: Unpermitted pool and pool cage. Location/address, or where violation exists: 6290 Westport Lane, Naples, Florida, 34116. Folio 38220760008. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Carlos Brett Macias and Marisol Macias, 6290 Westport Lane, Naples, Florida, 34116. Date violation first observed: August 19th, 2010. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: September 30th, 2010. Date on by which violation to be corrected: October 30th, 2010. Date of reinspection: November 1st, 2010. Results of reinspect ion: The Page 36 November 18, 2010 violation remains. MR. PAUL: Good morning. (Witness sworn by court reporter.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. MR. PAUL: For the record, Renald Paul, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. This is in reference to Case No. CESD201 000 17221 dealing with violations of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41 as amended, Sections 1O.02.06(B)(I)(a). CHAIRMAN KELLY: Renald-- MR. PAUL: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Do you have theatric disease? MR. PAUL: Unpermitted pool and pool cage located at 6290 Westport Lane. Service was given on 9/30 of201O. I'd like to present case evidence and the following Exhibits: Bl and Cl and 2. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept exhibits. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Carried. MR. PAUL: And as you'll see, the first exhibit, Bl, because I was unable to access this property, I did this based off of aerials, aerial shots. And you'll see in the backyard of the property there is a pool and a pool cage. The second and third exhibit is the original building application. And you'll want to take a close look at the second page, which shows Page 37 November 18, 2010 at the bottom -- it seems like some of these places sometimes put a squiggly line or so on it, where it says "Swimming Pool or Spa." So they were not permitted to have a swimming pool at the property. MR. KAUFMAN: Is that because of setbacks? MR. PAUL: No, they -- I'm sorry. They just didn't have one -- MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. PAUL: -- because they didn't build the house with a pool. This case began on eight -- 8/19 of2010. I was on site for another violation. I was unable to access the property due to the fence but, after further research of aerials and whatnot, found that the owners did have a pool and a pool cage in the backyard of the property. At that time this property did have a lis pendens that was filed by the bank on this -- on this property, and the property was vacant. This case was forwarded to our foreclosure team, and they were doing diligent work on it. On 8/19, I did attempt personal service but, because nobody lives at the site, I had to send it out certified mail. On 10/1, I -- I returned and observed that the violation remained. I posted a notice of violation at the residence and the courthouse. On 11-1, after research found there were no permits applied for, received no phone calls from the owner, and I prepped the case for a hearing. And on 11/2, I posted the notice of hearing at the residence and the courthouse. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just-- CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Go ahead. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- a point of notice, I guess. On the aerial, if you look at the aerial between 2001, which is the bottom photo, and 2010, you can see multiple changes to this property. It appears that there's some kind of structure that was built right behind the pool. And then I don't know if that shed is still within the view. It might be out of the -- MR. PAUL: It's -- it's out of view. Page 38 November 18, 2010 MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah, okay. MR. PAUL: I can't see it. MR. LEFEBVRE: But there looks like there's some other kind of structure there on the 20 I 0 photo right in -- right behind the pool; is that correct or no? MR. PAUL: I -- I can't -- MR. LEFEBVRE: It's irrelevant but -- MR. PAUL: Right. I can't -- I can't tell. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. All right. MR. PAUL: Unfortunately, I was unable to access the property. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that we find them in violation. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. MR. ORTEGA: Second. MR. LEFEBVRE: That's fine. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Violation does exist, but-- MR. ORTEGA: If-- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you have a -- yes, sir. MR. ORTEGA: Is the pool secured? Is there a hole in the ground? Page 39 November 18,2010 MR. PAUL: It has been secured by the bank. They went in and put over the HUD standard mesh and so on, on top of the pool to secure it. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Does the county have a recommendation? MR. PAUL: Yes, we do. We ask that the respondent pay all operational costs in the amount of $81.15 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. We ask that the respondent -- respondent is required to obtain any and all permits as required by Collier County for any and all additions to this residence or obtain permits for the removal of all unpermitted additions to this residence 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 the violation remains unabated. The respondent must notify code enforcement investigator that the violation has been abated in order to conduct the final inspection for abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the -- 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: Okay. Anyone want -- MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question on -- on the -- on the order, you said any or all of additions that are unpermitted. So that would be the pool -- MR. PAUL: And the pool cage. MR. KAUFMAN: -- if there's plumbing involved in the pool-- MR. PAUL: Correct and electric. MR. KAUFMAN: -- ifthere's a shed holding whatever it is, the equipment for the pool, or any other structures that do not have permits on the property? MR. PAUL: We're just referring to the pool and the pool cage. Page 40 November 18, 2010 MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Are there any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Ifnot, I'll entertain a motion. MR. KAUFMAN: I'll give it a roll. Eighty-one thirteen paid within 30 days. MR. PAUL: Eighty-one fifteen, I believe it is. MR. KAUFMAN: Fifteen? MR. PAUL: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. I'll throw in the two cents. Two hundred dollars a day would be the fine, and -- let's see. That takes care of that; that takes care of that. And you said this is bank owned, if I'm not mistaken. MR. PAUL: They don't have title yet. MR. KAUFMAN: They don't? MR. PAUL: And that's probably why they haven't pulled any permits and such. MR. KAUFMAN: Ninety days. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: So the motion is to accept the county's recommendation with a time frame of90 days and $200 per day, correct? MR. KAUFMAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All those in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. Page 41 November 18, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. Thank you, Investigator Paul. Yes, ma'am. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Chairman, we do have four stipulations that just came in. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Four? MS. WALDRON: Yes. They're all from the same respondent. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MS. WALDRON: They are on No.9, 10, 11, and 12 on the agenda. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. All the Ramirez cases? MS. WALDRON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: With that, I'll entertain a motion to amend the agenda to move Case No.9, 10, 11, and 12 up to the current. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to amend the agenda. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: We'll go ahead and move directly into the stipulated agreements starting with No. -- Case No.9, which would be CEROW20090000973, Maria L. Ramirez. (Witnesses sworn by court reporter.) Page 42 November 18, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. ASARO: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Tony Asaro with the Collier County Code Enforcement Department. My client is -- customer is at -- would like to enter into a stipulation agreement with Collier County. One is to pay operational costs in the amount of $80 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Hang on one -- one second, if we will. Just so the court reporter has a full record, if you'd like to just state the basic facts about what the case is and the case number again. MR. ASARO: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thanks. MR. ASARO: Case No. CEROW2009000973. And this is in reference -- we already said the case -- it's pertaining to an expired right-of-way permit, 07-0945-E, construction debris still on the property, driveway not completed, located -- the property is located at 3440 35th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, a violation of Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 110, Article II, Section 110-31(a). CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And -- I'm sorry, I was somewhat paying attention -- MR. ASARO: Oh. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: -- but did you already read the four items? MR. ASARO: (Shaking head.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: The four items in the stipulated agreement. MR. ASARO: No, I'm going to read-- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Great. MR. ASARO: I'm going to read that now. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. MR. ASARO: Okay. "Respondent is to pay operational costs in the amount of $80 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 Page 43 November 18, 2010 days of this hearing; abate all violations by applying for and obtaining a Collier County right-of-way permit or demolition permit to restore the right-of-way to its original state; request all related inspections through the issuance of a certif -- certificate -- certificate of completion within 60 days of this hearing, or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed until the violation is abated." (As read.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Number 3 and 4 as well. MR. ASARO: Okay. I was just getting there. Okay. Number 3 is: "Respondent must notify the code enforcement department within 24 hours of the abatement of the violation and request the investigator to perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; that if the respondent -- 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. " (As read.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Excellent. Thank you. MR. ASARO: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. Miss Ramirez? MS. RAMIREZ: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Good morning. Do you understand and agree to everything that was just read? MS. RAMIREZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And you feel as though 60 days would be enough time? MS. RAMIREZ: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Are there any questions from the board? MR. ORTEGA: I do have a question. I need a little bit better description of what is wrong with the right-of-way -- in the interest of time, of course. MR. ASARO: Actually, there is no -- there was no permit applied for before starting work in the right-of-way. Page 44 November 18, 2010 MR. ORTEGA: So it was a new right-of-way being installed, is what you're saying. MR. ASARO: Right, without a permit. MR. ORTEGA: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any other discussion or questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: With that, I'll entertain a motion. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. ORTEGA: Second. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Seconded by Mr. Ortega. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. So you have 60 days on this first one to get a permit or to cease whatever work you're doing there. We're going to move to the second case now. Because it is a new case, we do need to swear both parties in again. Sorry. MR. ASARO: That's okay. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: But this is just for the record. If you want to read the case number in after you're sworn in, we can go that route. (Witnesses sworn by court reporter.) MR. ASARO: This is in reference to Case No.d Page 45 November 18,2010 CESD20090000972, pertaining to an expired fence permit, 2007052601. The fence has been constructed without a CO. The property is located at 3440 35th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida-- in violation of Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Article II of the Florida Building Code, Section 22-26(b)(l04.5.1.4.4). Respondent has agreed to enter into a stipulation. MR. KAUFMAN: You're fine. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: What it is is we just need to read this word for word so that the court reporter can enter it into record. MR. ASARO: Yeah, okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So as long as she's okay with the speed-- MR. ASARO: Yeah, I'm trying not to go too fast. "It is agreed between the parties that the respondent -- respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $79.72 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of the -- of this hearing; abate all violations by applying for and obtaining a Collier County building permit or demolition permit; request all related inspections through the issuance of a certificate of completion within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. "Respondent must notify code enforcement department within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator to perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; that if the respondent -- 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." (As read.) MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I think we have a question. MR. KAUFMAN: The fine on this is listed at $250 a day, which seems to be a little high based on some of the other fines that this board imposes. So I would recommend that, and ask the board, if a lower fine probably should be put -- hopefully this won't even come Page 46 November 18,2010 into play and it will be resolved. But for the sake of being even among all the things that we do, I would recommend that that be changed from 250 to 150. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Is the fence blocking off a hazard area, or does it impose some kind of health and safety issue? MR. ASARO: No, it's a concrete wall. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. ORTEGA: The work was started, obviously, but not completed? MR. ASARO: Well, work -- work was started. A permit was applied for but, unfortunately, the permit has expired. MR. ORTEGA: But is the work completed? MR. ASARO: No, it's not completed. The wall's not completed. MR. ORTEGA: What percentage of the work has been completed? MR. ASARO: Probably 70 percent. Would that be fair to say, 70,80 percent? MS. RAMIREZ: I just need the last inspection. MR. ASARO: Yeah. MS. RAMIREZ: Let me -- MR. ASARO: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Miss Ramirez, could I get you to speak in the mike. Thank you. MS. RAMIREZ: Okay. I just want to let you guys know that I was working on the permit, I am. But I'm working on a loan modification, and I was using the house -- that's why I stopped working on the permits and everything, because I didn't know that was going to happen with the house. But I hope in -- you know, in get a -- monies through a modification, I will done (sic) with the project that I started. I just need time to see if I get the modification. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. To Mr. Kaufman's point, is there anyone on the board that has an objection to changing the amount to Page 47 November 18,2010 $150 per day for the fine? MR. LEFEBVRE: No objection. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. In that case, do you understand everything that was read and agree to it? MS. RAMIREZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any other questions or comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: With that, I'll entertain a motion. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation with the change that was noted from 250 to 150 per day for the fine. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Miss Ramirez, the investigator's going to mark out the $250 fine per day; he's going to change it to 150. We just need your initials next to that. And that concludes Case No. 10. We're moving on to Case No. 11. That's going to be CESD20090000975. (Witnesses sworn by court reporter.) MR. ASARO: This is in reference to Case No. CESD20090000975, pertaining to structures on the property without Collier County permits, located at 3440 35th Avenue Northeast, Page 48 November 18, 2010 Naples, Florida, in violation of Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Article II, Section 22-26(b)(104.1.3.5). Respondent has agreed to enter into a stipulation. "It's agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $80 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing, abate all violations by applying for and obtaining a Collier County building permit or demolition permit, request all related inspections through the issuance of a certificate of completion within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. "Respondent must notify the code enforcement department 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." (As read.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Thank you. Ma'am, do you understand and agree to everything that was just read? MS. RAMIREZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Okay. Do we have any questions from the board? MR. ORTEGA: I do. It states here, "structures." MR. ASARO: Uh-huh. MR. ORTEGA: What types of structures are we looking at? Habitable? Not habitable? MR. ASARO: I'll just refer to my photos. There is a -- there's -- one structure appears to be a garage-type shed structure. There's another structure in the back, which is a corral, and it seem -- appears to be another type shed. And there's another large -- large structure that is another shed-type structure that -- for animals. Page 49 November 18, 2010 MR. ORTEGA: Okay. MR. ASARO: Cage/shed structure. MR. ORTEGA: And it is the intent to keep the structures or permit them? MR. ASARO: I believe she's -- the intent is to keep the structures and permit them; is that correct? MS. RAMIREZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: I have the same comment on this one, the fine that's 250. I think that should be also reduced to 150. MR. ASARO: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any other comments? Questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to approve the stipulation as written with the exception of the fine amount being 150 instead of 250. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And that one was also changed to $150. Okay. Now we'll move to the last one for Miss Ramirez. That's going to be CESD20090000978. (Witnesses sworn by court reporter.) Page 50 November 18, 2010 MR. ASARO: This is in reference to Case No. CESD20090000978, pertaining to a reported remodel conversion consisting of, but not limited to, electric rewire, plumbing, walls removed. The property is located at 3440 35th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida -- in violation of Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Article II, Section 22-26(B)(104.1.3.5), Florida Building Code, 2004 Edition, Chapter 1, Section 105.1 and Section 111.1, Collier County Land Development Code 04.41 (sic) as amended, Section 10.02.06(b)(I)(a) and 100 point -- excuse me-- I 0.02.06(b)(1)( e )(i). Respondent has agreed to enter into a stipulation. "It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $81.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing, abate all violations by applying for and obtaining a Collier County building permit or a demolition permit, request all related inspections through the issuance of a certificate of occupancy within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of $250 per day -- excuse me -- 150 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. "Respondent must notify the code enforcement department within 24 hours of the abatement of this 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 previz -- provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner." (As read. ) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Actually, you might be right on this one. Is the structure occupied? MR. ASARO: Yes, it is. Yes. MR. ORTEGA: Is it attached? You speak of conversion. Is it a lanai or a garage that's been converted? MR. ASARO: It's interior remodeling. Page 51 November 18,2010 MR. ORTEGA: So it's been -- MR. ASARO: Was it the garage? MS. RAMIREZ: No, it was on the interior living room. But I done with that, and I had inspection done with it. I just need to find an inspection, but I have -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: You already -- MS. RAMIREZ: I have electrical inspection, plumbing inspection, everything. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. You just need the final. MS. RAMIREZ: And it's done. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good. MR. ASARO: I didn't -- I wasn't there on the original case, so I was never inside the house. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: No -- no problem. We were just concerned about the safety of somebody living in a home that didn't have any inspections performed on improvements. MR. ASARO: Right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Do you understand and agree to everything that was just read? MS. RAMIREZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Excellent. Do we have any questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. MS. RAWSON: Except he changed it to 150, right? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: He did in his written -- in his verbal. So it's 150, correct? MR. KAUFMAN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any discussion? Page 52 November 18, 2010 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: And it passes. MR. LEFEBVRE: And it also -- does there have to be initials on this also? MR. ASARO: Yes. MS. WALDRON: We already did. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good. With that, I'd like to take a break for 15 minutes. We'll reconvene at 40 after, and we'll go back to regular cases. (Recess held.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board back to order. The next case is going to be CEPM20 1 000 17211, LaSalle Bank Trust. MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of ordinance: Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22-234. Description of violation: Building suffered severe fire damage. Location/address where violation exists: 2592 Santa Barbara Boulevard, Naples, Florida, 34116. Folio 36323880007. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: LaSalle Bank, NA, Trust MLMI Trust, P.O. Box 11438, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 33339. Date violation first observed: August 20th, 2010. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: October 1st, 2010. Date on by which violation to be corrected: October 28th, 2010. Date of reinspect ion: November 1st, 2010. Results of reinspect ion: The violation remains. Page 53 November 18,2010 (Witness sworn by court reporter.) MR. PAUL: For the record, Renald Paul, Collier County Code Endorsement. This is in reference to Case No. CEPM20100017211 dealing with violations of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22-234. Building suffered severe fire damage. Location at 2592 Santa Barbara Boulevard. Service was given on 8/30 of201O. I'd like to present the case evidence and the following exhibits: B 1 through 8. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Entertain a motion to accept the exhibits. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Seconded. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. PAUL: This case began on 8/20 of2010. I observed that there was a red "Condemned" sign on the structure which was -- you'll see it in the photographs, suffered severe fire damage. At that time I took photographs. I did speak with Gary Harrison in our building department, and he had one of his inspectors go out and do the -- do the notice of dangerous building. I returned on site on 8/24 of2010. I posted the notice of dangerous building and the notice of violation at the property and the courthouse. On 9/29 of2010, I checked to see ifthere were any phone calls or any permits applied for or any response from the bank, which there Page 54 November 18,2010 wasn't. On 11/1, I researched. Still no phone calls from the bank, no contact at all. The violation remains. This is a health and safety. This case was prepped for a hearing, and on 11/3 I posted a notice of hearing at the residence and the courthouse. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Had the sheriffs department been additional patrolling this area? MR. PAUL: I did -- I did have a -- another case, and I know I had spoken with the sheriffs deputy. I believe he was an arson investigator. And he had referred to this residence also when I was at a different residence -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just as -- MR. PAUL: -- as a possible arson, but they have been monitoring it. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: And just to help keep kids out of it. MR. PAUL: Yes. This is definitely a health and safety issue. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to find them in violation. MR. L'ESPERANCE: May I ask one question before we go too much further? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you want to pull yours real quick? MR. KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Real, real fast. I'm sorry. Perhaps I missed this. When did this fire happen? MR. PAUL: I don't know when the fire actually happened. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I was just curious how long it's been in this condition. MR. LEFEBVRE: It was probably July or August. This was in an area where there was a rash of fires -- MR. PAUL: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- and they're not sure if they're arsons or not. Has this scene been cleared and everything by the fire department? Page 55 November 18,2010 Are they -- MR. PAUL: They have -- I believe they -- I'm assuming they've cleared it, but I don't know. MR. LEFEBVRE: Meaning that, ifthere's an arrest or something, is this building there just for more evidence? Or is that -- MR. PAUL: I -- I don't know. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. PAUL: I don't know what they're doing right there. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions? MR. ORTEGA: Any possibility of safeguarding the structure? CHAIRMAN KELL Y: I'm sure that'll be part of our order. MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion we find them in violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Does the county have a recommendation? MR. PAUL: Yes, I do. We ask that the board order -- order the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $81.72 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this -- of this hearing. We ask that the respondent hire a general contractor licensed in Collier County to obtain all required building permits, inspections and certificate of completion and occupancy for all necessary repairs Page 56 November 18, 2010 to the structure or for the demolition of the structure within X amount of days of this hearing, or a fine of 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 Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. KAUFMAN: I have one question regarding -- any conversation with the bank at all? MR. PAUL: None at all. They -- they're not -- they haven't really given us much of a response. Our foreclosure team has been trying to get in contact with them and has been unable to. MR. KAUFMAN: Is this a big bank or a-- MR. PAUL: I'm assuming LaSalle Bank is. MR. KAUFMAN: Yeah, I guess. MS. FLAGG: Sorry. Occasionally there are a few banks that aren't familiar with the blight-prevention program. So this order will help them become familiar. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Are there any other questions from the board? Do you want to speak to temporary blocking or anything along those lines? MR. ORTEGA: Possibility of safeguard -- safeguarding the structure, obviously there's -- if penetrations are open, they can access that, kids can; it can be potentially dangerous. I'd like to see something happen. MR. PAUL: A safety barrier or something? MR. ORTEGA: And I don't mean just a yellow ribbon but something that's going to actually stop people from going in. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Well, if -- do you have an idea of what Page 57 November 18,2010 that would look like or be that you want to attach to your motion? MR. ORTEGA: Absolutely. There's fences -- as far as description of it? CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Well, in order to construct a motion. MR. ORTEGA: I make a motion that we safeguard the property with a construction-type fencing, and not just a ribbon, to prevent any access to the structure. CHAIRMAN KELLY: How many days? And is there a fine associated? MR. ORTEGA: I would say let's give them 30 -- this is a health, life safety, so I would say -- I don't even want to give them 30 days n 10 days, and I would say $250 a day. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And with the county's recommendation for the permit and fines, do you want to accept their recommendation as well? MR. ORTEGA: Could you please reiterate that. MR. PAUL: It would be to either hire a general contractor to make all the necessary repairs to the building or to obtain a demolition permit and knock the building down. MR. ORTEGA: The issue that I have with a contractor is that who's going to hire the contractor if you can't even talk to the bank. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Well, the bank will have to decide how they're going to handle that. That's their own deal. MR. ORTEGA: Then I concur with his recommendation. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: How many days would you like to give the bank to have the full demo or restructure done? MR. ORTEGA: Demolition, I would say 45 days. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And what would be the fine? Would it be 250 for that as well? MR. ORTEGA: I would say 250. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So we're accepting the county's recommendation, 45 days for the blank, and $250 per day with an Page 58 November 18,2010 addition of Item -- I guess this would be Item 2, and then the rest of them would bump down -- of a construction-type safety barrier within 10 days or a fine of $250 per day. Jean, were you able to get that? MS. RAWSON: I got it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We've got a motion. Do we have a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Discussion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. Should we put in there -- I know you put in there that the county will go in and abate the fine. But should we put in there that the county -- if within 10 days the barrier is not put up, the county has the authority to go in there within, you know, four days after or 10 -- seven days after? MR. ORTEGA: Correct. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: That would be Item No.5 now on the order. And you want to rewrite -- reread it so that we're -- the last item -- it says No.4 on your paper, but it becomes No.5, because we added one item. MR. LEFEBVRE: Would that -- I mean-- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Let's see if the language that's already there -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- is acceptable. MS. WALDRON: That should cover it. Number 2 -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MS. WALDRON: -- allows us to go in and abate anything if it's on the order. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Immediately? MS. WALDRON: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And then charge the property for Page 59 November 18,2010 whatever that cost might be? MS. WALDRON: Correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Would that work for-- MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. It carries unanimously. Thank you, Investigator Paul. Mr. Letourneau? MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. We'll make sure that there's no ongoing arson investigation or anything like that before we go in and knock it down. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: And for the court reporter, could you spell your last name. MR. LETOURNEAU: L-e-t-o-u-r-n-e-a-u. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Okay. That concludes the case. The next case, CESD20100005695, David and Margaret Smith. Are the respondents here? MS. SYKORA: Yes. MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of Ordinance: Collier Code of Law -- Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Article II, Florida Building Code Section 22-26(b)(104.5.1.4.4). Page 60 November 18, 2010 Description of violation: Collier County Permit No. 940007386 for a storage shed and Collier County Permit No. 2005101151 for a pool with electric expired without obtaining all inspections and certificate of completion. Location/address where violation exists: 691 Weber Boulevard South, Naples, Florida, 34117. Folio 36760160005. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: David W. and Margaret L. Smith, 3025 30th Avenue Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34117. Date violation first observed: April 27th, 2010. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: May 18th, 2010. Date on by which violation to be corrected: May 27th, 2010. Date of reinspect ion: October 18th, 2010. Results of reinspect ion: The violation remains. (Witnesses sworn by court reporter.) MS. SYKORA: Good morning. My -- my name -- for the record, my name is Carol Sykora, S-y-k-o-r-a, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. This n this is in reference to Case No. CESD20100005695, dealing with the violations of Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Article II, Florida Building Code, Section 22-26(b)(l04.5.1AA), a violation of Collier County Permit 940007386 for a storage shed and Collier County Permit 2005101151 for a pool with electric expired without obtaining all inspections and certificate of completion. The shed has obtained a CO on November 9th, 2010. And the pool permit is re-applied for and in review status. The service was given on May 18th, 2010, by certified mail. Excuse me. (Clearing throat.) The violations are located at 691 Weber Boulevard South, Naples, Florida, 34117, Folio 36760160005. I would like to present the following exhibit -- exhibit, one photograph of basically the location of the pool. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Do we have a motion to accept it? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion -- MR. KAUFMAN: Motion-- Page 61 November 18, 2010 MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion at all? MR. KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen the -- MS. SYKORA: Yes, he has. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: And then I have a question about the charging documents. Does that mean that the shed is no longer a part of this? MS. SYKORA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All right. MS. SYKORA: I just wanted to mention that that was originally part of it, but since then the respondent, Mr. Smith, has came in and got the CO on the shed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Terrific. MS. SYKORA: So now it's just the pool. MR. KAUFMAN: I have one question on -- on the charging document. It shows the date that they were notified was May 18th, and then the date which the violation was to be corrected as May 27th; is that correct? That would be nine days. MS. WALDRON: That's correct, because they didn't receive the certified mail until May 18th. It was sent out prior to that, and it took that long for them to either pick it up at the post office or it to -- to be received. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. SYKORA: The case began on April 27th, 2010, by a prior Page 62 November 18,2010 investigator, Thomas Keegan. There was a prior code case; however, the property was sold to the respondent, Mr. Smith, with a -- permit violations remaining. Supervisor Perez spoke with Mr. Smith on June 17th, 2010, advising him she ordered the permit files from records. On July 22nd, 2010, the case was transferred to me due to territory changes. I called Mr. Smith and advised him that I was the investigator handling the case, that the permit records were in our office. Later, when I spoke to Mr. Smith, he stated he thought the records were going to be mailed to him. So after posting the notice of hearing, I received a phone call from Mr. Smith, and we arranged a meeting between us in the permit department to determine what would be required at this time. Permit No. 94000757386 for the shed obtained a certificate of completion at this time, and the pool permit was re-applied for and is currently in review status. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Good morning, Mr. Smith. MR. SMITH: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just out of curiosity, why wasn't this stipulated? Is there more to it than that? MR. LEFEBVRE: I was going to say. MS. SYKORA: I mentioned the stipulation, but, on the other hand, I -- I really wanted you to also know that he bought the property this way, that the violation was not caused by him. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Of course. MS. SYKORA: So I felt that he may want to reiterate that to you, and I thought that was very important. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Absolutely. You're not alone. There, unfortunately, are hundreds of people who buy properties in this county with violations. Tell us what happened. MR. SMITH: Well, I bought the property, you know, and just n just like Carol had mentioned, you know, all the time frame and everything came along and, you know, I'm just here today to comply Page 63 November 18,2010 with every -- whatever decision the board has as far as extending me more time to -- to get these matters cleared up. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Very good. We appreciate the fact that you are working towards clearing them up, and I'm sure we'll be reasonable and lenient in whatever time you need. We have a procedural thing we need to do first. We need to first decide whether or not a violation exists, and then we can talk about how much time it's going to take to fix what's remaining. MR. SMITH: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion that we find the respondent in violation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And understand that that's nothing personal, it's just -- MR. SMITH: I understand. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- on the property. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Violation -- and a second. Do we -- a motion and a second. Do we have any discussion? MR. ORTEGA: We do have discussion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes, sir. MR. ORTEGA: I presume there's a hole in the ground. MR. SMITH: Correct. The pool is actually there. MR. ORTEGA: Is there water in it or-- MR. SMITH: Yeah. MR. ORTEGA: There is water in it? MR. SMITH: Yes. MR. ORTEGA: Okay. How are you protecting that pool? MR. SMITH: It's got a perimeter fence around the property. MR. ORTEGA: It does? MR. SMITH: Yes. MR. ORTEGA: Is it a permanent fence or temporary fence? Page 64 November 18,2010 MR. SMITH: Pardon me? MR. ORTEGA: Permanent -- permanent fence or temporary fence? MR. SMITH: It's a construction fence. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is that the orange fencing that you're talking about? MR. SMITH: Correct. MR. ORTEGA: Now, is this going to follow up with a screen enclosure? MR. SMITH: Yes. MR. ORTEGA: So that'll be a means of protection or life-saving protection. MR. SMITH: Right. Well, and then the perimeter -- the construction fence down the road will become a permanent fence. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All right. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor of finding the violation does exist signify by saying "aye." Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: That carries. Now we'll see if the county has a recommendation, and we can talk about whether or not that's acceptable. MR. SMITH: Okay. MS. SYKORA: If the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate the violations by applying for and obtaining a Collier County building Page 65 November 18, 2010 permit or Collier -- Collier County demolition permit for -- for the pool, request all related inspections and receive a certificate of completion within blank amount of days from this hearing, or a fine of blank amount per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Mr. Smith, how long do you think it would take to get that permit finalized and the -- the work completed? MR. SMITH: I -- I would like 180 days if that -- if the board feels that's reasonable. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Okay. Any questions or comments? MR. LEFEBVRE: I think 180 days are -- are a long time, because all I see is a little construction fence, would -- would not be a barrier for a child to find their way into the pool. So I'm a little -- I'm very hesitant on issuing 180 days due to the fact that the pool has water and so forth and is a hazard. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Mr. Ortega, during construction, is the construction fence acceptable for a barrier under construction laws? MR. ORTEGA: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: So as long as that construction fence stays up until the full enclosure is completed, do you feel comfortable that'll work? MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, the issue here is, while it's under construction typically it doesn't have water in it. MR. ORTEGA: But now it doesn't take 180 days to build a pool either. Page 66 November 18, 2010 MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. And being that it has water in it and everything, which isn't the case when it's under construction, I -- I have a -- I have an issue with it. I think 180 days is a long period, especially with how much work -- in this photo, it looks like it needs a screen enclosure and some other work. So I think 180 days might be a long period. MR. ORTEGA: Now, you made a comment, sir, that you were going to do -- you were going to complete the pool, install a screen enclosure, and something about a fence. Are you including the 180 days with the fence too? MR. SMITH: No. MR. ORTEGA: Okay. Because you don't -- you don't need it if you have a screen enclosure. MR. SMITH: What I was wanting the 180 days for were the permits I applied for to clean up the violations that are on the pool itself. And that would be the spot survey, the plumbing -- final plumbing, and the final electrical. MR. ORTEGA: I see tile here. Is your deck already installed, your finished deck? MR. SMITH: Yes, yes. All that was done in 2004. MR. ORTEGA: So there's no reason -- in may. MR. SMITH: Uh-huh. MR. ORTEGA: There's no reason that you couldn't install the screen enclosure now other than financial, obviously. MR. SMITH: Fifteen thousand reasons. MR. ORTEGA: Okay. MR. SMITH: No, seriously, that enclosure would take a while to build. I would have to get a -- I have had a bid on it, but I -- I guess I was unaware, you know, that with the fence I would even -- to be required to have a screen enclosure. MR. ORTEGA: No, you don't need a -- a screen enclosure if you have the right type of fence. Page 67 November 18,2010 MR. SMITH: Okay. MR. ORTEGA: This is a temporary fence; obviously, that's not going to work out. But there are regulations -- criteria you have to meet in order to have that fence there that can be used as a life-safety measure. Therefore, you wouldn't need a screen enclosure. MR. SMITH: Right. Would it make any difference if the pool was empty? MR. ORTEGA: You still have a hole in the ground. Somebody can fall in or somebody can drown -- MR. SMITH: All right. MR. ORTEGA: -- so either way, it's a -- it's a life-safety issue, especially with kids. MR. LEFEBVRE: Another option may be to install the fence first -- MR. SMITH: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- and then do the screen enclosure later if the fence is less expensive. MR. SMITH: Yeah. MR. LEFEBVRE: So that might be an option, and -- and I wouldn't be willing, for six months, to leave -- from what I see, to leave it as is. I just don't feel that -- MR. SMITH: Well, would that be a separate issue, the fence? I mean -- I mean, I'll have to apply for a permit for the fence or -- or obtain a contractor -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well-- MR. SMITH: -- you know, for that. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: How you go about coming into compliance is up to you. MR. SMITH: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We're just merely offering suggestions. MR. SMITH: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Although, to get your certificate of Page 68 November 18,2010 occupancy for that pool, they are going to have to have some kind of barrier around it. MR. SMITH: Uh-huh. Okay. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: So these are just options for you. MR. SMITH: Okay. Well, I intended on getting the fence done anyway. I mean, I -- you know, I could get started on the fence. MR. KAUFMAN: So you intend to -- where the fence is on the bottom of this picture here (indicating), you're going to replace that fence, and in addition to that, you're going to put a screen enclosure on the pool? MR. SMITH: I -- I would like to, if I can get away with it with my wife, not have a screen enclosure. We'd just like to see how-- how -- how bad the bugs are at that place. But odds are I probably will need a screen -- a screen enclosure will probably be there down the road whether I like it or not. MR. KAUFMAN: What type offence are you envisioning as a perimeter fence? MR. SMITH: Like, a five-foot chain-link black vinyl fence or a combination ofa six-foot vinyl privacy fence and then that -- that black chain link around the front. MR. KAUFMAN: To get a fence of that nature probably won't take a lot of time, and it would resolve the concerns that some of my fellow board members have with the safety as far as the pool is concerned. MR. SMITH: Yeah. Well, I take the safety pretty seriously, so, you know, if you guys want to give me a time frame on the fence, I'll get going on it. MR. ORTEGA: I would -- I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. MR. ORTEGA: I would make a suggestion. Check with the building department as to the requirements of the type of fence that Page 69 November 18, 2010 you can use for a pool, life safety. MR. SMITH: Okay. MR. ORTEGA: Don't just -- you know what I'm-- MR. SMITH: Yeah. MS. SYKORA: Excuse me. I -- I will walk up there with him after the hearing and see what is required. MR. LEFEBVRE: Are we able to make an order where we order him to secure the pool within a shorter time period and then get the permit for the pool within 180 days? Jean, can we do that? MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. RAWSON: We've done that before. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: In other words, what's being mentioned is, you see this (indicating) little orange barricade -- MR. SMITH: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- that they use for construction sites? MR. SMITH: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Possibly running another one of those around the pool area specifically. MR. LEFEBVRE: What I'm thinking is put up a permanent fence in lieu of this (indicating) barrier. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oh, I see what you're saying. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Or -- or do the fence quickly. MR. SMITH: Okay. MR. ORTEGA: There is another way oflooking at it. If typical, standard -- ifthere's such a thing -- construction time for a pool, slash, screen enclosure would take 60 days and, pursuant to that, a more permanent structure should be proposed or installed at that point. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's a good way of looking at it. In other words, if you can't complete the CO for the pool within, let's say, Page 70 November 18,2010 60 or 90 days, then a temporary or permanent fence would be used until the hundred -- the remainder of the 90 days. MR. SMITH: Are -- an example then, are you talking about a construction fence around the pool area as well as what I've got already? MR. ORTEGA: The construction fence will buy you a little bit of time. MR. SMITH: Okay. MR. ORTEGA: But we're looking at -- you've requested 180 days. MR. SMITH: Yeah. MR. ORTEGA: I don't think that's an issue. I think the issue is that in a normal -- in the normal world, a pool and screen enclosure wouldn't take 180 days. So if we take the normal amount of time that it would take to build and construct a pool and screen enclosure or a life safety or safeguarding, let's say 60 to 90 days, then at that point, install a permanent fence because -- MR. SMITH: Yeah, I would rather get going on the permanent fence prior to the screen enclosure, if that's a possibility. MR. ORTEGA: That is a possibility, absolutely. But I would-- again, I would recommend you talk to the building department about that. MR. SMITH: Yeah, sure. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. If you'd like to build that into the order -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, I'm a little confused with the discussions that are going on. But, I mean -- MR. SMITH: I mean, we -- we -- I guess I came before you today about -- I've got application to resolve three outstanding inspection violations. The fence is a -- something I didn't come here to talk about today. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. Page 71 November 18,2010 MR. SMITH: But, you know, in need it, I need it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: It's going to be part of that final. MR. SMITH: Yeah. MR. LEFEBVRE: It sounds to me that you have a choice. You either have -- you put up a screen enclosure to get a CO, or you put up a barrier, i.e., a permanent type of fence. MR. SMITH: Uh-huh. MR. LEFEBVRE: And whichever is less expensive -- MR. SMITH: Uh-huh. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- maybe we can write up an order where, within 60 days, let's say, you have either a fence up or a screen enclosure; and then, within 180 days, you have the approvals for the pool. MR. SMITH: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Would that be acceptable? MR. SMITH: Would -- would the board consider 90 on the fence and then 180? MR. LEFEBVRE: What my issue is that -- again, to reiterate, the temporary fence is fine during construction -- MR. SMITH: Uh-huh, uh-huh. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- which is acceptable. But we're not technically during construction. You're using the pool; it's operational. And that's where -- the issue I have. I'd like to shorten that period of when the fence gets put in because it's being used. There's -- there's water in there; there's a life-safety issue. MR. SMITH: Yeah. MR. LEFEBVRE: So I'm -- I'm hard pressed to go past 60 days. I think 60 days would be acceptable to have a fence or screen enclosure done. MR. SMITH: Yeah, I understand. I just have to obtain a contractor and -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. Page 72 November 18, 2010 MR. SMITH: -- you know, I'd like to -- to make sure that I get familiar with somebody before I use them. MR. LEFEBVRE: All right. MR. SMITH: And then I can't really -- sometimes if you hire work out, I wouldn't really have control that it would be done in 60 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well-- MR. SMITH: But I think in 90 I -- I could probably muscle through that, you know. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. I'll -- I'll -- let me try to write up an order. CHAIRMAN KELLY: He has a question -- MR. LEFEBVRE: As the owner of the property you can-- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sorry. We have a question real quick here. MR. KAUFMAN: There is one other fix, if you will, that you can cover the pool, as they do when -- some of the houses that are under foreclosure or whatnot, which is probably not very expensive. And you put a wooden barrier with some plastic coating or whatever over it and then take your good time to -- MR. SMITH: Yeah. MR. KAUFMAN: -- to get everything else done. So that might be another alternative that could be considered. MR. SMITH: What about the option of additional construction fence around the pool and then 90 days? And then that way I would have double fencing. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I-- MR. SMITH: Is that an option? CHAIRMAN KELLY: The problem with us on the board is, although we have backgrounds in the field, we're not the expert. We can't tell you what you can and can't do to comply, because we're not interpreting building code. We're interpreting -- Page 73 November 18, 2010 MR. SMITH: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- local ordinances. MR. SMITH: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: And we're merely giving you suggestions to try to help out and come up with an agreement for a time frame that's going to work best for both of us. MR. SMITH: Well, if -- if 60 days is it, then that's what it'll be for the fence. MR. ORTEGA: You are aware that, as the owner of the property, you can build a fence yourself. You do not have to hire a contractor. MR. SMITH: Yeah. Yeah, I'm aware -- MR. ORTEGA: Okay. MR. SMITH: -- but there's only so much time in a day. You know, I'd like to do it, and I've got a full-time job and -- and there's probably two -- you know, 1,200 fair -- square -- or linear feet of fence. MR. ORTEGA: Okay. MR. SMITH: So it's not a weekend project. MR. ORTEGA: No. MR. SMITH: Or at least not for me. MS. SYKORA: Possibility of a fence just around the pool area, instead of the whole property, might be a little less expensive for temporary. I'm-- MR. SMITH: Yeah. MR. ORTEGA: Ifwe walk over to the permit department, they could probably tell you what type of fence -- MR. SMITH: Okay. MS. SYKORA: -- would be required. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: I think that's important as well. As a board -- this is just to the -- to the board members. It's important that, when we write the order, we don't require something that might be Page 74 November 18,2010 above and beyond what code allows. And I hope that you don't pick the pool company that did my pool, because it took longer than 180 days for them to finish, so -- MR. SMITH: Well, I want to make sure I pick the right contractor, because you get what you pay for, and I want to make sure that I can get it done within the time I've been given. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Gerald is feverishly working on an order here. MR. SMITH: Hey, I'm here to comply. MR. KAUFMAN: Unless -- this could -- you could do all your investigating and bring it back within 30 days or so with all your options in front of you. MR. LEFEBVRE: We -- we don't have 30 days. We're -- the next thing would be January-- MR. KAUFMAN: Yeah. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- so -- all right. Let me try this. Pay all operational costs in the amount of -- MS. SYKORA: $80.86. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- $80.86. Okay. Install a permanent fence or screen enclosure within 75 days of this hearing or $ 150-a-day fine. Certificate -- receive certificate of completion within 180 days of this hearing or $150 fine will be imposed per day. And then -- go ahead. MS. WALDRON: For the fence, I believe we need to include that they need to obtain a permit for the fence -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. WALDRON: -- as well. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. And obtain -- MS. WALDRON: Permit inspections and certificate -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Permits, right. MS. WALDRON: -- of completion. MR. LEFEBVRE: And certificate of completion. Would that be acceptable? Page 75 November 18, 2010 MR. SMITH: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: Very good. Jean, did you get that? MS. RAWSON: I'm getting it. MR. LEFEBVRE: All right. MS. RAWSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: I -- I don't agree with making the respondent do something that is outside the requirements of the code. And I think that, by saying a permanent fence or a screen enclosure, I think that might be beyond what the code allows for. And unfortunately, I don't know what the real code is but-- MR. LEFEBVRE: But-- CHAIRMAN KELL Y: -- I know that -- like, to give you an idea, I had the option to either do, like, a mesh screen around the pool or a -- literally a warning alarm that sounded like a siren. And that was acceptable. I chose the screen enclosure, but there were other options. Ifwe strictly say in the order "fence or screen enclosure," it might be outside of our jurisdiction and easily overturned down the road. MS. WALDRON: The alarm that you're discussing is -- is part of a pool permit now. It's not -- it's in addition to the enclosure around. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And the screen? MS. WALDRON: Uh-huh, right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: The mesh screen, are you talking from exiting a house? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about actually someone coming onto the property -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- not from -- coming out from the house. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: That's what I'm talking about. Page 76 November 18,2010 CHAIRMAN KELL Y: So now the only two options in these cases then is a permanent fence or a screen enclosure? MS. WALDRON: Uh-huh. MR. ORTEGA: There might be a third. It's a cover. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Or a cover. MR. KAUFMAN: That's what I was saying. MS. PEREZ: Good morning. For the record, Cristina Perez, Collier County Code Enforcement. Could we just use the term "protective barrier"? MR. ORTEGA: That's exactly what it's defined as, protective barrier. MR. LEFEBVRE: I mean, I want to stay within -- within -- MS. PEREZ: That would be up to whatever would be in the code. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- the parameters of the code. So if a protective barrier is what is -- MS. PEREZ: I mean, you guys could say, like, a "permanent protective barrier," and then that way whichever one that he would -- you know, once he goes up to permitting, and then what they would -- what the Florida Building Code -- MR. ORTEGA: What the code approved. MS. PEREZ: -- would define as a protective barrier. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. If it -- I'll modify it to a "code-approved protective barrier." Is that acceptable language? MS. WALDRON: Just to clarify, the covering that -- that Mr. Ortega is speaking of, they still need to have the permanent barrier around the fence. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. WALDRON: They can't -- or around the pool. They can't just cover the pool and not have that barrier as well. MR. ORTEGA: To piggyback on that, when we talked about the fence as the investigator suggested, you do not have to go and fence Page 77 November 18, 2010 your whole property. You can also do a fence around the pool, which would be less expensive, less time for you, and at a later date do exactly what you want to do -- MR. SMITH: Yeah. MR. ORTEGA: -- if that helps. MR. SMITH: I guess I understand. But, you know, to spend $2,000 to put a fence around the pool that I really don't want is kind of a step backwards for me as a homeowner. MR. ORTEGA: That's totally up to you. MR. SMITH: Yeah. And since I wanted to fence the property anyway, and had planned on doing that, I think that's probably the avenue I will pursue. MR. KAUFMAN: Question: If you put the fence around the pool, and then at some later date, take that fence and use it as your perimeter fence -- MR. LEFEBVRE: To reiterate what I -- what I said: Operation costs of 80.86 and, per the code, in -- a protective barrier around the pool within 75 days from this hearing or $150-a-day fine will be imposed. Certificate of -- and then receive all the permits and certificate of completion for that -- whatever barrier it is, protective barrier. And then a certificate of completion within 180 days for the pool, or $150 a day will be imposed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Gerald, on the op cost, do you want that within 30 days? MR. LEFEBVRE: That's correct, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Jean, do you have that one? MS. RAWSON: I got it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right. We have a motion. Do we -- MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? Aye. Page 78 November 18, 2010 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: That carries unanimously. Hope it-- MR. SMITH: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sure. MR. SMITH: If I obtain a contractor to do the fence, he says, "Okay, I'll have it done within 75 days," what ifhe doesn't? CHAIRMAN KELL Y: My suggestion would be to come back to us or contact the code enforcement department prior to the expiration of that order. This way we know about it. We could potentially extend that for you. MR. SMITH: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Yeah, we have that ability. MR. SMITH: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. Have a good day. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Chairman, is it possible, we have one respondent left, if we could take care of his case? CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Sure. MS. SYKORA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: You want to move it up? MS. WALDRON: Yeah. It's No. 15 on the agenda. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to amend the agenda. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 79 November 18,2010 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We're taking Case No. 15 and moving it to the current status. That's Silvano Delgado and Jorge Chavez. MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of ordinance: Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Article II, Florida Building Code, Section 22 to 26(b)(104.5.1.4.4.) Description of violation: Partially built structure on property with cancelled and voided permits. Location/address where violation exists: 2556 Randall Boulevard, Naples, Florida, 34120. Folio No. 40233560005. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location, Silvano O. Delgado and Jorge Chavez, 2370 39th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34120. Date violation first observed: June 17th, 2009. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: Property was posted on August 7th, 2010, and Collier County Courthouse posted on August 10th, 2010. Date on by which violation to be corrected: September 6th, 2010. Date of reinspect ion: September 20th, 2010. Results of reinspect ion: The violation remains. (Witnesses sworn by court reporter.) MR. ASARO: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, Tony Asaro again with the Collier County Code Enforcement. This is a -- this -- this is in reference to Case No. CESD20090010558, pertaining to a partially-built structure on the property with cancelled and voided permits. Property located at 2556 Randall Boulevard, Naples, Florida. Violation of Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Article II, Florida Building Code Section 22-26(b )(104.5.1.4.4). The notice of violation was posted on the property on August 7th. Page 80 November 18,2010 And at this time I would like to present the case evidence and the following exhibits: Two photographs -- MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Wait, I think he's got more. MR. ASARO: Yeah -- dated on June 17th, one -- one photograph dated on June 17th, 2009, and a recent photograph dated November 17th, 2010. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Go ahead. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. Has the respondent seen the photograph? MR. ASARO: (Nodding.) MR. KAUFMAN: Have you seen the pictures? MR. ASARO: Yes, he has the photos. MR. DELGADO: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Motion to accept the exhibits. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Motion carries. Go ahead. If you want to keep going, we'll get the pictures sorted out. MR. ASARO: Okay. On June 16th, 2009, violation of a parts -- partially-built structure with cancelled and voided permits was initially observed by Investigator Michelle Cervonne (phonetic). On June 4th, 2010, Supervisor Cristina Perez and I met with the property owner, Silvano Delgado, in the code enforcement conference room. Conference call with Bank of America representative confirmed Page 81 November 18,2010 that they are not pursuing foreclosure on the property at this time. Therefore, Silvano Delgado and Jorge Chavez are still technically the legal property owners. The concrete structure remains in violation. No further inspections have been made. The permit remains expired. MR. KAUFMAN: When was the original permit pulled? MR. ASARO: I don't have that information with me at this time. MR. KAUFMAN: I'm -- I'm guessing that it was prior to probably either '08 or early '09; is that correct? MR. DELGADO: Correct. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any other questions from the board? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Do we have health and safety concerns in your opinion? Is it an attractive nuisance? MR. ASARO: It's a -- it's a nuisance; I don't know if it's a health and safety. It's -- you know, you have an incomplete structure just with concrete walls and a slab. I'm not -- there's weeds growing around it. MR. LEFEBVRE: There's construction debris -- there's construction debris in this photo, correct? MR. ASARO: Pardon me? MR. LEFEBVRE: There's construction debris littering the site, Exhibit A, or the first photo you're showing. MR. ASARO: You know, it's hard to tell right now, because the weeds are so high. I don't believe, last time I was out there, there was a lot of construction debris. MR. LEFEBVRE: I mean, from the photo dated last year, actually, June of last year, June 17th, it appears that there's actually-- it looks like a bucket -- MR. ASARO: Yeah, there's -- I'm looking at a black and white photo, and there's -- there's some construction debris on the property. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Sir, could you state your name for the record, please. Page 82 November 18,2010 MR. DELGADO: Okay. In two -- two of -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just your name real quick. MR. DELGADO: Do what? CHAIRMAN KELL Y: C<mo te llama? MR. DELGADO: Silvano, Silvano Delgado; that's my name. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Silvano Delgado. Okay. Very good. Thank you. MR. DELGADO: In two thousand -- 2008, I lost the property in the courthouse. Bank of America take the property for $114,000. I lost the property. After the code enforcement checking the problem in the property not finished, Bank of America come back my property. MR. KAUFMAN: They gave it back to you? MR. DELGADO: Yeah. They say, "It your property." They say, "You didn't pay everything." I don't have any money. I am in bankrupt right now. I lost everything. I lost 14 property more. The other bank, no problem. Only Bank of America told me no. "Problem for enforcement? No, no, no, no." It's mine. "This is your property. Take it, your property." CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. DELGADO: This is the case, how many paper here (indicating), in the court. I call anytime at Bank of America department, the enforcement had me to. "No. No come back wasting nothing, no money." I have a lawyer for finish bankrupt. He told me to finish bankrupt, finish everything, maybe two week. Bank of America responsible for everything and the code enforcement. That's it. This is my problem. I need more time from my lawyer. For taking -- cleaning everything, the Bank of America responsible for everything, for finish the construction of property, everything. That's it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Thank you. Karen, you got all that? Page 83 November 18, 2010 COURT REPORTER: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: I'm a little confused. Who owns the property today? MR. ASARO: Mr. Delgado and Mr. Chavez. MR. DELGADO: They buy the property from me, Bank of America. MR. KAUFMAN: Hold on. Let me see. So they foreclosed on your property -- MR. DELGADO: Yeah. MR. KAUFMAN: -- back in 2008. MR. DELGADO: Yeah. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. And since that time they have given you the property back. They legally transferred the property back to you. MR. DELGADO: No, only paper dismissing the case. MR. LEFEBVRE: They dismissed the case. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So, in other words, it was -- MR. LEFEBVRE: It wasn't started. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: They started the foreclosure proceedings and then voluntarily -- MR. DELGADO: Yeah, it's back for me. Never -- nobody, "Come back your property, and you pay for me for it." CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. DELGADO: I don't have any money. See, I'm bankrupt. I lost my company, G Power Construction (phonetic). CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All right. So through the testimony from the respondent, it sounds like there's a violation. Does someone want to take a stab at a motion? MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion. MR. ORTEGA: I have a quick question though. Is this a property that the respondent is giving up on? Is that -- you're giving up on the property? Page 84 November 18,2010 MR. DELGADO: Excuse me? MR. ORTEGA: Are you giving up on the property? You're turning the property over to the bank. MR. DELGADO: Yeah, I don't want the property. MR. ORTEGA: You don't want the property. MR. DELGADO: No. MR. ORTEGA: Thank you. MR. DELGADO: I don't have any money. This isn't my problem now. MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion we find the respondent in violation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. ORTEGA: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. The violation does exist. Tony, do you have a recommendation, sir? MR. ASARO: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: May I ask a question before we get into that? because I'm still a little confused. So the Bank of America says they stopped their foreclosure, so you own the property. MR. DELGADO: Yeah. MR. KAUFMAN: Does that mean that you could sell the Page 85 November 18, 2010 property? MR. DELGADO: I don't understand what is selling the property. MS. WALDRON: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Yes? MR. KAUFMAN: So technically you could actually sell the property. So-- MR. DELGADO: I don't sell any property. The Bank of America come out, taking my property. MR. KAUFMAN: No, I understand. MR. DELGADO: Yeah. MR. KAUFMAN: They took it, but then they said, "Never mind, we didn't really want to take it." MR. DELGADO: Yeah. We don't have any money for pay. MR. KAUFMAN: "It's still yours." So the reason I'm asking this is because you had mentioned that you wanted to just be done with the property. But why would you do that if you have a piece of property that's worth some money? Why couldn't you just sell the property then? MR. DELGADO: Okay. The property's only the land. The construction -- I lost all money, the construction, the permit, everything. I lost money. I paid two oh seven. No more. The property in Florida, you know -- everybody know what is the problem. I lost all the property -- more -- around 13 or 14 more property. I lost -- my company bankrupt too. I don't have any money. I've rented it now. I have money only for Social Security. I lost everything. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you want to go ahead with your recommendation, please. MR. ASARO: The Code Enforcement -- the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $81.72 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: "One, applying for and obtaining Collier County building permits or a Collier County demolition permit, Page 86 November 18, 2010 request all required inspections and obtain a certificate of completion for the structure within X amount of days of this hearing, or a fine of X per dollars per day -- X dollars per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains. "The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner." (As read.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would somebody like to construct that? MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a comment on that. And I'm -- I'm going back to what I said before. There's property out there regardless of the structure that's on the property. It looks like you've gotten to the point where the tie beams have been put in, and it needs to be finished. In order to sell the property -- the property is worth money, whether it's to Bank of America or to you personally. But in order to sell the property, you'd have to get a clear title. This goes back to some of the activities that the foreclosure task force has worked on, et cetera. In order to get a clear title, Bank of America would have to relinquish their liens on the property in one fashion or another. And I don't know whether -- their dismissing the foreclosure might just mean that they didn't want to foreclose at that date, but that doesn't stop them from foreclosing in the future. Am I understanding this properly? MS. FLAGG: Definitively what we know at this point is that Bank of America has -- or Chase has released the foreclosure. So they've given the property back to this gentleman. Page 87 November 18,2010 MR. DELGADO: Yeah. MR. KAUFMAN: With no lien on it? MS. FLAGG: Correct. MS. PEREZ: Excuse me, if! may. When we spoke on July-- the date that he testified -- for the record, I'm sorry, Cristina Perez, code enforcement. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Cristina, you've got to be sworn in. (Witness sworn by court reporter.) MS. PEREZ: When we spoke with Bank of America -- Mr. Silvano (sic) had come into the office to try to figure out what was going on, because he said, "I lost the property. They sent me foreclosure documentation." When we called the bank representative, he said, "We have released the lis pendens that we filed against your property. It has been sent to Sunrise Collection Agency." And he had a letter that said, "If you give us a sum of," I think it was, like, $57,000, "then we will say it's a done deal." He says, "I don't have that money to settle my collection." I further asked the agent if -- from Bank of America if he would ever be suppressed to go into foreclosure. And they said if the property value were to go up high enough to where it was worth for them to file a foreclosure doc -- you know, again, then that they could pursue foreclosure in the future. But in the meantime, it was under a collection agency. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: So there -- there is a lien on the property. That clears it up for me. Thanks. MS. PEREZ: Yeah, a collection agency has the debt. MR. KAUFMAN: The reason I asked the question is I wanted you to have the opportunity to do the right thing. If they were just going to give you the property with no liens on it, I'm sure that you could be in a position to sell the property and make some money on it. Page 88 November 18, 2010 But it seems like there still is a lien for $57,000 on the property -- well, plus. MS. FLAGG: Do you want to talk about the lien versus the collection agency? MS. RAWSON: The collection agency doesn't have a lien. Unless you have a judgment, you don't have a lien. So just because the collection agency says he owes money, unless there's been a lawsuit that adjudicated the amount and it was recorded, then there's not a judgment lien on the property. MR. LEFEBVRE: But there's a lien on the property with a mortgage being filed. MS. RAWSON: I don't think so. It sounded to me like, from the testimony, that the Bank of America gave it up. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: But the tes -- they just gave up the foreclosure proceedings. They didn't give up their rights on the property. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MS. RAWSON: I think he got it free and clear unless I'll mistaking the testimony. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Jean, may I interject something here? This discussion we're having really doesn't have much to do with the case in front of us. MR. LEFEBVRE: That's right. MS. RAWSON: It does not; you're correct. It's interesting, and the foreclosure task force deals with these things all the time. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Right. MS. RAWSON: And so it doesn't have anything to do with it-- whether there's a code violation. It has to do with who's going to ultimately pay for it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Exactly. MS. RAWSON: Bank of America doesn't want this property, obviously. Page 89 November 18,2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So does somebody want to accept the recommendation and fill in the blanks? MR. KAUFMAN: Since I've caused all of this discussion, let me try doing that. The -- let's see. The -- the accrual is $80 and -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: 81.72. MR. KAUFMAN: 81.72 to be paid in 30 days. And the -- I guess it doesn't much matter, just a side comment, whether it's given 90 days or 365 days. It sounds as though that probably doesn't have much weight, but let's do 90 days, as far as the resolution, at $150 a day. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: So you're accepting the county's recommendation with -- to abate the violation within 90 days, or a fee of $150 per day will accrue. MR. KAUFMAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All those in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. Okay, sir. What we did is we put a motion to get these problems fixed within 90 days -- MR. DELGADO: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- or a fine of$150 a day. But that'll probably be part of the bankruptcy proceedings anyway -- so -- Page 90 November 18,2010 MR. DELGADO: All right. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Thanks for coming. MR. DELGADO: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: I just have one question. Jean? MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: If a person is in bankruptcy, does our -- MS. WALDRON: Let me just clear that up beforehand. He's filed -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd like that. MS. WALDRON: He's filed for bankruptcy. The bank -- the Court has not approved the bankruptcy. There is no bankruptcy case at this time as of yet. MR. LEFEBVRE: But ifthere was a bankruptcy case, can we tie him to -- to doing -- having an order or -- MS. RAWSON: Well, I'm sure he's named Collier County as one of the creditors, I would think. MS. WALDRON: And just for your reference, the way that we've proceeded with these cases, we've -- have numerous bankruptcy cases. The bank will go in and file an order for -- motion for review from stay, which gives them the opportunity to go ahead and foreclose; therefore, we can proceed with -- with our issues as well. Until that document is filed with the bankruptcy court, we're -- our cases are on hold as well. So we always check for that document. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: However, in the end, your lien is always superior to even the bank's? MS. FLAGG: They've become banking foreclosure and bankruptcy experts now. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Sounds like it. MS. FLAGG: So they -- they do all of this ahead of time before they bring the case to hearing. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Great. Page 91 November 18, 2010 MR. KAUFMAN: My -- my point in bringing that up -- the respondent's not in here right now. My counsel would be to see an attorney, because it sounds as though there are more opportunities available to the respondent. MS. FLAGG: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN KELLY: But it also sounds -- with 14 other foreclosures, it sounds like he's got a lot of debt to go against that. MS. RAWSON: Probably can't afford an attorney. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Right. And we as a board -- or at least I as a board member would not like to see that property sold and those headaches passed on to somebody else. In any case, let us move on. Moving on to Case No.7, Scott Campbell, CEM -- sorry -- CEPM20 1 000 17181. MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of ordinance: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Buildings and Building Regulations, Article VI, Property Maintenance Code, Section 22-231, Subsection 15. Description of violation: A pool not being maintained in a sanitary condition. Location/address where violation exists: 3726 Whidbey Way, Naples, Florida, 34119. Folio No. 52250111140. Name of address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Scott Campbell, 3726 Whidbey Way, Naples, Florida, 34119. Date violation first observed: August 19th, 2010. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: 9/14/2010. Date on by which violation to be corrected: October 18th, 2010. Date of reinspect ion: October 19th, 2010. Results of reinspect ion: The violation remains. (Witness sworn by court reporter.) MR. GOMEZ: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Gomez with Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case CEPM201 000 17181, a violation consisting of a pool not being maintained in a sanitary condition, located at 3726 Whidbey Way, Naples, Florida, 34119, Folio Page 92 November 18, 2010 52250111140. Service was given on 9/21 of this year by posting the property and the courthouse. At this time I'd like to show two pictures, one dated the day of the observance of the violations, which was 8/19/10, and the second picture yesterday showing the violation still exists. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibits. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: It carries. MR. GOMEZ: Okay. The violation was observed on 8/19/10. The foreclosure team had no -- excuse me. The bank had no intentions of fixing the problem as of yet. And as you can see from yesterday's photo, it's still in violation, so that's why we're bringing it to you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: I have one question. Does the pool smell? MR. GOMEZ: Yes, sir, it does. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you know ifthere's any power to the home? MR. GOMEZ: No, there was no power when I went there yesterday, as a matter of fact. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any other questions? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to find the respondent in violation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? Page 93 November 18, 2010 MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries unanimously. Does the county have a recommendation? MR. GOMEZ: Yes, we do, that the board order the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$80.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: "One, chemically treating the pool -- pool water and kill the algae growth and maintain the filtration system to keep the pool water clean and provide biweekly treatment within X amount of days, or a daily fine of X amount of dollars will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Ultimately, respondent may chemically treat the pool water, killing the algae growth, and covering the pool using HUD standards, preventing the intrusion of rainwater within seven days" -- excuse me -- "within X amount of days, or a daily fine of X amount of dollars will be imposed for each day the violation continues. "Number 2, the respondent must notify a 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 the abatement shall be assessed to the property owner." (As read.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Very good. Does anyone want to take a Page 94 November 18,2010 stab at the blanks? MR. KAUFMAN: I'll take a stab. Pay the 80.57 within 30 days, abate the problem within 30 days, and $150-a-day fine after the 30 days. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So for both options, 30 days and $150 per day? MR. KAUFMAN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So accepting the county recommendation with those changes. Does anyone have any comments -- oh, I'm sorry. Is there a second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Seconded. Any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Gomez -- Investigator Gomez. Next case is going to be CEPM20100009420. MS. WALDRON: Would you like to say their name -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: No. MS. WALDRON: -- so I don't have to? CHAIRMAN KELL Y: That's why -- that's why -- I'm leaving it for you. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I want to hear you try. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Go ahead. There's a lot ofleniency given here. MS. WALDRON: Oh. This is Gomaa Elsaid and Karen Amal -- Page 95 November 18,2010 Elsherbinee (phonetic)? MR. KAUFMAN: Elsherbeenee (phonetic). CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Very good. MS. WALDRON: Okay. So in reference to violation of ordinance: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Buildings and Building Regulations, Article VI, Property Maintenance Code, Section 22-231, Subsection 15. Description of violation: A pool not being maintained in a sanitary condition. Location/address where violation exists: 11334 Longshore Way West, Naples, Florida, 34119. Folio No. 5610160007. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Gomaa Elsaid and Karen Amal Elsherbeini, 11334 Longshore Way West, Naples, Florida, 34119. Date violation first observed: July 19th, 2010. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: September 14th, 2010. Date on by which violation to be corrected: October 14th, 2010. Date of reinspect ion: October 19th, 2010. Results of reinspect ion: The violation remains. (Witness sworn by court reporter.) MR. GOMEZ: Again, Carmelo Gomez for Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to CEPM20100009420. Violation is a pool not being maintained in a sanitary condition, located at one -- excuse me -- at 11334 Longshore Way, Naples, Florida, 34119, Folio 5610 160007. Service was given on 9/14/1 0 by posting property and the courthouse. At this time, again, I have two pictures, one dated 7/19, the day of the observance of the violation, and one dated yesterday showing the violation still exists. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibits. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 96 November 18, 2010 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries. MR. GOMEZ: Okay. The violation was observed 7/29/10. The property, through research, was in lis pendens. The bank, up 'til this moment, has no -- no chance of fixing the problem, so we are bringing it up to you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Does anyone want to make a motion that a violation exists? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion the violation exists. MR. ORTEGA: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Seconded by Mr. Ortega. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries unanimously. Do you have a recommendation? MR. GOMEZ: Yes, I do, that the board order the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $80.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: "One, chemically treating the pool water and kill the algae growth and maintain the filtration system to keep the pool water clean and provide biweekly treatment within X amount of days, and -- or a daily fine of Page 97 November 18, 2010 X amount of dollars will be imposed for each day the violation continues. Ultimately, respondent may chemically treat the pool water, killing the algae growth, and covering the pool using HUD standards, preventing the intrusion of rainwater, within X amount of days, or a daily fine of X amount of dollars will be imposed for each day the violation continues. "Number 2, that the respondents must notify a 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." (As read.) MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion we fill in the blanks as -- as follows: The fine of$80.29 to be paid within 30 days; the violation to be abated within 30 days; and $150-a-day fine after that time. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So we're going to accept the county's recommendation with 30 days and $150 per day for both blanks, correct? MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All those in favor signify by saying "aye." Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? Page 98 November 18,2010 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. Thank you, Investigator Gomez. MR. GOMEZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We've got time for one more. The next case, CEPM20100001331, Romona Garcia. MR. BOX: Yes, sir. MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of ordinance: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Buildings and Building Regulations, Article VI, Property Maintenance Code, Section 22-231(12)(c). Description of violation: Roof damage covered with a blue tarp. Location/address where violation exists: 6872 Trail Boulevard, Naples, Florida, 34108. Folio No. 67284960006. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Romona Garcia, 6872 Trail Boulevard, Naples, Florida, 34108. Date violation first observed: February 1st, 2010. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: Notice of violation mailed on February 11 th, 2010, returned unclaimed; property posted and courthouse posted on March 22nd, 2010. Date on by which violation to be corrected: April 5th, 2010. Date of reinspect ion: July 26th, 2010. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. (Witness sworn by court reporter.) MR. BOX: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Heinz Box, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is with reference to Case No. CEPM20100001331. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Heinz, slow down a little bit -- MR. BOX: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- before we go. MR. BOX: Sorry about that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's all right. It helps her too if you speak right into the mike -- Page 99 November 18,2010 MR. BOX: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- so that she can hear perfectly. MR. BOX: These are violations of the Collier County Code of Law and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Building and Building Regulations, Article VI, the Property Maintenance Code, Section 22-231 (12)( c), located at 6872 Trail Boulevard, Naples, Florida. Notice of violation was mailed on February 11th, 2010. It came back unclaimed. The property was posted on the 22nd of March 2010; it was at the courthouse also. Now I'd like to present the following exhibits to this case: Two photographs. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibits. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries. MR. BOX: All right. I initially responded to this location on February 1st of2010. I noticed a blue tarp that was approximately four feet by four feet square on top of the roof along with several ceramic roof tiles that were laying loose in the immediate area of the tarp, and the home was unoccupied. The notice of violation was mailed to the owner of record, a Romona Garcia, on the 11th of February 2010, and it came back unclaimed. Notice of violation was posted, as previously mentioned, at the courthouse and the property on the 22nd of March of 20 1 0 with a compliance date of April 5th of 20 I O. On April 5th of 20 1 0, I received a phone message from a Mr. Page 100 November 18, 2010 George Montes who resides in San Juan, Puerto Rico, who advised me he was calling about the home and was asking for a return call regarding this complaint. I did make contact with him by phone and let him know what the violations were and that the roof need to be repaired. Subsequent to my contact with Mr. Montes, both bye-mail and phone, he told me that the roof at that time was going to be repaired within two weeks, which has not happened. Since my last contact with Mr. Montes -- I'm sorry. Since my last contact with Mr. Montes, I performed numerous site visits, the most recent one being about two days ago, and noticed that the violation remains, and the house is unoccupied. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any questions from the board? MR. ORTEGA: Yes. This -- Mr. Montes. MR. BOX: Yes. MR. ORTEGA: He obviously doesn't own the property but takes care of it -- MR. BOX: No, he doesn't own the property. His mother owns the property. MR. ORTEGA: That's Romona? MR. BOX: Yes, Romona Garcia. And as to her whereabouts, he told me that she's residing in Columbia, South America. I don't know how to get ahold of her, so -- MR. ORTEGA: Thank you. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question. As far as covering a hole in the roof with a blue tarp, is there a specified time that that has to be resolved? I realize this has been a long time -- MR. BOX: Right. MR. KAUFMAN: -- but is it 30 days, 90 days? MR. BOX: That I can't answer. I don't know. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All we have to go by is the county ordinance which requires -- Subsection (c), Roofs: "Roofs shall be Page 10 1 November 18, 2010 maintained in a safe manner and have no defects which might admit rain or cause dampness in the walls or interior portions of the building." It does not give a time frame. MR. KAUFMAN: Have you been able to peek into the house to see ifthere's any mold in there or -- MR. BOX: No, I couldn't. MR. KAUFMAN: -- water damage? MR. BOX: The blinds on all the windows are drawn. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Is there a question as to whether a violation exists? MR. KAUFMAN: Well, I -- I have a problem with not knowing how long you can have a blue tarp on the roof as far as the violation is concerned. Is it after 30 days, 60 days? CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All it says is that no defects shall remain. MR. BOX: That's been there for quite some time, this has been gomg on. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: I think there was some leeway given back after the hurricanes. MR. KAUFMAN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: But, of course, you know, that's long since gone. And as of October 24th of this year, the statute of limitations have run. MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion they're in violation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. ORTEGA: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Seconded by Mr. Ortega. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 102 November 18,2010 MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Okay. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. There is a violation. And, Investigator Box, do you have a recommendation from the county? MR. BOX: Yes, sir. "The Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $80.86 for the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by applying and obtaining the Collier County building permits through to certificate of completion on the project and repair any and all portions of the roof at this location so as not to allow rain intrusion which might cause damage to the home within X amount of days or a X-a-day fine will be imposed. "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 infuse -- enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. (As read.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. It's hazing. We always break in our new court reporters this way. MR. BOX: I'm sorry. COURT REPORTER: That's okay. MR. BOX: I'm from New Jersey. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Okay. Does somebody want to possibly accept the county's recommendation and fill in the blanks? MR. KAUFMAN: I'll fill in the blanks. The $80.86 to be paid within 30 days. The -- giving the respondent 60 days to take care of the problem and a fine of $150 a day thereafter. Page 103 November 18, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELL Y: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. Thanks, Investigator Box. MR. BOX: Thanks. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, that brings us right to 12 o'clock. We're going to break for 30 minutes for lunch, unless we need more. Then we'll just take more time, I guess. We'll adjourn for 30 minutes. We'll see you back at 12:30. (Recess held from 11 :58 a.m. until 12:44 p.m.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We'll call the Code Enforcement Board back to order after our lunch break. We're on Case No. 17 under "Hearings," Jeffrey and Tammy Taylor, Case CESD200900 1 0 167. MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of ordinance: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41 as amended, Section 1O.02.06(B)(1)(a), submittal requirements for permits, building or land alteration permits, improvement of a property per -- prohibited prior to issuances of building permit, Collier County Land Development Code 04-41 as amended, Section 1O.02.06(B)(1)( e )(i). Description of violation: Converting garage to living space without Collier County building permits. Location/address where Page 104 November 18,2010 violation exists: 3220 6th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120. Folio No. 40681720002. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Jeffrey C. and Tammy J. Taylor, 3220 6th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120. Date violation first observed: June 17th, 2009. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: August 18th, 2009. Date on by which violation to be corrected: September 18th, 2009. Date of reinspect ion: October 18th, 2010. Results of reinspect ion: The violation remains. (Witness sworn by court reporter.) MR. BALDWIN: Good afternoon. For the record, Investigator Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20090010167, the violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-04 -- 04-41 as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), submittal requirements for permits, building or land alteration permits, improvements of property prohibited prior to issuance of building permit, Collier County Land Development Code 04-41 as amended, Section 1O.02.06(B)(1)( e )(i). The description of the violation is a converted garage into living space without a Collier County building permit. The address of the violation is 3220 6th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120. Notice of violation was posted on 8/18/2009. It was also sent regular and certified mail, and we had a green card returned as received and signed by Jeffrey Taylor. The date on which the violation was ordered to be corrected, 9/18/2009; and as of yesterday, the violation still was not abated. I'd like to now present my case evidence as follows: I have some photos, Al through 3, and those were taken on 7/28/2009; and the last two photos were taking (sic) yesterday, 11/1712010. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibits. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) Page 105 November 18,2010 CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Accepted. MR. BALDWIN: The original permit, 91-9790, the blueprints show that there was a garage there. No permits in Collier County CD plus -- or anywhere have been found for a conversion of a garage into living space. The property is now vacant. And two other investigators on the foreclosure team had -- did speak to someone about this property, an attorney, and someone from a bankruptcy law firm but the last time they spoke with anyone was 11/6/09. They-- they were told that they were going into foreclosure and bankruptcy. But as of right now, just as of 15 minutes ago, nothing has been filed with the clerk of courts, either a lis pendens or a bankruptcy. And so we are here today, and the violation still remains. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board? MR. ORTEGA: A quick question. MR. KAUFMAN: I was going to-- MR. ORTEGA: Go ahead. MR. KAUFMAN: I was going to make a motion we find them in violation. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: You okay with that, or do you have a question first? MR. ORTEGA: No. Go ahead. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any discussion? Page 106 November 18,2010 MR. ORTEGA: Yes. Is this a habitable space that they enclosed the garage? I mean, do they have a bathroom in there, a kitchen? MR. BALDWIN: I did not see the inside; another investigator saw the inside. And no, she did not list any plumbing or electricity alterations. It appears that they did add a wall, maybe with a closet, and they enclosed the front -- they took out the garage door and put in the windows and French doors. MR. ORTEGA: The respondent's not here, I take it. MR. BALDWIN: We have had no contact with the respondent since day one, 6/1 7/2009. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. The violation exists. Do you have a recommendation? MR. BALDWIN: Yes, I do, that the Code Enforcement Board order the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of 81.15 -- in the amount of $81.15 -- I'm sorry -- that incurred in the prosecution of the case within 30 days and abate all violations by: "One, applying for and obtaining a Collier County building permit or a Collier County demolition permit for all construction additions and/or alterations, obtain all related inspections and certificate of completion within X days of this hearing or a found -- fine amount of X dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. "Two, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a Page 107 November 18, 2010 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." (As read.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question. Is this in front of the foreclosure team at all, or not yet? MR. BALDWIN: It was in front of the foreclosure team for about eight months. No movement. And since the last time -- they spoke to the bankruptcy attorney that was representing them on -- I'm sorry. I have it here in my notes -- on 11/6/09, so it was over a year. So there had been no movement, so they sent it back to me to prep for a hearing. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: I'll take a shot at the motion. We accept the motion as -- as you've presented it: Pay the $81.15 within 30 days; 90 days to complete everything that you had listed with a fine of $200 a day thereafter. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Do we have a second? MR. ORTEGA: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: We have a second. Any discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All those in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries unanimously. Thank you, Investigator. Page 108 November 18,2010 The next case, Case No. 18, Robert and Serita Brown, CEPM20 1 000 18257. MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of ordinance: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Buildings and Building Regulations, Article VI, Property Maintenance Code, Section 22-231, Subsection 15. Description of violation: A pool not being maintained in a sanitary condition. Location/address where violation exists: 8622 Pebblebrooke Drive, Naples, Florida, 34119. Folio No. 66262006349. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Robert E. and Serita D. Brown, 8622 Pebblebrooke Drive, Naples, Florida, 34119. Date violation first observed: September 14th, 2010. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: September 15th, 2010. Date on by which violation to be corrected: October 14th, 2010. Date of reinspect ion: October 18th, 2010. Results of the reinspection: The violation remains. (Witness sworn by court reporter.) MR. GOMEZ: Good afternoon. Carmelo Gomez, investigator for Collier Code Enforcement. This is in Case Reference CEPM20 1 000 18257, violation of a pool not maintained in a sanitary condition at 8622 Pebblebrooke Drive, Folio 66262006349. Service was given by posting property and courthouse on 9/15 of this year. At this time I'd like to present evidence of two pictures, one taken the date of the violation, 9/14/10, and the second taken yesterday showing the violation is still unabated. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. Page 109 November 18, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. GOMEZ: The violation was observed on 9/14/10, and the case was turned over to the foreclosure team. Up to this moment they've had no luck in having the bank abate the issue, so that's why we're presenting it to you. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any questions? MR. KAUFMAN: Can I ask if the pool smells here as well? MR. GOMEZ: Yes, it does. MR. KAUFMAN: It doesn't come through on the pictures as a smell. MR. GOMEZ: No, sir, it does not. But they all do. MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion we find them in violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. A violation exists. Do you have a recommendation? MR. GOMEZ: Yes, I do, that the board order the respondents to pay all operational costs in the amount of $80.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: "One, chemically treating the pool water and kill the algae growth and maintain the filtration system to keep the pool water clean and provide biweekly treatment within seven days or a daily fine" -- excuse me -- "within X amount of days or a daily fine of X amount of Page 110 November 18, 2010 dollars will be imposed for each day the violation continues. "Alternatively, the respondent may chemically treat the pool water, killing the algae growth, and covering the pool using HUD standards, preventing the intrusion of water within X amount of days, or a daily fine of X amount of dollars will be imposed for each day the violation continues. "Two, that 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." (As read.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a shot at the motion: $80.29 to be paid within 30 days; that the pool be treated and overcome the violation also within 30 days, or a $150-a-day fine. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So we're accepting the county's recommendation, providing 30 days for both items, and $150 per day for both items? MR. KAUFMAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. ORTEGA: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed? (No response.) Page 111 November 18,2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries unanimously. MR. GOMEZ: Mr. Kaufman, next time I'll try to bring you a scratch-and-sniff picture. MR. LEFEBVRE: He can do what? MR. KAUFMAN: Scratch and sniff. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So he can smell the pool. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I get it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: The next case, Case No. 21, CEPM20100010050, Phillip Bradley and Nancy Bradley, respondents. MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of ordinance: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Buildings and Building Regulations, Article VI, Property Maintenance Code, Section 22-231, Subsection 15. Description of violation: Pool water unmaintained and dark in color. Location/address where violation exists: 4945 Barcelona Circle, Naples, Florida, 34112. Folio No. 63102120003. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Phillip R. and Nancy F. Bradley, 4945 Barcelona Circle, Naples, Florida, 34112. Date violation first observed: July 28th, 2010. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: Property and courthouse were both posted on September 7th, 2010. Date on by which violation to be corrected: September 27th, 2010. Date ofreinspection: September 30th, 2010. Results of reinspect ion: The violation remains. (Witness sworn by court reporter.) MR. SMITH: Good afternoon. For the record, Reggie Smith, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. This is in reference to Case No. CEPM20100010050, dealing with a violation of pool water unmaintained and dark in color, located at 4945 Barcelona Circle, Naples, Florida, 34112, Folio No. 63102120003. Service was given on 7 September 2010 in the form of posting the property. Regular and certified mailings were also sent. Now I'd like to present the case evidence and the following Page 112 November 18, 2010 exhibits, case photos, two photos: One photo from 28 July 2010 on my initial site visit; and one photo from 17 November 2010, yesterday's reinspection, showing the violation remains, both taken by myself. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept exhibits. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries. MR. SMITH: Case details are as such: On 28 July 2010, my initial site visit revealed this vacant property has an unmaintained pool with dark and algae water. Research confirmed the foreclosure status, and the case was then transferred over to the code enforcement foreclosure team for bank abatement request. Chase Home Finance advised code enforcement that they are not interested in this property; therefore, the case was then transferred back to the area investigator for a normal code-enforcement process. On 7 September of 20 10, the notice of violation was posted at the property and the Collier County Courthouse with a due date of 27 September 2010. The NOV was also mailed regular and certified mail to the owners' address on file. On 30 September 2010, a reinspection revealed the violation remained. The case was then prepared for hearing. On 17 November 2010, reinspection revealed the violation remams. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Questions? MR. ORTEGA: I have a question. Is the screen enclosure compromised? MR. SMITH: I'm sorry. I didn't quite hear you. Page 113 November 18,2010 MR. ORTEGA: Is the screen enclosure compromised? MR. SMITH: No, sir. From what I could see, there was no damage to the screen enclosure. MR. KAUFMAN: I have one question. You said that -- was it Chase, the bank? MR. SMITH: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: That they -- they're not interested? MR. SMITH: That's what I was told from our foreclosure team. MR. KAUFMAN: Well-- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Which means what? MS. FLAGG: There -- remember, I told you there may be a transition with how the banks react, waiting to see what happens with the election? So you're going to -- these are some cases that they're waiting to see what the transition holds, which means, if the bank doesn't address it, we'll take care of it and then put a lien on the property for the cost. And then they'll come back around. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to find them in violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries unanimously. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Kaufman, don't you have a question? MR. KAUFMAN: Does the pool smell? MR. SMITH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you have a recommendation? Page 114 November 18,2010 MR. SMITH: Yes, that the "Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $80.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: "Number 1, by chemically treating the pool water and kill the algae growth and maintain the filtration system to keep the pool water clean and provide biweekly treatment within X amount of days, or a daily fine of X amount of dollars will be imposed for each day the violation continues. "Number 2, alternatively, respondent may chemically treat the pool water, killing the algae growth, and covering the pool using HUD standards, preventing the intrusion of rainwater, within X amount of days, or a daily fine of X amount of dollars will be imposed for each day the violation continues. "And, finally, No.3, 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. (As read.) MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that we accept the county's position: 80.57 paid within 30 days; they have 30 days to clear the pool; and $150 a day thereafter. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any discussion -- oh, I'm sorry. Is there a second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 115 November 18,2010 MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And that's 30 days and 150 for both blanks. MR. SMITH: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Thank you. Okay. It looks like, Joe, you're up for the last four -- no, there's one more. The next case is going to be Case No. 23, CEPM201 000 18316, Michael Bonelli. MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to a violation of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22-231(15). Description of violation: Swimming pool is not being maintained. Location/address where violation exists: 935 Fountain Run, Naples, Florida, 34119. Folio No. 33160001123. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Michael Bonelli, 2437 East Eric Drive, Wilmington, Delaware, 19808. Date violation first observed: September 15th, 2010. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: Property and Collier County Courthouse both posted on September 15th, 2010. Date on by which violation to be corrected: October 15th, 2010. Date of reinspect ion: October 15th, 2010. Results of reinspect ion: The violation remains. (Witness sworn by court reporter.) MR. MUCHA: Good afternoon. For the record, Joe Mucha, property maintenance specialist, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CEPM20100018316, dealing with violations of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22-231, Subsection 15, described as a swimming pool that is not being maintained, located at 935 Fountain Page 116 November 18,2010 Run, Naples, 34119, Folio No. 33160001123. Service was obtained by posting of the notice of violation at the property and the Collier County Courthouse on September 15th, 2010. I'd like to present case evidence and the following exhibits: I have one photograph from my initial site visit on September 15th, 2010, that will depict the swimming pool that is not being maintained. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept exhibits. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Seconded. All in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: It carries. MR. MUCHA: This case was initiated as a complaint. I went out to the property on September 15th and observed a vacant structure with a swimming pool that's not being maintained. At that time I posted the notice of violation at the property and also at the courthouse and also sent a notice of violation certified and regular mail. I researched the property and found that it was in foreclosure, so the case was turned over to -- that time to our foreclosure investigators. On October 15th, the case was returned to me due to the bank's unwillingness to abate the violation, so at that time I elected to forward the case to a hearing. And as of yesterday that pool is still not being maintained. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have any questions for the investigator? MR. ORTEGA: Yes. Is the pool area safe? Is the screen Page 117 November 18,2010 enclosure compromised? MR. MUCHA: No, sir. MR. ORTEGA: In any of these cases, are the doors locked? I mean, is there access to that by children? MR. MUCHA: I didn't particularly check the door, but usually-- I mean, as long as they're shut, as long as there's no openings or anything like that -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Usually on the screen doors they put the handle high -- MR. MUCHA: Yeah, it's like the standard -- MR. ORTEGA: Right, 54 inches. MR. MUCHA: Everything's up to code as far as the screen enclosure. MR. ORTEGA: Okay. Thank you, Joe. MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to find them in violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Do you have a recommendation? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. "Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $80.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and to abate all violations by chemically treating the pool water and kill the algae growth and maintain the filtration system to keep the pool water clean Page 118 November 18, 2010 and provide biweekly treatment within blank number of days, or a daily fine of blank dollars will be imposed for each day the violation continues. "Alternatively, respondent may chemically treat the pool water, killing the algae growth, then covering the pool using HUD standards, preventing the intrusion of rainwater, within blank number of days, or a fine of blank dollars will be imposed for each day the violation continues. "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. (As read.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any questions? MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion, to be consistent, that the 80.57 be paid within 30 days; that the pool become -- or code within 30 days, or $150 a -- fine -- a-day fine thereafter. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So we're going to accept the county's recommendation, and that'll be 30 and 150 for both blanks, correct? MR. KAUFMAN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? Page 119 November 18,2010 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries unanimously. Okay. Next case, Jen? MS. WALDRON: Case CEROW20100017549. This is in reference to violation of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 110, Article II, Section 110-31(a). Description of violation: Unpermitted temporary second driveway for the property that has been partially placed on the neighboring property. Location/address where violation exists: 4110 3rd Avenue Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34119. Folio No. 36616480004. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Pierino and Loreta Pensenti, 4110 3rd Avenue Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34119. Date violation first observed: August 25th, 2010. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: October 6th, 2010. Date on by which violation to be corrected: October 27th, 2010. Date of reinspect ion: October 27th, 2010. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. (Witness sworn by court reporter.) MR. MUCHA: For the record, Joe Mucha, property maintenance specialist, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CEROW20100017549, dealing with violations of Collier County load -- Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 110, Article II, Section 11O-31(a), described as an unpermitted temporary second driveway for the property that has been partially placed on the neighboring property located at 4110 3rd Avenue Southwest, Naples, 34119. Folio No. 36616480004. Service was obtained by posting of the notice of violation at the property and the Collier County Courthouse on October 6th, 2010. I'd like to present case evidence and the following exhibits: I have one photograph taken by myself on August 25th, 2010; and also five documents from the right-of-way department. And the photograph will depict the temporary driveway. Page 120 November 18,2010 MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept exhibits before he describes them. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Did you have anything else you wanted to add? MR. MUCHA: Oh, and I was just going to say the five documents are in regards to permits, right-of-way permits. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept exhibits. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries. MR. MUCHA: Okay. This complaint -- it was a complaint received from the right-of-way department in regards to a temporary second driveway that was partially placed on a neighboring property. Basically the owner of this property obtained a right-of-way permit back in January of 2006 for a temporary construction access, and this temporary driveway was supposed to be removed within six months of the issuance of the permit. So I went out on August 25th of this year and verified that there was a second driveway. On October 6th, I spoke to the -- I guess the property owner's son, a Mr. Damato Pensenti. And at that time he stated that he was going to apply for a new right-of-way permit, remove the existing temporary driveway, and move it over onto-- more onto his property, to where it would be legal and permitted. He Page 121 November 18,2010 stated at that time, due to his work schedule, that he doesn't have much time to get things done. I advised him at that time that, if he can at least get the permit applied for, it would be a good sign of faith that he intends to get the work done. He stated that he would work on the permit. October 27th site visit, the violation remained. No right-of-way permit had been applied for at that time. No contact from Mr. Pensenti. So at that time I elected to forward the case to a hearing. As of yesterday there has been a right-of-way permit that was applied for yesterday and issued to move the temporary driveway that is encroaching on the adjacent property. MR. L'ESPERANCE: This home is occupied, Joe? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: The permit that was pulled, does that allow this right-of-way driveway to stand for a little while until he has a chance to move it? MR. MUCHA: Let me look at the permit. It's kind of vague, because the permit basically just says: "Moving temporary driveway that is encroaching on adjacent property." So I don't know how much time they -- they gave him, because this was just brought to my attention literally minutes before I was supposed to come here today. So I don't know it these permits are good for six months -- CHAIRMAN KELL Y: The question is: Since he has a valid permit right now and he has a certain amount of time, even if it's 30 days, technically there's no violation. MR. MUCHA: Well-- CHAIRMAN KELL Y: I mean, there may have been a violation, and that might be what you want us to rule on. Are you still alive back in the back? No. Okay. We'll go ahead and take a recess real quick and reset all of our stuff. (Recess held from 1:16 p.m. to 1:23 p.m.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: We're going to call this meeting back to Page 122 November 18,2010 order. We're not live on television, but it is being recorded, plus we have the court reporter for transcription, so it should be fine. And if we want to just pick up where we left off, Mr. Latourneau, if you want to be sworn in. (Witness sworn by the court reporter.) MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, JeffLatourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. Your question is a real good question. Yeah, right now there are probably -- by getting the permit, he probably technically is out of -- is in compliance; however, the road department has sent him, you know, numerous letters to get his right-of-way moved. He talked to him, wrote him an NOV, and then, really, the only reason he came in here and got the permit at this time was to avoid the -- you know, avoid a hearing, I believe. Our reason to bring it here today would be to ask the board to give him a certain amount of time to get this thing done, because I'm afraid that he was just going to let this thing lapse like he has in the past. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So do you suggest we file a motion or an order stating that a violation did exist or that it does exist and giving him the amount of time that's typically on that permit to get it corrected? MR. LETOURNEAU: I -- I believe that it -- yeah, the way the driveway is, in its state now, just mainly because it extends over to his neighbor's property, number one. Number two, his original permit had gave him six months to get rid of it. This permit is just a -- just to move it right now. So I really don't know how you go about the ordinance. We have -- you know, it's just like other permitting cases we brought here before that people have just, you know, put off, put off, put off, and all of a sudden they get a hearing notice, and they jump through the hoop and then get the permit issued. But then there's always the worries Page 123 November 18, 2010 that they'll not -- they won't follow through, and then we'll have to just bring this back to a hearing again. MR. KAUFMAN: Can you describe, on the picture, where the intrusion is onto the neighbor's property? MR. MUCHA: I just believe it kind of encroaches onto the property line, probably on the far right of that (indicating) driveway. MR. KAUFMAN: So, I mean, this looks like it's, I don't know, 50 feet wide, and it should only be, you know, 15 feet wide or so. MR. MUCHA: I don't think it's 50 feet wide. I think it's just the angle of the photo and it's -- because it was kind of from the side. I just wanted to kind of show it. But I would say that -- again, that the far right of that (indicating) driveway encroaches into -- MR. ORTEGA: It'll be no less than 30 feet at the mouth. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. That does look like more. MR. ORTEGA: Why is it labeled "temporary," though, driveway? MR. MUCHA: Because at the time it was for a construction access, when he was building a structure on his property. And it was supposed to be removed within six months of issuance of that original permit back in 2006. MR. KAUFMAN: How can you get a permit to put a driveway on your neighbor's property for-- MR. MUCHA: I think at the time they didn't realize, and I think the neighbor went and got a survey at some point, and then that's how they figured this all out. But that's what I was going to say. This has been going on for quite a while, I believe since, like, 2009, the right-of-way department has been asking this guy to remove this driveway. And he was promising, "Yeah, I'll get around to it, I'll do it, I'll do it," and he didn't. So that's why they turned it over to us. And even in my dealings with the guy, I talked to him about a month and a half ago, and he said, "Yeah, I'm going to take care of Page 124 November 18,2010 this," and he just went in yesterday to get the permit. And I wouldn't say he is in compliance at this point. Until that driveway's moved over, it's not in compliance. MR. KAUFMAN: Is -- is that driveway -- when you say "come into compliance," does that mean grass should be planted where the neighbor's property is? MR. MUCHA: Correct, correct. MR. KAUFMAN: That's -- okay. MR. MUCHA: Yeah, he's going to have to remove the culverts, everything, and move that -- move it over. MR. ORTEGA: So you answered that question. They -- it does have a culvert? MR. MUCHA: It does have a culvert. MR. ORTEGA: So it's actual -- it was actually set up as a temporary for construction. MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. MR. ORTEGA: So -- but he wants to keep it. MR. MUCHA: He wants to keep it, but he has to move it over. MR. ORTEGA: And-- MR. MUCHA: So in its current state, it's not in compliance. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So real quick again, do you want -- do you think it's better to do an order that it did exist and then get him later on a repeat violation or that it does exist now and then just set the time frame? MR. MUCHA: (Nodding.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Does exist now? MR. LETOURNEAU: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Is everybody on the board okay with that? MR. ORTEGA: No. MS. FLAGG: The -- the issue is that the violation exists in terms of where the driveway is located. The permit is a secondary issue. Page 125 November 18, 2010 The fact is the violation exists. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So to paraphrase, just like if we had a home that was built in a setback and the person went to pull a demolition permit, just because they have a permit to correct the problem doesn't mean the violation has been abated. MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Good. MR. LETOURNEAU: Good analogy, yes. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that a violation exists. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Well, we -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I had a question that was ancillary, so we can go -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: And we have discussion, I guess. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. ORTEGA: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. And now discussion? Do you want to go next? MR. LEFEBVRE: Just -- just a question: If this was part ofa permit for a structure, how come a final CO was issued if this was not corrected? MR. MUCHA: But this was -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Or not taken out. MR. MUCHA: -- a separate permit. It wasn't a part of the building permit; it was a permit from the right-of-way for the driveway. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any other discussion? MR. ORTEGA: And by the way, remember, what is permitted is not the driveway; it is only the right-of-way. Page 126 November 18, 2010 MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Uh-huh. MR. ORTEGA: And the right-of-way is encroaching, is what you're saying. MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. MR. ORTEGA: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: What I'm trying to get at is maybe ifthere -- there is a right-of-way permit, that should be probably restored to the original condition before a final CO is -- is given on even the structure that was -- because this isn't needed after that building is built. So I'm just saying it might be a change that the building department -- we can't do it here, obviously, but something the building department should look at. Ifthere's a right-of-way permit, it should -- until that's restored to the original condition, the CO should not be issued for the building. MR. MUCHA: I agree. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. A violation does exist. Now do you have a recommendation? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir, that the "Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $80.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and to abate all violations by: Remove temporary driveway and restore right-of-way to a permitted state or obtain Collier County right-of-way permit inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy for the Page 127 November 18,2010 second driveway within blank number of days of this hearing, or a fine of blank per day until the violation is abated. "The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when a 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." (As read.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Anyone want to accept the county recommendation and try to fill in the blanks? MR. KAUFMAN: I'll try that: $80.29 to be paid within 30 days; 30 days to resolve the situation with the driveway; $150-a-day fine thereafter. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries unanimously. Okay. The last case under "Hearings," Case No. 25. Jen? MS. WALDRON: Case CESD20100001344. This is in reference to violation of Collier County Land Development Code Page 128 November 18, 2010 04-41 as amended, Section 1O.02.06(B)(1)(a). Description of violation: Permit No. 1999032149 for a swimming pool never received certificate of occupancy. Permit has since been cancelled. Location/address where violation exists: 4460 3rd Avenue Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34119. Folio No. 36613600007. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Reuben Reinstein Estate, care of Laird Lile, 5385 Palmetto Woods Drive, Naples, Florida, 34119. Date violation first observed: January 29th, 2010. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: September 7th, 2010. Date on by which violation to be corrected: October 7th, 2010. Date of reinspect ion: October 7th, 2010. Results of reinspect ion: The violation remains. (Witness sworn by court reporter.) MR. MUCHA: For the record, Joe Mucha, property maintenance specialist, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20100001344, dealing with violations of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41 as amended, Section 1O.02.06(B)(1)(a), described as Pool Permit 1999032149 that never received a certificate of occupancy, and permit has since been cancelled. Violation location is 4460 3rd Avenue Southwest, Naples, 34119, Folio No. 3661360007. Service was obtained by posting of the notice of violation at the property and the Collier County Courthouse on September 7th, 2010. I would like to present case evidence and the following exhibits: I have one document; it's a permit. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibit. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 129 November 18,2010 MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. MUCHA: On January 29th of2010, the foreclosure team was conducting research on the property for the -- for another case they had, and they found that the pool had a permit in 1999 that was cancelled and never received a certificate of occupancy. And they continued to work the case until September of this year and, due to the bank not having title of the property, the bank was not going to abate the violations. So the case was returned to me for the normal code enforcement process. On September 7th, I confirmed the violation did remain. I posted a notice of violation at the property and courthouse and also sent a notice of violation by certified and regular mail. October 8th, conducted a reinspection. The violation remained, so I elected to forward the case to a hearing. And as of October 17th, the violation still remains. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Do we have any questions from the board? MR. ORTEGA: Yes. Does this pool have an enclosure to protect it? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. MR. ORTEGA: Screen enclosure? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: The only thing that's missing is the CO? All the other inspections are good? Because this -- MR. MUCHA: That I've got to check on. I think it might be missing some inspections too. I don't recall. MR. KAUFMAN: Was the pool clean and water's being-- MR. MUCHA: No, the pool is not being maintained, and I do have a case open for that. MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion we find them in violation.n Page 130 November 18,2010 MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries unanimously. Do you have a recommendation? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. My recommendation is that: "The Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$80.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by hiring a general contractor licensed in Collier County to obtain permit inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy for the swimming pool within blank number of days of this hearing, or a fine of blank per day until violation is abated. "The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when a violation has been abated in order to conduct the 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." (As read.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: I have a technical question. MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Number 2, you stated that the respondent must hire a general contractor. Isn't it possible that a BC and RC or a swimming pool contractor can also do the work? And are we maybe Page 131 November 18, 2010 asking for something that's not technically necessary? MR. ORTEGA: Well, it's got to be a pool contractor to pull a permit. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: I'm just -- for future records, maybe we should do, like, "appropriate contractor" or "appropriately-licensed contractor," rather than just a "generaL" MR. MUCHA: Okay. That's-- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Something along those lines. MR. KAUFMAN: Have you been in contact with the respondent at all? MR. MUCHA: No, sir. This -- as I've stated before, this is a vacant foreclosure property, and no contact. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any other questions? MR. KAUFMAN: I'll take a stab at the resolution: 80.29 to be paid within 30 days. Since this revolves around getting a permit, 60 days to get the permit and $150 fine thereafter. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries unanimously. MR. MUCHA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right. Thanks, Investigator. I think we've got one more for you. This concludes -- I'm sorry -- Page 132 November 18,2010 yeah. This concludes all of our hearings. Now we go into "Old Business." And, Jen, I think you have some information for us. MS. WALDRON: Yeah. The county is asking to withdraw the first case, Case CEPM20100007867, Joseph and Maria Ranghelli; and also No.2, Case CESD20100003695, Maria D. and Sergio Gomez. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Which brings us to Case 3, Mr. Shapiro. And I'll go ahead and read it into the record so at least it's official, and we'll go from there. This is Case No. CESD20090013290, Board of County Commissioners versus Mark Shapiro, PA Trust, Collier 51st Terrace Trust, respondent. The violation is in Collier County Land Development Code 04-41 as amended, Section 10.02.06, Section B, Sub 1, Sub A. Location: 2320 51st Terrace Southwest, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 3631304006. Do you want to finish? MR. LETOURNEAU: Okay. (Witness sworn by court reporter.) MR. LETOURNEAU: Once again, for the record, Jeff Latourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. I'm going to start out right where you left off. The description of the violation is a garage that was converted to living space and an enclosed laundry room added to the rear of the structure without permits. "Past order: On August 26th, 2010, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusions 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 4601, Page 1819, for more information. "The respondent has not complied with the CEB orders as of November 18th, 2010. The findings and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item No.1 and 2: Fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period between October 26th, 2010, and November 18th, 2010, for a total of 24 days for a total amount of $4,800. The fines Page 133 November 18, 2010 continue to accrue. Order No.5: Operational costs of $80.57 have not been paid. Total amount due to date, $4,880.57." (As read.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: And the respondent is not here. Do we have any questions from the board? MR. ORTEGA: Yes. Is the respondent the attorney? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah, it's his -- his place under a trust. MR. ORTEGA: He should know better. Is it a life -- is there a life-safety issue here? It speaks about a panel being open. MR. MUCHA: It's vacant at this time. It's a foreclosure, and it's vacant, so -- but there was definitely unpermitted work done. So if somebody lived there, I would say yes. MR. ORTEGA: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to impose. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries unanimously. That concludes all of our motions and cases. On to No.6, "New Business." Diane, any word about-- "Consent Agenda," there was nothing. "Reports"? MS. FLAGG: "Reports." In October of2010, there were 550 new foreclosures filed. Since January of 2008, Collier County's had 21,196 foreclosures filed. Through November 14th, this Monday, the banks have spent $1,866,000 to abate code violations, and they've abated 1,520 violations. The cost savings to the taxpayers at this point Page 134 November 18, 2010 is averaging $18,000 a week for the abatements by the banks. The brochures that provide foreclosure information, foreclosure assistance, to the community members are available at each meeting, and today they're outside the room. There's the community resource brochure. Also, the economic-recovery task force continues to meet, and there's now a section on the web site at colliergov.net/tools. And it's a web site for businesses. It serves as tools for businesses in terms of the lowering of the impact fees. It -- the financial incentives if you want to expand, has all kinds of good information on it. What I'll do, if y'all are interested, is I'll send you the November project status report. The ER TF does a monthly report on all the various SWAT teams and where they're at in their projects. And if you're interested, I can add you to that mailing list. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good. MS. FLAGG: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Excellent. Thank you, Diane. Are there any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next meeting date's going to be January 27th, 2011. It's going to be right back here in this room, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, at the community development center. Other than that, we'll see you next year. Motion to adjourn? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Join? MR. ORTEGA: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Ortega. All in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. Page 135 November 18,2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right. We'll see you next year. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chairman at 1:43 p.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD KENNETH KELLY, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on or as corrected , as presented TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY KAREN BLOCKBURGER, RPR, CRR, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 136