The URL can be used to link to this page

CEB Minutes 06/24/2010 R June 24, 2010 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida June 24,2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" ofthe Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Kenneth Kelly Larry Dean (Excused) Ron Doino (Alternate) Robert Kaufman James Lavinski Gerald Lefebvre Lionel L'Esperance Tony Marino Herminio Ortega ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director Jen Waldron, Code Enforcement Specialist Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA AGENDA Date: June 24, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. Location: 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, FL 34104 NOTICE: THE RESPONDENT MAYBE LIMITED TO TWENTY (20) MINUTES FOR CASE PRESENTATION UNLESS ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE BOARD. PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. ALL PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN THE PUBLIC HEARING ARE ASKED TO OBSERVE ROBERTS RULES OF ORDER AND SPEAK ONE AT A TIME SO THAT THE COURT REPORTER CAN RECORD ALL STATEMENTS BEING MADE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBA TIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - A. May 27, 2010 Hearing 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. MOTIONS Motion for Extension of Time I. Charles D. Brown CESD20090013027 2. Daysi Falcon, Caridad & Barbara Jimenez CESD20090007837 B. STIPULATIONS C. HEARINGS I. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TlON ADDRESS: 3. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TlON ADDRESS: CESD20090010456 DA VID & JUANA CARRILLO INVESTlGA TOR WELDON WALKER COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)( I)(a) OBSERVED 2 STRUCTURES NOT PERMITTED 51040120009 1207 IMMOKALEE DR. IMMOKALEE, FL CESD200900 I 0785 GUILLERMO GOROSTJET A & SUSANA L. MORA INVESTlGA TOR AZURE SORRELS FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2004 EDITION, CHAPTER I, SECTION 105.1, COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 10.02.06(B)(I)(a) AND IO.02.06(B)(I)(e)(i), COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LA WS, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE II, SECTION 22-26(b)(l04. 1.3.5) SEVERAL STRUCTURES ON PROPERTY TO INCLUDE, A WOODEN SHED, METAL ADDITION TO THE WOODEN SHED, A STANDALONE SHED IN REAR OF PROPERTY AND AN ADDITION MADE TO THE EASTSIDE OF THE MOBILE HOME 00769320005 N/A CESD20090016211 RUBEN ESTRADA JR. & ERLINDA CARRENO INVESTlGA TOR WELDON WALKER COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT, 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION I 0.02.06(B)( I lea), COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LA WS, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS & BUILDING REGULATlONSM ARTICLE II, FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, ADOPTION & AMENDMENT OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 22-26(b)( 104.1.3.5)( I 06.1.2) SHED CONSTRUCTED THAT HAS BEEN CONVERTED TO LIVING QUARTERS WITH A KITCHEN, SLEEPING QUARTERS AND ABA THROOM WITHOUT OBTAINING PERMIT 63866680009 330 ALACHUA ST. IMMOKALEE, FL CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO.: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: 5. OLD BUSINESS CESD200900 1 0253 JORGE V & CARIDAD JIMENEZ INVESTIGATOR WELDON WALKER COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22, BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE II, FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, ADOPTION AND AMENDMENT OF THE FLORJDA BUILDING CODE, SECTION 22-26(b)(104.1.3.5), COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION I 0.02.06(B)( l)(a) PRIMARY HOUSE THAT APPEARS TO BE CONVERTED INTO 2 DWELLING UNITS 51040040008 1201 IMMOKALEE DR., IMMOKALEE, FL A, Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens I. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO: VIOLA TlON ADDRESS: 3. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: CESD20090009150 EJ PROPERTIES, LLC, INVESTIGATOR ED MORAD COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(I)(a) FAILURE TO OBTAIN BUILDING AND LAND ALTERATION PERMITS, INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AS REQUIRED 125520009 407 3RD ST. IMMOKALEE, FL CESD20080007126 MANUEL F. & ANA L, MORAN INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 A AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(I)(a) AND 10.02.06(B)(I)(e)(i) PERMIT NUMBER 2002023338 FOR STEEL BUILDING EXPIRED WTHOUT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY 40987721006 865 EVERGLADES BLVD. S. NAPLES, FL CESD20090015238 ZONIA Z. LAMBERT TR., ZON1A Z. LAMBERT REV. TRUST INVESTIGATOR AZURE SORRELS COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LA WS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, BUILDING & BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE II, FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, SECTION 22-26(b)( 104.5. 1.4.4) PERMIT # 930000826 FOR A 12 FT X 16 FT WOODEN SHED EXPIRED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION 7441960006 3450 CHEROKEE ST. NAPLES, FL 4. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO: VIOLA TlON ADDRESS: 5. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TlONS: FOLIO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: CESD20090015248 ZONIA Z. LAMBERT TR., ZONIA Z. LAMBERT REV. TRUST INVESTIGATOR AZURE SORRELS COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LA WS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, BUILDING & BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE II, FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, SECTION 22-26(b)(1 04.5.1.4.4) PERMIT # 930015737 FOR A FRAME DETACHED GARAGE WITH NO ELECTRIC- EXPIRED ON 6114/94 WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION 744 13960006 3450 CHEROKEE ST. NAPLES, FL CESD20090012961 J. PEACEFUL, LC, INVESTIGATOR RON MARTINDALE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-4 I, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(I)(e) ALERATIONS TO STRUCTURE WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING REQUIRED PERMIT, SUBSEQUENT INSPECTIONS OR ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANY/ COMPLETION 68391446166 7770 PRESERVE LANE NAPLES, FL CELU20090010758 J. PEACEFUL, LC, INVESTlGA TOR RON MARTINDALE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 2.02.03 PROHIBITED USE, TRUCK RENTAL BUSINESS PROHIBITED IN C-3 ZONED LOCA TION (PERMITTED ONL Y IN C-4 ZONED LOCATION) 68391446166 7730 PRESERVE LANE NAPLES, FL B. Motion for Reduction of Fines/Lien 6. NEW BUSINESS , 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 - Jnly 22, 2010 11. ADJOURN June 24, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Good morning. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board meeting to order for June 24,2010. Notice to everyone: Respondent may be limited to 20 minutes per case presentation, unless the 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 meeting 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 persons who decide to appeal a decision of the board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board will be responsible for providing this record. May I have roll call? MS. DAVIDSON: Mr. Kenneth Kelly? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Here. MS. DAVIDSON: Mr. Robert Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Here. MS. DAVIDSON: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. DAVIDSON: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LA VINSKI: Here. MS. DAVIDSON: Mr. Tony Marino? MR. MARINO: Here. MS. DAVIDSON: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. DAVIDSON: Mr. Herminio Ortega? MR. ORTEGA: Here. MS. DAVIDSON: Mr. Ron Doino? MR. DOINO: Here. Page 2 June 24, 2010 MS. DAVIDSON: Mr. Larry Dean does have an excused absence. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: We do have one opening for an alternate to take full voting rights. The seniority will go to Tony Marino, although Ron will have the ability to participate in all questions and discussions. Okay, agenda changes. Are there any? MS. DA VIDSON: Yes, sir. Under number four, public hearings/motions, A, motions: Motion for extension of time, number three, which is number six from imposition of fines. It's 1. Peaceful, Case No. CELU20090010758. Number four, public hearings/motions, letter B, stipulations. Number one, which is number four from hearings, Jorge V. and Caridad Jimenez, CESD20090010253. Number four, public hearings/motions, letter C, hearings: Number one, CESD20090010456, David and Juana Carrillo has been withdrawn. Number four, public hearings/motion, letter C, hearings: Number three, Case No. CESD20090016211, Reuben Estrada, Jr. and Erlinda Carreno has been withdrawn. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And that's all the changes? MS. DAVIDSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Is there anything to forward to the County Attorney's Office for consent? MS. DAVIDSON: No, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: Second. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) Page 3 June 24, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All those in favor? Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Agenda approved. Moving on to the minutes from last month. Do you have any changes or questions about the minutes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: If not, I'll entertain a motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Okay, quickly moving on to public hearings, A, motions, number Page 4 June 24, 2010 one, Charles D. Brown, for an extension of time. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. Since you are bringing the motion, if you'd like to just recap what you put in your letter and the reason behind it, we'd appreciate hearing it and enter as testimony. MR. BROWN: Okay. I had money problems, and there was a health issue also. And I have complied. I've gotten -- there's like one or two permits I've already got, it's been taken care of. I just need an extension on the other permit. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Snow? MR. SNOW: Well, sir, he has obtained -- the one permit is in conjunction with the window and some interior work has been done. He has obtained that. It was obtained on June 1 st. There's been no inspections that have been attained to this point. However, he has had extensive health issues and some financial issues, and the county has no problem with anything the board wants to do as far as extension of time. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And I see in your letter that you request an extension. Do you have a time frame? MR. BROWN: You mean like how many days? CHAIRMAN KELLY: From today, how long do you think it will take to finish everything? MR. BROWN: About 90 days? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Will that be sufficient? MR. BROWN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Do you think maybe we, in case you run into a problem, might grant a longer time frame? MR. BROWN: If you could do that, that would be even better, yes, SIr. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion we grant the l20-day extension. Page 5 June 24, 2010 MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Seconded by Mr. Lefebvre. Any discussion? MR. L'ESPERANCE: There is no health or safety issues at all? MR. SNOW: No, sir, none. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Calling for a vote, all in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: 120 days from today, sir. MR. BROWN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Jean, did you get that? MS. RAWSON: I got it, thank you. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Moving on to public hearings/motions, number two. Falcon, Caridad and Jimenez. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Can I have you state your names for the record, please. MS. FALCON: Daysi Falcon. MR. MASSIA TE: Armando Massiate. THE COURT REPORTER: Could you spell your name, please? MR. MASSIATE: Armando Massiate. A-R-M-A-N-D-O. M-A-S-S-I-A- T -E. Page 6 June 24, 2010 (The interpreter was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you would, please, translate for us the reason behind why she's requesting the motion, please. INTERPRETER: The reason she's asking for that is she doesn't have no funds, she ain't got no money, and that's the reason she's here for that. She's asking if she can grant an extension to the bank for -- you know, to get up the money and pay for every person that's doing the job for her. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Could you confirm, please, that she did receive the demolition permit, it's been paid for and picked up? INTERPRETER: Yes, she has. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: And in the letter it says 90 days is what she's requesting. INTERPRETER: Yes, she's got it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And she's sure that in 90 days she'll have enough money to remove the sheds and dispose of them appropriately? INTERPRETER: She says that she does have sufficient time with 90 days. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: I have some questions. This was heard in January of this year, and a six-month extension was granted. I'd like to know what the county feels about this, and then I have a couple other questions. MS. WALDRON: We have no objection. She had quite a bit of unpermitted structures in the back. And she's pretty much removed the majority of it. It's just whatever is left. It's a piece that's attached to the house. It's not -- no one's living in it. But since she has so much to pay for -- to remove all the stuff at the dump and with the Page 7 June 24, 2010 canisters and stuff, she's been very limited in money, so we have no objection for the extension of time. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any further questions? (No response.) MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion we extend it 90 days more. Should you have any problems in not meeting the 90 days, we suggest that you come back to the board prior to the end of the 90 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: Which she did in this. I second. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: For clarification, is that 90 days from today? MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And Cherie', that was seconded by Gerald. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, we're giving you another 90 days from today. Good luck. Okay, number three under motions for extension of time, 1. Peaceful. Before we hear the motion, there's a question as to whether or not Page 8 June 24, 2010 we can hear the motion, due to the fact that it was made within our -- not within our time frame. So let me poll the board to see if we do want to go forward with that. Is there any objections from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Do we have an opinion from our attorney? Jean? MS. RAWSON: Well, there's a time limit for filing these motions in your rules. But I think you have the discretion to vary from that, if you want to hear the case. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any other questions? MR. KAUFMAN: Which case is this? Is this the one ending in 758 or 961? CHAIRMAN KELLY: This is only 758. This is the land use; is that correct? MR. LEFEBVRE: It's regarding the U-Haul truck. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And so we will move forward then, if it's the will of the board. Any objections? (No response.) MR. LEFEBVRE: Take a vote. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. All those in favor of moving forward say aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great. Thank you, sir, we'll go ahead and swear you in now. Page 9 June 24, 2010 (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. CHAMI: Good morning. Thank you very much for listening to me the second time for an extension. THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please? MR. CHAMI: My apologies. My name is George Chami. C-H-A-M-I. Thanks a lot for listening to me for the second time. I guess I'm coming -- requesting for an extension of time with regard to the U-Haul permit use. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Would you put your microphone a little closer, please? MR. CHAMI: I came -- I believe it was this issue was being brought in September of last year. And we invited the whole issue of the Board of Commissioners, County Commissioners, to discuss this issue and to see if my property is allowed to have a U-Haul on it, even if the land use is a C-3, knowing that the U-Haul need a C-5. Now, it happened that Old Cypress PUD has a special wording within the PUD itself where if I have any other uses similar to the use I'm asking for but allowed in different properties, I would be allowed to have it. So this issue was being brought to the County Attorney for more discussion, for more research on this issue. The County Attorney recommended to the board in November the approval for the U-Haul on the property. To my understanding, the staff were in approval. Unfortunately, part of the discussion during the board meeting, it was some past issue with regard to the Town Market permitting, which belongs to 2001. And unfortunately one person from the staff presented false information. And the county -- to my understanding County Attorney, as well as one of the commissioners decided to pull this issue immediately from discussion because many things false and inaccurate and lies were being said at that time during this meeting. Page 10 June 24, 2010 To my understanding the County Attorney decide to pull this issue until they make more research on the issue on the allegation being brought by one of the staff member. So I have really absolutely no control on the issue. To my understanding, this issue will be brought very shortly back to the Board of Commissioners, but I have absolutely no control on it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you have a date that it's set for the BCC meeting? MR. CHAMI: To my understanding, it was in the next 60 days. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: But it's not actually been assigned to the agenda yet? MR. CHAMI: Not yet. But I believe, to my understanding it will be brought to the agenda I believe within the next three or four weeks. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Can I have the county's position? MR. LETOURNEAU: The county's position is this complaint was lodged on June 20th of last year. It's been over a year that Mr. Chami's been running this business illegally. You've given him a l20-day extension on top of the original 120 days. He's been running this U-Haul business. Not enough room in this division. I've had numerous complaints since the original complaint. The county's position is we don't want to have the time extended. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: I have one question. Are you aware of any conversations that are going on currently between the county and the respondent? MR. LETOURNEAU: No, sir, I'm not aware of any. MR. LEFEBVRE: One of the questions I have or comments is in our original finding of fact we asked that the vehicles be moved to a different site while this is pending. That hasn't been done, if I'm not mistaken. MR. CHAMI: Not to my knowledge. Page 11 June 24, 2010 MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. CHAMI: I've never been aware of this particular request. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, right here it says in the order of the board: The respondent shall cease all outside storage and rental vehicles and equipment and relocate rental vehicles and equipment to an area designated for use such as -- or have the property rezoned to allow for such use within 120 days. That hasn't been done, so -- MR. CHAMI: I definitely brought the issue to the board. And basically it was definitely it was being jurisprudence on it where the PUD, this particular PUD, has a special wording. And the County Attorney was extremely clear on it and recommended to the Board of Commissioners that yes, the county should approve it, they have absolutely no objection to it. Unfortunately, as I'm saying, in November one staff -- and we have to go a little bit eight years back. I was being targeted for the last eight years, and it's no secret to anybody, by two people, and more. And more unfortunately I really feel totally it's an unfair situation for me. The county with two people decide to run a war for me -- on me. And I'm sorry to say it that way. For very simple reason: Just after September 11 th, for totally absolutely no reason whatsoever. And they destroyed document, they removed document. Any other person, these people could be -- I don't want to say the word which is frankly exactly what I think. Unfortunately it's no secret to anybody in this particular department here that I was being targeted. Now I was being told by every single person, these two people are no longer here or soon they will be no longer here and that definitely I will be treated fairly. If! want to discuss with you what happened on the other subject, the other subject which will be part of it very shortly -- MR. LEFEBVRE: We're not here to hear the other case. Page 12 June 24, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: The other subject would be irrelevant in this case. MR. CHAMI: So I was being -- during this meeting in November, one person came in front of the Board of Commissioners and told the commissioners that I submitted fraudly in 2001 document not showing gas pumps, I did try to mislead the county, which is totally wrong, and everybody knows it's totally wrong. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Sir, that's irrelevant to this case. MR. CHAMI: What happened here, they had to pull this particular discussion from the board at that particular time. I'm surprised that Mr. Jeff is not aware of it. And I know Mr. Jeff is not doing anything to help me on this particular things. Because Mr. Jeff basically has no complaint on the U-Haul besides one person which is his friend, his personal friend. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, the -- MR. CHAMI: I don't believe I have fair shake with Mr. Jeff here. MR. LETOURNEAU: I would object to that. MR. CHAMI: I don't-- CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Objection sustained. MR. CHAMI: Show me what the complaints are, Mr. Jeff. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Sir? Sir? What I'd like to say is that this board has been fair. MR. CHAMI: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: We do not look at you in any other way than just a regular citizen. MR. CHAMI: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We did extend an additional extension of the time doubling the amount of time. What my colleague is stating is, in the order you had the opportunity to relocate those units off-site until you had a chance to go to the board and get it zoned or approved through your original Page 13 June 24, 2010 zoning. That has not been made. And I think that's the point that he was making. MR. LEFEBVRE: Exactly. MR. CHAMI: I'm sorry, I was not even aware of this particular Issue. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's okay. Is there any other questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question. Who was the county attorney that is involved in this? MR. CHAMI: To my understanding, is the County Attorney himself. That's what I understood. Basically the County Attorney decided to pull this issue from the next meeting until they found more information about what the allegation will be made in November meeting. And I have absolutely no control on what they are doing at this particular site. MR. KAUFMAN: It would be a lot easier for the board if we had the minutes from that meeting showing the attorney pulled it, et cetera, et cetera. But right now we have nothing to go on. MR. CHAMI: It was being pulled by the Commissioner Tom Henning. And basically it was the County Attorney approved. In fact, he recommended that -- it was been asked if the County Attorney recommend this particular use at the Town Market and it was yes. But what I want to make sure to make very clear, Mr. Letourneau what he said today is totally wrong. We have plenty of space, plenty of space at Town Market. And to my understanding only one person made the complaint. Only one person. I would like Mr. Letourneau to show me where the different complaints are. It's very bad to come in and accuse me here, many people are complaining? Only one person complained. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: That's irrelevant at this point. That type of -- MR. CHAMI: What am I saying is I'm being attacked by Mr. Page 14 June 24, 2010 Letourneau for no reason. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: No, I don't believe that's what's happening. I see right here that there is an existing order that says that a violation exists. MR. CHAMI: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN KELLY: This type of testimony should have been entered back when we were deciding whether or not there was a violation. It's not an issue as to whether or not we feel as though there's enough space. We go by the codes, the ordinances and laws that govern those type of buildings. MR. CHAMI: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: And that's what was actually ruled and that's what we have an order on. So if we could go ahead and we'll close the public discussion. Is there any further discussion amongst the board? (No response.) MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to deny the extension of time. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LA VINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Lavinski. All those in -- or any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMANKELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. Page 15 June 24, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, motion denied. We'll go ahead and move this case back to its original spot, which is at the rear of our agenda next to your other case, if you'd like to stay around. Okay, that concludes the motions. Now we'll move to step B, which is stipulations. And the first stipulation is Ramirez (sic). Are they here today? (No response.) MS. WALDRON: Jimenez. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Jimenez? Sorry. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Good morning. Since this is a stipulated agreement, we'll have the stipulated agreement read into the record by either the investigator or the staff, and then we'll go from there. MR. WALKER: Yes. This stipulation is in reference to Case No. CESD20090010253. The respondent will agree to pay the amount of the operational costs of$80.86 incurred in the prosecution of the case within 30 days of the hearing. He will abate all violations by: Obtaining a valid Collier County building permit for all unpermitted structures and additions; get all inspections through certificate of completion within 180 days of the date of this hearing or a fine of $150 a day will be imposed; or obtain a demolition permit with all inspections and certificates of completion and remove unpermitted structure within 180 days of the hearing or a fine of $150 a day will be imposed. And remove such waste to a suitable disposal site. Respondent must notify Collier County Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site visit and inspection to confirm compliance. And that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county Page 16 June 24, 2010 may abate the violation and may use the assistance of Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provision of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please? INTERPRETER RUIZ: Is Mateo F. Ayala. M-A-T-E-O. A-Y-A-L-A. MR. WALKER: And Investigator Weldon Walker. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mateo, if you could, explain to the respondent what was read and ask if he agrees with everything that was just read from that stipulated agreement. INTERPRETER RUIZ: He said that's fine. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great. Do we have any questions from the board? Sir? MR. KAUFMAN: Do you know what the zoning is in that area? MR. WALKER: Yeah, it's residential single-family. MR. KAUFMAN: Single family. So this is going to be a single- family when all is said and done? MR. WALKER: That's correct. He will have to restore it back to its original condition. MR. KAUFMAN: Is that unit occupied at all? MR. WALKER: No, it isn't, it's currently vacant. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. So there are no safety issues involved? MR. WALKER: None whatsoever. No electrical, no water. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Gerald? MR. LEFEBVRE: We might want to add something in here that the unit will not be rented until -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Rendered occupied? INTERPRETER RUIZ: Right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I have no problem with that. MR. ORTEGA: It's got to be inspected anyway before you can do anything. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: What we like to do sometimes is make Page 17 June 24, 2010 sure that someone doesn't move into that. Since it hasn't had inspections, we're worried about the safety. INTERPRETER RUIZ: Right, exactly. Okay, that's -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you could, please explain that, we'd appreciate it. Are there any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Gerald, it's your motion then. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd like to make a motion that we accept the stipulated agreement with one addition, that the unit cannot be rented or occupied until a C.O., certificate of occupancy, has been received by the county. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and seconded from Mr. Kaufman. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries. Very good. Good luck. If you have any problems, you run into issues, please let us know before the 180 days runs out. Okay, that closes the stipulations. Now moving on to hearings. Number one's withdrawn so we'll Page 18 June 24, 2010 go to number two, and that's Mora. THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please? INTERPRETER RUIZ: Jerardo Ruiz. J-E-R-A-R-D-O. R-U-I-Z. (Speakers and INTERPRETER RUIZ Ruiz were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Since this is a case, you want to read it? MS. DAVIDSON: This is in reference to violation of Florida Building Code 2004 edition, chapter one, Section 105.1, Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and 10.02.06 (B)(1)(e)(i), Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Article 2, Section 22 through 26(b)(104.1.3.5.) Description of violation: Several structures on property to include: A wooden shed, metal addition to the wooden shed, a standalone shed in rear of property and an addition made to the east side of the mobile home. Location/address where violation exists: Folio No. 00769320005. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Guillermo Gorostieta and Susana Mora, residing at 17050 Lockhart Drive, Naples, Florida, 34114. Date violation first observed: June 17th, 2009. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: June 29th, 2009. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: July 22nd, 2009. Date of reinspect ion: May 24th, 2010. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. Now I would like to introduce Investigator Azure Sorrels. MS. SORRELS: Good morning. For the record, Azure Sorrels, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20090010785, pertaining to the violations of several unpermitted structures located at Folio 00769320005, no site address. Page 19 June 24, 20]0 Service was given on June 29th, 2009. Proof of service was received. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Exhibit B, pictures 1 through 8 taken on 6 n or excuse me, June 17th, 2009. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to -- CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Sorry. Has the respondent seen the photos? MS. SORRELS: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve the exhibits, county exhibits. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: We can look at them now. Just let us know which one you're looking at. MS. SORRELS: If you look at the bottom of the picture, the bottom right-hand side, they're in numerical order. So picture number one, I had made a -- while I was patrolling on June 17,2009, I had observed several structures on the property that appeared not to be Florida Building Code or the Land Development Code. What you're looking at is a mobile home with an addition on the Page 20 June 24, 2010 side of it. The mobile home was permitted in 1983. The addition I have not been able to locate a permit for. Picture number two is -- MR. KAUFMAN: Can I stop you after the first picture? Does that addition appear to be lived in? MS. SORRELS: Yes. The second picture is just a further picture away to show you that the addition goes down the length of the mobile home. There is an address, 17050. That is not acknowledged by the county here. I think it's just an address that was issued by the postal system. Picture number three is a picture of a garage type shed. The canopy that you're seeing has been removed and the little tiny tin siding on the right-hand side has been removed as well. So what's remaining is the large opened shed garage. Again, after research, I have not been able to find any permits for that structure. According to some -- two of the building reviewers, Jim Fleming and Anthony, they indicated that that would not be permitted due to the fact of the material that was used to construct it. That would be according to the flood level as well, the FEMA flood level that they're in. Picture number four is showing the inside of the shed/garage, the windows, the lights hanging. I did not see any electrical actually ran, they were using extension cords. Picture number four again is just showing the inside of the structure. And if you look over on the right, you can kind of see the extension cord hanging down the wall. Picture number six is just the little addition on the side, which has been removed. Number seven, this was like a little shelter that they had built on the back of the addition on the back side of the mobile home to cover up the water heater and the washing machines. The structure, the roof and the post have been removed. Page 21 June 24, 2010 And photograph number eight is a standalone shed that is in the rear of the property. I have not been able to locate any permits for that shed and it does not meet setbacks. MR. L'ESPERANCE: May I ask a question about that shed? MS. SORRELS: Yes. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is that a type of shed that is purchased and delivered, or was it constructed on-site? MS. SORRELS: To the best of my ability, I'm not a professional in building, but it appeared to be a shed that you would purchase and it would be delivered. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. MR. MARINO: I have a question. Is this addition used as a storage room for all these chairs and tables, or is it used as a meeting room with a lot of people in it? MS. SORRELS: I have never seen a meeting room with a lot of people in it, I've always just seen a storage of items. CHAIRMAN KELLY: The question I have is out of these pictures, which one is the one that's still in violation? You talked about ones that have been removed and cleaned up. MS. SORRELS: The -- what's still in violation will be the addition to the mobile home on the east side, the large shed type garage that you saw three pictures of, and the standalone shed on the opposite side of the rear of the property. MR. MARINO: There's another picture here with a yellow car under a carport or -- MS. SORRELS: Yes, that is -- it's showing the front part of that garage. The canopy's been removed. So if you just take that canopy away, you will just see the actual entrance into the shed/garage. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right, anything else, Azure? MS. SORRELS: For evidence, no, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good. This is an opportunity for you to speak to the issues that we just Page 22 June 24, 2010 saw and tell us what you think or what's happened, to defend yourself, if you will. INTERPRETER RUIZ RUIZ: The property was purchased like that, that garage that stands there. She said that that's been there for like 40 years something, like since they put the trailers first in. So, you know, that's nothing that they did or built, it's just something that was there. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Could you explain something to her, please. Unfortunately the way it works in Collier County is regardless of who built the addition without a permit, it's the person who owns the property right now that we have to file the case with, if you will. INTERPRETER RUIZ RUIZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'm sorry that you bought it that way, but it was in violation, and because you own it now we have to work with you to correct it. INTERPRETER RUIZ RUIZ: Yeah, well, that's why we're here, you know, to try to figure something out, what we could do, come to an agreement or something as far as what to do. She says she's aware of the situation, and she's tried to look into it as far as getting somebody to knock it down. But the issue is money. To get the permit, you know, just to hire somebody to do it is like 1,500 plus the work to, you know, knock it down, get rid of it and whatnot. And for them -- her only working like half a week and whatnot and he's not working, we were wondering, you know, if since they're not living in the property, they own it but they're not living there, they have to get somebody to do it. And that's the big issue of having somebody else to do it when he's not doing anything. And, you know, if he has time on his hands, then why not let him be able to work with it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Ifwe can, we'll talk about solutions and time frames in a moment. What we need to do first is to Page 23 June 24, 2010 decide as a board if a violation does exist. Mr. Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion a violation exists. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, now we can talk about solutions and time frames and whatnot. What we usually do is we let county read their recommendation and then we can talk further about time frames and steps. MR. KAUFMAN: Before the county, how many people are living in this facility? INTERPRETER RUIZ RUIZ: There was three and now there's only a couple. But at that time there was three when it first started, but now there's only a couple on the trailer side, the mobile home. There's nobody on the addition. Yeah, so there's only one room being used and one couple. MS. SORRELS: All right. If you would allow me, Ijust kind of wanted to acknowledge that they have not ignored the situation when they were notified back in 2009, of June, 2009. On the 9th of July they did attend a preap. meeting. Page 24 June 24, 2010 And here's kind of where it makes it difficult for them. In this preap. meeting it was determined since the property owners do not reside on the property, they are not able to obtain their own ownerlbuilder permit, so they would be required to hire a contractor. And that's where the money comes into play. We also spoke with Mike Ossorio this morning to see if there's other options for this. Unfortunately the Florida statutes is what really binds that whole issue is that, you know, we can't issue that owner/builder unless they reside on it. So I just wanted to let you know that they have not ignored it, they have made attempts, it's just the money situation. The county recommends that the property own -- excuse me, the respondents to pay all operational costs in the amount of $81.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days, and abate all violations by -- slow down? I'm sorry -- respondent must obtain all required Collier County building permits, inspections and certificate of completion for unpermitted structures or obtain a Collier County demolition permit, inspections, certificate of completion and demolish the mentioned unpermitted structures within "X" amount of days of this hearing or "X" amount of dollar per day fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order. And all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question or two. The person who is living in this unit right now, they're paying rent, I assume? INTERPRETER RUIZ RUIZ: Yes, sir. Page 25 June 24,2010 MR. KAUFMAN: I'm trying to figure a way out of resolving the situation. As far as the possibility of that person wasn't there and somebody could move in, then you could pull the permit that we were talking about. INTERPRETER RUIZ RUIZ: Yeah, that's why we're -- that's what we asked too if like since I'm her son, me move in, or since they live next door, for them to move in for an "X" amount of time it takes them to do it. And if it would have worked like that. But I guess they said it would have to be more than a year for that to work? MS. SORRELS: That is correct. My understanding from Mike Ossorio, who is the supervisor for contractor licensing stated that if the property owners did move into the property and resided there while the work was being done, after they moved out of that property it would have to be vacant for 12 months. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: How long do you think it would take you to get up the money to find a contractor and to take care of this? INTERPRETER RUIZ RUIZ: She says she doesn't really have a time frame, but as much as you can. Because from here to October the season is down from the people, you know, they went up north again. She takes care of the cleaning business. So her work's really slow right now. So she doesn't really know how much time. The season doesn't pick up till October. Yeah, October. So she's only working like 20 hours a week or something, because of season. MR. KAUFMAN: I'm still not clear on what Ossorio said. He said that if they moved in they'd have to live there one year before they were eligible to pull an owner permit, or they'd have to live there one year after the permit was completed? MS. SORRELS: My understanding, and we could always -- if you'd like, I could ask Mike Ossorio to run over here, he's right across the hallway if you want clarification. But my understanding is that the house would have to remain vacant for 12 months after they moved out before it could be rented, if they moved in and pulled the demo Page 26 June 24, 2010 permits as an ownerlbuilder and did the work. MR. KAUFMAN: But if it's not rented. In other words, there's somebody in there now. If they were to leave and one of the family members moved into the house and then they applied for a building permit as an owner, would the permit be granted? MS. SORRELS: I don't have that -- I don't have an answer for you. The only thing I can recommend is someone asking Mike Ossorio to come over here and clarify that for you. MR. KAUFMAN: Because we do have somebody on the board who's somewhat familiar with -- MS. SORRELS: Ms. Petrulli is going to get him right now. INTERPRETER RUIZ: Yeah, because that's what they were saying, since they live next door there wouldn't be a problem for them moving, you know, if it takes three months or whatever long it does. He's not working, him being there, he's got all the time in the world to do it, you know. Yeah, because ifthere's a problem of them renting it, they would rather, you know, let them know and lose that little bit of money. But him being able to do it at the same time. He's losing that money, but he's actually saving it too by allowing him to do the work. Yeah, so -- because the rent is not even much, it's like 250 because it's a couple. And work's slow right now. So if it causes them to let them leave and them move it in, it's going to save them money eventually, so -- MR. ORTEGA: Who's the owner of the property? INTERPRETER RUIZ: They both are. MR. MARINO: If that was to happen, do they have the money to pull the permit? INTERPRETER RUIZ: Yeah, because they said just to knock it down if they were to get the permit themselves, it's like 80 bucks or something like that. Whereas if you contract somebody, it's like 1,500 for the license and all that. So yeah, they would have it. Page 27 June 24, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: If we can get you to hold on one second. Cherie', would you like to swear Mike in. (Mr. Ossorio was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Hey, Mike. We were wondering-- MR. OSSORIO: Good morning, Mr. Kelly. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: -- if you could clarify for us the situation. They live next door. They want to move into the home that they also own. They want to stay there while they fix up and get it into compliance. But then there's an issue about the one-year residency clause. What does that mean exactly? MR. OSSORIO: Well, the state's actually been pretty clear. This is State Statute 489 under the owner/builder exemption. Basically says when an owner comes in for an owner/builder permit for a substantial use or an owner/builder use, he or she must sign an affidavit. It's a pretty lengthy affidavit. I'm going to hire a licensed companies (sic), I'm going to make sure that I do the work myself, I'll make sure it meets to code, all those kind of things call into play. Also, the law also says that when you do pull an owner/builder permit, you inherit some responsibilities. You have to live in it and you can't sell it or rent it 12 months ofC.O. And that basically tells the homeowner that listen, I'm going to invest in this property, do an owner/builder and I'm going to live in it. So the state legislature wants to make sure that, you know, you're going to build something that you're going to live in, not to sell. Because if you do sell it within 12 months, that is prima facie evidence that you are working without a license. And typically we issue stop work order and we issue some penalties and so forth. In this particular case since the owner lives next door and it's going to be rented, therefore they wouldn't qualify for an owner/builder. However, if the owner decides to say well, we're not going to rent it, we're going to pull them out and not rent it from 12 Page 28 June 24, 2010 months of C.O. and do all the necessary arrangements of getting the building permits, getting the demolition permit, getting the necessary contractors with necessary skills to do the work, then they can apply for a building permit. However, if they do put a for sale sign or say they got an owner/builder permit and then all of a sudden we drive by and there's a big for rent sign, well that is prima facie evidence that they're working without a license, and we issue penalties to the homeowner and we also issue what you call stop work order and so forth, and then we'll go ahead and take the permit away and make an affidavit of compliance. In other words, they would have to get an engineer and architect to say this meets proper code and get a necessary contractor to get -- to facilitate to get the building permit. So that's how it typically works. MR. ORTEGA: I have a question, if I may. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Go ahead. MR. ORTEGA: If they're going to move into this structure, it's their property, they're not going to sell it, they're not going to rent it for a year, what's stopping them from getting a demo permit now once they move in there? MR.OSSORIO: Well, when I had a conversation with these gentleman and this young lady, I asked her if she was going to rent it, she said yes. So therefore it wouldn't work. Now, if she changes her mind, obviously, you know, she changed it from the hallway to here, now she's not going to rent it, well, we have to have confirmation that she's not going to rent it. But my only issue is is that if she's -- getting the owner/builder permit's one issue. It's not a big deal. The problem is is knowing how to actually do the demo. Getting the contractor shouldn't be that difficult. But I don't know if she has the skills or necessarily the equipment to get the owner -- get the demolition, do the work and whatnot. So it might be just better just to get a contractor and get it Page 29 June 24, 2010 done and get it properly C.O.'d according to Florida Building Code and then be able to rent it out within that one year. But that's her call. MR. ORTEGA: Living in a perfect world that would be the way to go. But in this case there's a financial situation. There's nothing stopping the owner from performing the work himself. This is a demo permit. I'm assuming it's a demo permit, right? So in this case I think that he can do it legally, as long as he doesn't rent it or sell it for a period of a year. MR. OSSORIO: You're absolutely right. But my recollection was in the last hour -- MR. ORTEGA: Right. MR.OSSORIO: -- that she was going to rent it. So therefore the owner/builder was off the table. So the only course would be just get a particular contractor, a demo contractor to get the necessary building permits to get it completed so therefore she could rent it out. Because obviously it is a rental property, and obviously it is for income and it is for an investment. So typically in those three categories you deal with contractors, not owner/builders. MR. ORTEGA: Does the board understand what just occurred here, that they can do it? MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes. MR. ORTEGA: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Another quick question for you -- MR. MARINO: I'd like to make one thing clear. They can have the renter move out, they can move in, and they can pull the permit. As long as they do not sell it or rent it for a year, he can start doing this next week if he wanted to -- MR. ORTEGA: That's correct. MR. MARINO: -- is that correct? MR. ORTEGA: That's correct. MR. OSSORIO: Well, they wouldn't even have to move in. Page 30 June 24,2010 They just couldn't rent it. Just because of an owner, it doesn't mean that -- the statute doesn't say you have to live in it, it just says you can't rent it. So I can be -- I can have three properties and I could theoretically not live in one and not choose to rent or sell it for 12 months ofC.O. But then it really leaves the point you can't live in two houses and one house is vacant. So you just -- you know, owner/builder wouldn't apply. Okay? CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any other questions? MR. KAUFMAN: Do you understand what has just taken place? INTERPRETER RUIZ: Yes, sir. So ifhe-- MR. KAUFMAN: So you don't rent it and somebody -- you don't even have to move into it, as long as you get the renter out of it INTERPRETER RUIZ: For a whole year. MR. KAUFMAN: -- for one year, then you can do the work. Which if they're paying $200 a month and it cost 1,500 or $2,000 for the demo and you're not working anyhow, that probably would be -- INTERPRETER RUIZ: It works out either way. It cancels the-- that's what I'm saying, it would actually be good for them to have the people leave. Because he's saving what he's going to pay somebody to do it what he's going to get in the rent anyways. MR. KAUFMAN: Mike, you understand what I said and what they said and everything? MR. OSSORIO: Oh, I understand. Right now it is rented. So therefore when they move out, we get a confirmation that they move and they sign the affidavit and get the necessary drawings and engineering per the code, they can surely submit for an owner/builder permit. They sign an affidavit saying they won't sell it 12 months of C.O. And if they do, and ifit is rented, well, then the course is clear, they're in violation of the statute. But fortunately they know the statute, so we're on the same page. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay, great. Page 3 1 June 24, 2010 MR. OSSORIO: Well, it was a pleasure. MR. KAUFMAN: I guess it's up to us now to figure out how much time would be needed to do it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, let me ask one more question, Mike, if you will. Anything stopping them from getting a GC to pull the permit, he does the work himself underneath the GC and then just has the guidance from the contractor? MR. OSSORIO: Well-- CHAIRMAN KELLY: It's just a demo. MR. OSSORIO: Yeah. And that -- well, let's talk about that for a minute. If you're saying that a general contractor or a demo permit or a residential builder or building contractor, one of the three or four pulls the necessary building permit and then the contractor basically says well, the homeowner's responsible for "X", is going to be doing this item. Take painting. Well, I typically wouldn't have a problem with an owner doing his own painting and doing his own tiling and the general contractor building this structure. However, if the general contractor pulls a building permit and the work is substantial, in other words they're going to be doing the electrical and knocking down a lot of these items and demolition per the Florida Building Code, that's really not nonsubstantial, and that's really considered an owner/builder. So owner/builder would come in to play again. They would have to come in, sign for an affidavit that says yes, the general contractor pulled the building permit. However, the owner's doing the work, so it's kind of moot. Why not the owner just come in, get an owner/builder permit. Why pay a general contractor for the extra expense. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. Thanks, Mike. MR. KAUFMAN: In this particular case the electrical in there is, Page 32 June 24, 20]0 from what you've seen -- INTERPRETER RUIZ: There's none. MR. KAUFMAN: -- extension cords. INTERPRETER RUIZ: Yeah, there's none. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: But there is walls. INTERPRETER RUIZ: No, the extension cords are not even in the wall. So there's -- if you just pull all the extension cord out and no electricity -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I guess the question I have is let's say hypothetically they go in, get a C.O., in three months from now they get a C.O. under a builder -- not building, an owner permit and three months later, six months from now they're renting it. That's prima facie evidence, I guess, that they're -- they're violating the contract. INTERPRETER RUIZ: Violating pretty much the contract. MR. LEFEBVRE: So then that would be a whole different-- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Now would be a good time to let you know that if that did happen, contracting without a license is a third degree felony in the State of Florida. INTERPRETER RUIZ: Yeah, that's fine. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: So you're going to have to let that -- INTERPRETER RUIZ: Move for a whole year. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: -- or let it sit for one year after the work's completed. INTERPRETER RUIZ: Yeah, if we're able to do that. She says now she figures out 120 days, like 30 days notice to give the people, you know, to let them out. And then the other 60 days to go ahead and get a dumpster and get rid of everything. MR. MARINO: I have one question. INTERPRETER RUIZ: Yes, sir. MR. MARINO: When you tear that building down, the side of the trailer, is there just an entry door into it or is that whole wall out? INTERPRETER RUIZ: No, it's -- the trailer's still there, it still Page 33 June 24, 2010 got its walls and stuff. It was supposed to be I think a screen porch. But like I said, it was built like that when we first got it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. About the eviction, if the tenant doesn't willingly leave, it will take you 90 days to garner an eviction process, and then you need another 60 on top of that. So that's 150 days, according to my numbers. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd like to make a motion. I think we drew this out quite a bit. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Go ahead. MR. LEFEBVRE: And I think it's up to them on how they want to handle it. They know the repercussions. I think we should go with paying the operation cost of $81.43 within 30 days and give you 180 days to get the C.O. And whatever you do after that, there's other repercussions which way you go, or have a fine of $150 a day. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, we have a motion. We're accepting county's recommendation with 180 days and $150 per day, correct? MR. LEFEBVRE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Seconded by Mr. Kaufman. Any discussion? (No response.) INTERPRETER RUIZ: Yeah, she said that's fine. 100 days will be fine. And even after that, after they get the problem squared out and whatnot, to keep the one year vacant. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 34 June 24, 2010 MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it's 180 days. Six months. INTERPRETER RUIZ: 180 days. Six months. From today, right? CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's correct. INTERPRETER RUIZ: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Good luck. MS. SORRELS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Hey, remember, if you have any problems, let us know before the time expires. INTERPRETER RUIZ: To get the homeowners permit where -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: You're in the right building, it's right up front. Get with Investigator Sorrels, because you do have to pay that fee of $81 within 30 days. So I would pay that as soon as possible. INTERPRETER RUIZ: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, that was our only case. Now moving on to old business. The first one is E.J. Properties, for an imposition of fine. (Speakers were duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please? MR. CASTANO: My name is Javier Castano. That's J-A-V-I-E-R. C-A-S-T-A-N-O. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Real quick, you're a registered agent of E.1. Properties, correct? MR. CASTANO: That's correct -- well, no, I'm sorry, I'm not. I do have a letter to represent E.J. Properties. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you enter that into evidence, the court reporter will take that and you won't get another copy back. Is that okay? Page 35 June 24, 2010 MR. CASTANO: That's okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great. And since this is an imposition of fine and you've chosen to attend, usually means that you'd like to speak to that. If you'd like, just go ahead and tell us plainly, you know, why it took longer, and if you're requesting a reduction or even an abatement of the total fine you could ask for it and we can entertain it. MR. CASTANO: Yeah. I am asking for the fines to be eliminated, all of them, if possible. I came into this job. The person that originally was going to do the job died unexpectedly. He was 47 years old. So when I was contacted, we had problems getting into the -- accessing the units and things like that. Finally we did get a -- we applied for the permits on March 3rd. We were issued the permits on the 19th of March. And we did receive a C.O. or certificate of completion on the 27th of May, which is about 30 days late. I will say that, you know, we had a great deal of obstacles. Theft on the property, damage, more damage to the property than what was originally there because the property was vacant. And I'm not sure why, and this might be maybe a legal thing, but I'm not sure why the county or why the code enforcement does a C.O., a by C.O. date. I really feel that the permits were issued, and once you receive permits you have a 60 -- six month per inspection. So I'm not real sure why the county does it that way. May be -- like I say, may be a legal or an ordinance thing. But I do believe that, you know, they weren't in compliance -- we didn't get compliant with your order on time, but I think we had the permits in hand. Ed -- the issue was based on five units that were altered without a permit. Unfortunately the county forced us to pull permits on every unit and have every unit completed, 16 units, instead of the five. And we Page 36 June 24, 2010 had problems with the Lee County Co-op getting electric in order to get the final fire inspections. And, you know, small issues that you just face every day. And, you know, I think we got the job done, it looks good, it's a safe place. It's needed over there. And I hope that you'll side with us. And by the way, we did pay a great deal of permit fees. We did pay all our fees that were required by code enforcement, and we ended up paying almost $5,000 in permit fees that should have been about $1,500. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: I can appreciate your recommendation to go by the permit time frame, since their default to six months unless requested otherwise. But sometimes we run into public safety and health issues where we need that time frame a little shorter. And that's why we set our own date and we require it by C.O. Because as a board we're not professionals out in the field looking at these, so we use the county's own investigators and that C.O. as the date to judge all of our paperwork by. MR. CASTANO: Yeah, it probably makes sense but, you know, many times I look at, you know, some ofthese issues that I saw today where there's nobody living in these units, and ifthere's no one living there -- and I think if you're working toward getting a C.O. And money is an issue. Even with people with money, money's an issue. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: And you can see we are pretty lenient. MR. CASTANO: Yeah, you guys are awesome. That's the word. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator Snow, any objections from the county? MR. SNOW: No, sir, the county has no objections. Factually he stated what had happened on the property, that the registered owner met an unfortunate demise. They have tried to gain compliance and it was extensive what they had to do and they got it done as quickly as they could. Page 37 June 24, 2010 Just to address the board, a lot of times when the board requires somebody to get a permit and a C.O., the reason it's done is because if it's not required, the C.O., the board does not have the satisfaction that that c.o. is completed, that the whole process is completed. And that's the reason why the time frame and why the C.O. is required with the inspections. The permit is only the first step. The C.O. is the final step. And that's the reason this board requires that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very well said. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to abate. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second by Gerald. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. All done. Thanks for your attention. MR. SNOW: Thank the board. MR. CASTANO: Thank you very much. We really appreciate it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next is going to be Moran, Manuel and Anna Moran. (Speakers and interpreter were duly sworn.) Page 38 June 24, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Good morning. Like you saw just in the previous case, very similarly, in this case I'm just going to verify real fast, have they not come into compliance yet? MR. BALDWIN: No. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, so it's still out of compliance. It's a little bit different. Typically our board will not reduce, abate or hold off any fines unless the building is actually in compliance, meaning you fixed all the problems. And from what the investigator's saying, that's the situation here today. If you'd like, you could speak to the issues or any problems that you're having, you can speak plainly. MR. MORAN: We tried to do everything like the county say, but we got a lot problems with the house. My house is foreclosure. I fight with the bank for a couple of months or years. And right now I got a paper here say the house will be sold on June 28th, in four days, will be sold in the auction. I got a paper here. And I tried to sell my house and I contract a lawyer to see if they can stop the sell on the auction. We get the permit and we still working on it. I not -- I not sure if I gonna keep it, but we still working on it. We just did the spot survey yesterday with the company. And they gonna give us by Monday. At least Wednesday. And we just need to finish two more inspection. We tried to do it, but the money, I can't use it for something, I can't stop it to try to save the house first. I can do nothing. MR. MORAN, JR.: He just ran a little short of money. That's why we ran out of time the way we did. But the spot survey was done yesterday. They're going to ship it to us tomorrow. We get it Monday and then we get I think it was the two or three other C.O.'s -- C.O. done and that's it. We just need a little bit more time and we'll get it done. Page 39 June 24, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELL Y: What is the county's position? MR. BALDWIN: We have no position in this matter. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Have they been working diligently, as far as you've seen? MR. BALDWIN: This was a previous case by another investigator. I came in. Since I've come into this case, yes, they have, from what I have seen. They -- like they said, they were on the phone with the survey company earlier today, and there are only three inspections that need to be completed. It's the finish floor elevation, the final building and the 10-day spot survey. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Let me put this to the board then. A unique position with the foreclosure right around the corner, potentially, and the fact that they may in fact come into compliance shortly as well. My concern, you know, to speak freely to the board is this property is sold at auction along with code violations, you know passing onto yet another owner. Even if it's the bank. But evidently, you know, if that doesn't get caught, it will go on to another owner. And then the other fact that we don't abate or lower fines unless there is compliance. So I would say ifit was our position, if that was the case, we'd ask county maybe to pull it for another month. But, you know, we're right up against that foreclosure. So I'm interested in open discussion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, the question I have is it's already recorded on public records, correct, that there's a case? MS. RAWSON: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Ifwe have an order at this point that let's say we deny the extension or deny imposition of fines, chances are you probably won't even have it signed and recorded by the 28th, correct? Page 40 June 24, 2010 MS. RAWSON: It's Monday, isn't it? Maybe not. MR. LEFEBVRE: Because by the time the order's all completed n so the bank's going to know, or whoever buys this house is going to know that there is some kind of lien on it through the county. MS. RAWSON: The original order was recorded, yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. So to go ahead and file an imposition of fines I think -- is it pretty moot at this point to do it? MS. RAWSON: Well, somebody might owe $5,400. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right, they're going to owe it no matter what. MS. RAWSON: Well, but you haven't imposed it yet. There's an order out there. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. But what I'm trying to get at is the order is going to be -- let's say we impose it. It's not going to be recorded by the time it goes to foreclosure, correct? How does that affect -- I'm sorry. MS. RAWSON: The imposition of fines won't be recorded by the time -- if it was foreclosed on Monday. But the original order is. And I still think that they probably would be able to collect the fines, work something out with the bank. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to ask the county to withdraw this till the next meeting, if -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, that's one. MS. RAWSON: Let Ms. Waldron comment. MS. WALDRON: I understand that there's a sale date for this property, but that doesn't mean that it's necessarily going to go through on the 28th. And just take that into consideration at this point. CHAIRMAN KELLY: The county stated they don't have a position. So we would have to request and ask very nicely, if that's the will of the board. It would have to be the consensus of the board to ask that. MR. KAUFMAN: Yeah, my point on that is that they are working diligently to try to get something done. The foreclosure's Page 41 June 24, 2010 right at the door step. And I don't think anything would be served by imposing the fine now. I think given enough time, maybe next month to come back and maybe a lot of this will be sorted out one way or the other. Nothing is stopping; the fines continue to accrue. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Can I ask a question? Do you think that you'll have this fixed by next month? MR. MORAN, JR.: I think so. I think so. I mean, all we have to do now is just get the inspections done. Because we already got the spot survey. That's what took us a long time. But I think so. We'll try our best. MR. LEFEBVRE: That's all irrelevant. Because if technically there is a sale on the 28th -- MR. MORAN, JR.: Yeah, but we won't be out of the house for-- in a month. They can sell it and they might sell it on the 28th. MR. LEFEBVRE: They might sell, but then -- MR. MORAN, JR.: If they do sell it on the 28th, he's not going to be out of there in a month. It's going to take longer than that -- MR. MORAN: Two or three months. MR. MORAN, JR.: -- according to the lawyers, so-- MR. LEFEBVRE: But what's the point at that if you no longer -- MR. MORAN, JR.: It's better to take care of the problem and fix it than to pay all the fines. MR. LEFEBVRE: But you won't have to -- well, okay. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Well, what is the will of the board, if we can poll by maybe a raise of hand, how many people want to ask the county to withdraw this? And then if not, then we'll move for a motion to either -- I guess to impose the fines, if not. So those who want to forward it to request the county to remove it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: (Indicating.) MR. L'ESPERANCE: (Indicating.) MR. KAUFMAN: (Indicating.) Page 42 June 24, 2010 MR. ORTEGA: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Okay, that's four against three. I guess we can ask pretty please, if you want to withdraw it for a month. MS. WALDRON: The county can withdraw this case to be brought back at the next Code Enforcement Board meeting in July. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So what we've done is we've just taken this completely off the case. We don't want to make a decision today, okay? If you fix everything and it's C.O.'d and it's all in compliance, next month there wouldn't be a need to bring this to us, if you will. You know what I mean? MR. MORAN, JR.: Yeah, I understand. All right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Or would there? I'm sorry, there would be. MS. DAVIDSON: There will still be fines owing -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: There would be still fines, I'm sorry. So if you were to come in front of us next month, then we can look at this and say okay, you know, everything's taken care of, maybe we'll reduce the fines, or possibly abate them completely. MR. MORAN: Take care, everybody. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right, next case is Lambert Trust, Revocable Trust. Is there anyone here for the Lambert Trust? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And we have two cases on this one. We'll do the first one ending in 15238. And basically without having to read everything in, they have not complied and they have not paid the operational costs, correct? MS. SORRELS: Correct. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to impose. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Page 43 June 24, 2010 Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. MS. WALDRON: Just for the record, can we state the dollar amounts? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes, let's do that. Sorry. You want to read it, Azure? MS. RAWSON: Let's swear her in to read that. We do need to have this on the record before I write the recorded. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. SORRELS: The bottom part, starting at the fines and cost to date are described as follows: Order item number one and two, fines at a rate of $200 per day for the period between May 25th, 2010 to June 24th, 2010, 31 days, for the total of $6,200. Fines continue to accrue. Order item number five, operational cost of $81.72 have not been paid. Total amount to date, $6,281.72. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. And now we'll move to the second case, which is CESD20090015248. And do you need to re-swear her in because it's a separate case? MS. RAWSON: I would. Page 44 June 24, 2010 (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would you like to read it, please. MS. SORRELS: Absolutely. The fines and cost to date are described as the following: Order item number one and two, fines at a rate of $200 per day for the period between May 25th, 2010 to June 24th, 2010, 31 days, for the total of $6,200. Fines continue to accrue. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to impose. MS. WALDRON: Hold on, there's more. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: We're really excited about the Sunshine Law. Really excited. Sorry, Azure. MS. SORRELS: That's okay. Order item number five, operational costs of $81.72 have not been paid. Total amount to date, $6,281.72. I'm done. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to impose. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. SORRELS: Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Thank you. Okay, Mr. Chami. Next is 1. Peaceful, and we'll start with Page 45 June 24, 2010 CESD200900 12961. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Okay, Mr. Chami, since you're here to represent yourself, I would assume that you'd like to speak to this case. And we're only on this one, and then we'll go to the next one. MR. CHAMI: This one I guess is the one for the pass-through and the different construction, I believe. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Jeff, would you like to confirm which one's which? The second one's the land use, which is -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah, this is the case dealing with the ramp and the doorway permitting. MR. CHAMI: Thank you very much. First of all, I would like to apologize if I was little bit more -- on the previous time I was talking I was little bit too emotional. Because frankly, it is at some times trying to get -- you reach a level where you're really fed up of certain things happening and you feel like you're totally useless. But anyway, I really apologize for what -- for my behavior. With regard to this particular one, basically in -- can I go a little bit on history a little bit on this particular issue, if you don't mind? On May 15,2009, my tenant, who was a pool store, applied for a permit. The permit number is 2009051495. This particular permit was being submitted as I said on May 15,2009, was being found basically on -- the permitting technician (sic) was being complete, was the site plan review was being complete and approved, the fire review customer service was being done, the current plan review was rejected, for a reason nobody knows, frankly. I really mean it, nobody knows why. Architectural review was being rejected, nobody knows why. Engineering was not necessary. And structural plan review commercial was being approved and complete. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, now, can I stop real quick. Ijust want to confirm with county. Page 46 June 24, 2010 Jeff, what Mr. Chami is saying is that the permits were applied for but they have not been picked up; is that correct? MR. LETOURNEAU: They were applied for. They got rejected for a couple of reasons, and that was back in May 28th, 2009 they were rejected. And then I checked this morning and there hasn't been any other action on his permit since that -- CHAIRMAN KELL Y: That was my second question. Because this is -- the noncompliance was filed back in February. So up until this morning they still have not been picked up? MR. LETOURNEAU: They can't pick them up until they get -- till the permit's in ready status. So they have to deal with whatever they were rejected for, get that fixed. The permit will be in ready status, they get it issued, then they go for the C.O. at that point. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So we're just confirming, it's not in compliance? MR. LETOURNEAU: We are confirming it is not in compliance, yes. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Okay. Mr. Chami, what happens in these situations is because we're not in compliance we can't reduce the fines, because that will go against our original order. MR. CHAMI: Absolutely. But just if you can be patient with me for two minutes, please. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sure. MR. CHAMI: This particular -- on May 5th (sic) we apply for the permit. It was being applied through a company called Nova Permitting, to my understanding. By mystery, by big total mystery, again was this permit was never been to be found. I have letters, I have e-mails from Joe Schmitt saying that we never apply for any permit. We came in front of you saying there was no permit was being requested for this particular project. I have Mr. Letourneau came in front of you telling you that never Page 47 June 24, 2010 was a permit -- THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, I didn't understand that. MR. CHAMI: Mr. Letourneau came in front of you and he said again no permit was being requested. We have the proof now that was being requested on May 15th, 2009. Nevertheless, after Mr. Joe Schmitt left the county we had the meeting with his -- the other people in the county who assured us that we would be having a fair shake on this particular deal. But basically when you submit for an SDPI, which Mr. Letourneau was very well aware of. I'm very surprised that under oath he's saying he's not aware of it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Let me if I could, I want to explain procedurally where we are right now. Those type of issues would be excellent testimony to enter as a reason to get a motion for an extension of time on the original order. At this point the order time frame has now elapsed and fines have started to accrue. This board is being asked to basically enforce those fines by imposing them, which would then file all the steps therefore afterwards. We can't go back and rehear the case, we can't entertain a motion to extend time at this point. MR. CHAMI: No, I don't want to do it. All I'm saying is like Mr. Letourneau in front of you said that he's not aware of anything happening on it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: No, no -- MR. LETOURNEAU: I object. That was on a previous -- that was on a total other case. I had nothing -- okay. MR. CHAMI: The case to my understanding, Mr. Ron Martindale told me when we met together around six months ago that we cannot anymore take the permit submitted on May 15th, 2009, Page 48 June 24, 2010 because it was six months elapse. After six months we cannot. So basically we have to resubmit. And the county said instead of resubmitting your drawing, the permit, you have to submit an SDPI. And the SDPI will be looked into it. Mr. Letourneau helped my wife, because I had to go to take care of -- for personal reason I had to be over five weeks outside the country back and forth. Basically Mr. Letourneau helped my wife basically to submit for the SDPI. The SDPI was being submit on May 20th. Was being approved on every single level besides fire. I received a letter from Mr. Michael Levy -- my apologies, Michael Ossorio on June 15th that basically everything was being approved beside the fire. I met with Mr. Bob Sevaggio from fire, who basically now they are requesting fire flow test, they are requesting site plan with all the fire hydrants on the property, they're requesting more detail, which frankly it's for an outside pass-through and for a door. Which is on the -- which I'm not arguing with this. You can't argue with fire no matter what you do. So basically on June 15 I hire Banks Engineering to start on the -- knowing the permit submitted on May 15th was being approved by fire, was being approved without any request for fire hydrant test, for without anything like this. We hire Banks Engineering on June 15th to redo the drawings to submit the site plan with all the fire hydrants, with all the different -- so we can go to North Naples Fire District and request for a flow test on the fire hydrants, as well as submit all different sections and showing the different elevation for the pass-through. So right now the only thing missing to be able to get all the permits is the fire. And hopefully, from what Banks Engineering told Page 49 June 24, 2010 me, the drawings should be finalized on Monday and they can be submitting them hopefully on Tuesday and takes a week or two and they should be by fire and everything should be fine and ready to move. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Excellent. Out of respect, I allowed that testimony because you asked for two minutes. It really isn't relevant, because it doesn't prove that you're somehow not in compliance (sic). So what I have to do now through our procedure is just go to the next step, which is discussion amongst the board and questions. Anything? MS. WALDRON: Mr. Chair, can we read the imposition of fines into the record? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Absolutely. Jeff, would you like to do it? MR. LETOURNEAU: I would. I'd like to -- for the record Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is for -- a request for imposition of fines and liens for CEB Case No. CESD2009001296l, Board of County Commissioners versus 1. Peaceful, LC. Original violation is of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(e). Location of the violation: 7770 Preserve Lane, Naples Florida. Folio No. 68391446166. Description of the violation: Alterations to structure without obtaining required permit, subsequent inspections or issuance of certificate of occupancy or completion. The past order: On October 22nd, 2009 the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinance and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4506, Page 24 -- excuse me, Page 2540 for more information. The respondent has not complied with the CEB orders as of June Page 50 June 24,2010 24th, 2010. The fines and costs to date are described as: Order item number two, fines at the rate of $100 per day for the period between February 23rd, 2010 and June 24th, 2010, totaling 122 days, for the total amount of $12,200. Fines continue to accrue. Operational costs of $86.14 have been paid. The total amount due to date is $12,200. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Entertain a motion. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sure. MR. KAUFMAN: In the past when we hear cases and there's activity going on relative to getting permits or work being done to get a property into compliance, we bend over backwards to admit that type of reason into our deliberation. I'm confused as to whether the county knows what's going on. I hear one story here that I'm right around the corner from this being done, and then I hear on the other side that we don't know that anything has happened since the last time it was heard. So-- MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, I was just -- that was from the last case as far as the land use. I was referring to the land use case. I never made a statement as far as the permitting case. He put words in my mouth, basically. We were hearing whether or not he was going to have the land use case heard today, and I said as far as I know there was no progress on that. The permitting case, I do know there was progress on, but he never -- you know, that wasn't brought up. MR. KAUFMAN: Well, why don't we bring that up now? What's the progress that's been made? MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, I know that I did meet with his wife and she did come down, and I know she went over and brought paperwork, submitted paperwork to the permitting department. I'm not really sure how far along they are, though. That's where we're at right now. But he has been making an attempt just recently to try to Page 51 June 24, 2010 get this thing rectified. MR. CHAMI: Just recently? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you have a recommendation then? I mean, are you willing to pull it, if that's the case? MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, I'd like to say that I spend-- CHAIRMAN KELLY: There was no request for an extension of time. MS. WALDRON: We did pull this at the last hearing. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So we have delayed it once before. Okay. MS. WALDRON: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: I just want to make a comment. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I do -- sorry. MR. ORTEGA: When was the permit applied for? MR. LETOURNEAU: He needs to -- there was a ramp built, I believe, and an original door structure was turned into a -- or original drive-thru window was turned into a door, into a -- it's called Splash and Sizzle; it's a pool business. MR. ORTEGA: But you have an addition/alteration commercial permit. But you also need the SDPI. MR. LETOURNEAU: I believe so. MR. ORTEGA: Okay. When was the permit applied for? Was the permit applied for? Permit, not the SDPI. MR. LETOURNEAU: There's no permit on -- I checked this morning in our records and there's no permit as of today applied for in our records. Just the original old permit that was applied for, you know, back over a year ago. MR. CHAMI: You said that was never been applied, just to go on the record. He said a year ago that we never applied for a permit. Now he's saying that we applied for a permit a year ago. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I understand. Because we have -- are familiar with this, we understand that you can go to the county and Page 52 June 24, 2010 present them with paperwork, but until you have all the check boxes marked off, they won't accept it and say, okay, this is our application, we'll now send it to review. And I believe that's the difference here. County's position then is to reiterate -- MS. WALDRON: We've actually withdrawn this twice, not only once. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: This particular case? MS. WALDRON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So county's position is to stay on the agenda, and you're not wishing to pull it? MR. CHAMI: And my understand, it was being pulled once. MR. LETOURNEAU: The respondent has been in front of us before in other cases. And I think by now he should know the procedures and so forth. So I would not be in favor of extending it. I would be in favor imposing the fines. And this has been going on for over a year. And if a permit was denied because of fire or because of one reason or another, it wasn't fire but whatever it was denied for, I would think that he would be diligent enough to go ahead and find out why and get that corrected. And that doesn't seem like it's been the case. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is that a motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm make a motion to deny-- MR. CHAMI: Just allow me to speak. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- or to impose the fines. MR. CHAMI: Allow me to speak one second, please. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Hang on a second. We have a motion. I just need to see if there's a second on that motion. MR. ORTEGA: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: We have a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And if it's a discussion amongst the Page 53 June 24, 2010 board, I would like to ask if we can admit outside testimony. But right now since it's a motion, it's closed between us. Okay, all those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: No. Okay, so what we did is we imposed the fines here. Now, this is not the end of the world. It does mean that there will be something recorded against the property. But if you do come into compliance, you have a certain window of time to come back to us and ask us to either reduce or possibly abate the entire fine altogether and nothing will be charged against you at that time, if that was what we decide, okay? So what we'll do is we'll switch gears and go to the second case now. And Jeff, if you would, could you read the order in please? MR. LETOURNEAU: Once again for the record-- CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'm sorry, I need to swear you both in, since it's a different case. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. LETOURNEAU: Once again for the record, Supervisor Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is a request for imposition of fines and liens for CEB Case No. CELU20090010758, Board of County Commissioners versus 1. Peaceful, LC. Page 54 June 24, 2010 Violation is of Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended, Section 2.02.03, prohibited use. Location of the violation is 7730 Preserve Lane, Naples, Florida. Folio 68391446166. Description of the violation is a truck rental business prohibited in C-3 zoned location. Permitted only in C-4 zoned or higher. The past order: On October 22nd, 2009 the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact and conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4506, Page 2536 for more information. An extension of time was granted on January 28th, 2010. See OR 4537, Page 1738 for more information. Respondent has not complied with the CEB orders as of June 24th, 2010. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order item number two, fines at the rate of $100 per day for the period between May 25th, 2010 and June 24, 2010, for 31 days, for the total amount of$3,100. Fines continue to accrue. Operational costs of $86.14 have been paid. Total amount to date: $3,100. MR. LEFEBVRE: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Gerald? MR. LEFEBVRE: Under item number two, you said that the dates were from -- for 31 days. We have -- if I'm looking at the correct one, I have 27 days. CHAIRMAN KELLY: For a total of2,700. So do you have an updated page, perhaps? MS. DAVIDSON: There is an updated page. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Which one has the respondent received? MS. DAVIDSON: He hasn't received the updated page. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So what Mr. Letourneau read is the more updated one, which would be the more accurate one? Page 55 June 24, 2010 MS. DAVIDSON: Correct. It starts at May 25th. MR. LEFEBVRE: Instead of May 29th. MS. DAVIDSON: Instead of May 29th, correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, yeah, which would be after the l20-day extension. May 24th was when it ended so May 25th is when the fines would start. MS. DAVIDSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: That's the additional three days. It's $3,100. Got it. Okay, Mr. Chami, if you'd like to speak to this one? MR. CHAMI: I will. You asked me before, or gentlemen -- I'm sorry, you asked me before who was the lawyer from the county attorney who was taking care of the case. It is Mr. Jeffrey Klatzkow. Basically it was executive summary produced by Mr. -- by County Attorney, which was presented to the board on November 10th. My apology again with regard to -- the issue was regard to pulling the truck out from the property. I never understood it that way for a very simple reason. Your order basically saying remove them or apply for zoning. I went -- I petitioned the county, the Board of Commissioners. It was basically in September, to my best recollection. I'm really sorry, I never thought that I would be in front of you today with this particular Issue. I met with Mrs. Colleen Davidson on June 14th when I heard this case was coming in front of you. I sent an e-mail to the code enforcement explaining the whole situation. I was expecting at least Mr. Letourneau to call at least the County Attorney. I put them all in my e-mail to the county explaining the different issues. I guess some people, they have their mind already set. So anyway basically September I petitioned the county -- the Board of Commissioners. It was a wording in this PUD as I Page 56 June 24, 2010 mentioned today, and it was jurisprudence on it, somebody took it to the court and the court found that basically if we have -- and let me read basically the wording on it. Truck rentals: The County Attorney's conclusion. Truck rentals such as U-Haul truck have historically existed in various zoning district venturing from C-3 to C-5. Development services director in this -- THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, I don't understand you. MR. CHAMI: My apology for that. All that I'm saying here on this particular issue, it was for Olde Cypress PUD, basically if we have a permitted use, which is not being listed or allowed and used somewhere else in the C-3 or identical use, it will be permitted within this particular one. Now, unfortunately Mr. Joe Schmitt found it not in line. So basically the County Attorney position was to bring it to the Board of Commissioners to see if they can reverse it as an appeal, a board of appeal, or they will concur with his position. Unfortunately during the discussion we end up having -- most of the commissioners were agreeing on this, but basically it was two items totally outside the U-Haul issue which blocked the whole adoption of it. One was the landscaping along Immokalee Road, which was being removed to replant something else which was not done for a while. Three, around six months. As well as certain past issue with regard to the county which was being brought by one of the commISSIOners. And since it was start creating lots of wrong situation, wrong issues being discussed at the time on this particular meeting, Mr. Tom Henning requested to put it out immediately since it was really creating a totally nonsense with the particular meeting and requesting more detail and more research to be made to the allegation at that particular meeting. Frankly I have no -- they never pulled out, they never denied it. Page 57 June 24, 2010 But all they did, and to my understanding the County Attorney decided not to put it in the next one until they will be ready for it. Now, I have absolutely all -- I was very surprised to see it coming in front of you for a lenient (phonetic) position. So I sent an e-mail, talked to Mrs. Colleen Davidson. I sent an e-mail explaining exactly what I was mentioning in this particular e-mail. It was supposed to be part of your package. And basically I was expecting Mr. Letourneau at least to make some phone calls to the County Attorney's Office who are very well aware of the situation to really make sure that we are coming in front of you with a really clear and clean situation. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Right. Mr. Letourneau, is it still the county's position that we maintain this on the agenda and move towards a vote? MR. LETOURNEAU: Bottom line is that I don't know why Mr. Chami is confused about the order. The first thing it says is remove the equipment from the property to an area intended for such use. If he would have just done that, he would have avoided the fines and we wouldn't be here right now. He could have done that part of the order and then dealt with the illegal part of the zoning at that point. It is the county's position that we do want to go ahead with this. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Any questions from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: I remember this case very specifically, and I do remember one of the board members, and I don't remember who made the motion, but I do remember very specifically saying that the trucks needed to be removed and off-site somewhere, and you still could have the operation running but the trucks be somewhere off-site. And I specifically remember that, because this is somewhat of a umque case. So I really think that being that you've been in front of us and everything, it could have been resolved very easily by moving the trucks off-site. Page 58 June 24, 2010 MR. CHAMI: How could I do it? How can I physically? I mean, you're asking me to shut the business. How do you want me to move trucks and -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, the other question -- the other question I have for you is if -- is this a -- could this be a conditional use within a C-3 zoning? If in fact other C-3 zonings allow this particular use, can it be a conditional-- possible conditional use? I mean, ifC-3 doesn't allow it, it's very hard to get the use if it's not accepted. If it's not an accepted use, we could be sitting here, and if we give you an extension of time we could be sitting here three, four, five, six months down the road. I think you've had plenty of time to try to figure this out. It's been almost a year and there's still been no resolution to this. MR. CHAMI: For me it is a done deal, frankly. It's yes or no. The board basically was in front of them to allow me two years, basically. This what basically what was -- the consensus at that time when I talked to each member of the board at that time -- I'm talking the Board of Commissioners -- to see if they allow me two years or three years until the time for them to be able to rezone or to apply for it. But unfortunate Mr. Henning remembered very specifically at that time that that particular PUD, they don't require zoning. Because if it was being used before and we have -- the County Attorney went and did many research about many other areas where U - Haul was within a C-3. And so it was not an issue about anything, it was really going on a motion to approve it. And even the County Attorney made it very clear that he has absolutely no opposition on being approved until we got one person from the staff came in and start shooting -- and they had one commissioner saying that I was dishonest -- MR. LEFEBVRE: The issue I have -- MR. CHAMI: -- and they had to stop it completely. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- there's nothing -- ifthere was minutes from the Board of County Commissioners saying in fact that this is the case, Page 59 June 24, 2010 then that would be testimony, that would be hard evidence. Just like there's pictures that were brought here by the investigator on one of the previous cases. But unfortunately that's not the case. We have to listen to your testimony and to ex -- asking -- I guess you're potentially asking for an extension of time, but we don't have that hard and fast information from the County Commissioners that that in fact was the case. MR. CHAMI: If you could -- I really apologize for not being prepared to this meeting. I was sure it was done deal. I was sure basically that it will be pulled from the meeting. I had absolutely no doubt in my mind the county would be pulling it. And for 60 days, I will be promising you, in 60 days either I will bring all the papers and will be in front of the Board of Commissioners, and then either I shut my mouth and that's it, it's no more deal on this situation and we can know it at that particular time. MR. LEFEBVRE: But weren't you in front of us another time a couple months ago on this particular case and you said I'll have resolution to this within a certain amount of time. Was this the case? MR. CHAMI: No, I'm sorry, what happened at that particular time, I explain to you that basically the Board of Commissioners decided to hear this particular case and it was jurisprudence on it and it will be shortly on the board. End up being a month later, or six weeks later in the Board of Commissioners. But it was being pulled. And frankly I never knew when it will be back on the Board of Commissioners, because they're doing their own research about certain allegation being made about drawing and submitting 2000 and 2001 and to see if it really in fact what one of the staff was saying was true or not. So -- but I can assure you, I talked to Commissioner Henning and he talked to the county attorney, to my understanding, and that will be very shortly on the board. If you can just allow me 60 days, the 60 days would allow me then to be able to show you either they approve Page 60 June 24, 2010 it or they deny it, and then we can move on. MR. LEFEBVRE: But the responsibility is on you. If in November you in fact said that it was sent back to have more research done, you should have been following up with the County Attorney's Office to say where do we stand, where do we stand. And we're back -- we're here eight months later, there's no further resolution. You don't know when you're going to be in front of the board again. It just doesn't -- I'm not impelled to give you more time, because it seems like it's been dragged out long enough at this point. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Is that a motion? MR. CHAMI: Well, if you feel the -- and I don't want to start going through my misery with what's happening right now, that's my problems. But basically I'm really sorry to say, but we have so many things right now, my priority is to find my payroll to my employees. My priority is to find my payment for the mortgage not to foreclose on my property. All my priority right now, really, when you put everything within -- everything within -- really is not -- not ignoring it, but matter of I thought that somebody else at the county was taking care of this issue and they would be bringing it back in front of the Board of Commissioners. So I understand, I understand you fully. I was in development before, and I understand very well, it still lays on me to be able to do it. All I'm asking is your understanding on this particular situation. I'm really surprised that the county is not pulling this issue, I'm really surprised. MR. LEFEBVRE: If you remember -- not to cut you off, but if you remember from when you were here for the sign, it took a while, you started getting fined and you came back and you got everything done and we took care of the fine. That option still is on the table. But what we're trying to do is compel you to move forward and to -- we want to see the case be abated. That's basically what our job Page 61 June 24, 2010 is, is to see that this case is abated. And I don't -- from what I see, we're not moving towards that direction. I don't see any compelling reason to move forward as we go. I'm in the -- on the side of imposing the fines. And I guess Mr. Kelly asked me to make a motion, and I make a motion to impose the fines on this case also. And again, you will have the opportunity once it does come into compliance, whatever way that may be, come into compliance, come back to us and explain why you'd want the fines reduced. And I can just say that if you do get this resolved, you come back to us, please, have some hard evidence showing what you've done in front of the board with minutes and so forth that you can show as testimony that you've been diligent in trying to get this resolved. MR. CHAMI: But you don't find -- I understand. I respect your position. And -- but you don't find that there's -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Because of procedures. MR. CHAMI: -- as Mr. Letourneau know is not making his own research also? CHAIRMAN KELL Y: We have a motion. I have to see if there's a second before -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, we have a second. And then now we have discussion amongst ourselves. Does anybody -- MR. ORTEGA: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Sure, go ahead. MR. ORTEGA: Has a zoning verification letter been issued at all? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you know? MR. LETOURNEAU: That I do not know. MR. ORTEGA: Let me rephrase that. Has a zoning verification letter been applied for and/or issued? Page 62 June 24, 2010 MR. LETOURNEAU: I do not know what exactly has been applied for or issued. Mrs. Chami brought in a certain amount of paperwork maybe a month ago, and we guided her up to the front there. And I checked this morning, I didn't see anything. But that doesn't mean that it wasn't. I was just checking for permits at this point this morning, I wasn't checking for any kind of zoning. MR. ORTEGA: Let me address the question to Mr. Chami. Has a zoning verification letter been applied for? MR. CHAMI: With regard to the use of the property? With regard to -- MR. ORTEGA: Whenever you want to verify intent of a use or otherwise with any zoning, there is something called a zoning verification letter which you can apply for, and they'll give you their findings whether you can or not. MR. CHAMI: To my understanding similar things happened. Because see, this particular use we're using, the U-Haul -- MR. ORTEGA: Do you have a copy of that? MR. CHAMI: No. But it was being -- yes. Mean we're not allowed, basically what -- the county -- Mr. Joe Schmitt's department to find out that we are not allowed to have a U-Haul within a C-3 use, or zoning. Definitely it was being the case. And we're not contesting it in that particular situation. So -- but this particular use was for six years. It's not -- or seven years. We're not talking about something I did yes -- if it was illegal and they knew -- usually, and I don't do anything illegal. If! do it, because frankly it's my ignorance. And for over six years this particular -- we have this particular business in place. It's not we did it seven months ago and they found out right away. Took the code enforcement two days to find out if we're allowed to have a U-Haul or not on this particular property. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Page 63 June 24, 2010 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, again on this case we went ahead and imposed the fines. But like Gerald said, you have the opportunity to come back whenever it is in compliance and ask us for abatement. MS. WALDRON: Just for clarification on that aspect, once this is imposed by the Code Enforcement Board, he will need to go to the BCC, not back to you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: For-- MS. WALDRON: For -- asking for a reduction of fines. Those items do go to the Board of Commissioners. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's right. I apologize, it is to the BCC. Because they're the ones that have it now. MR. CHAMI: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Okay, are there any reports or comments? MS. WALDRON: Ms. Flagg would like to -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: There is. MS. WALDRON: -- give a report. MR. MARINO: With a smile on her face. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah, really. MS. FLAGG: Good morning. Diane Flagg, for the record. Sorry, I was at the budget hearings this morning with the board. Just wanted to give you an update on the abatements. The amount of money paid by the banks to abate code violations in Collier Page 64 June 24, 2010 County is now $1,000,601. The number of code violations that the banks have abated is 1,195. And just last week the banks spent $18,797 to abate code violations. Last week ending June 13th, we opened an additional 171 new code cases, which is our indicator that the foreclosures are not slowing down, the foreclosures continue to role in. There were 745 property inspections completed by the code investigators last week. 103 cases were closed with voluntary compliance. And another indicator that property is moving that we look at is there were just last week 355 lien searches requested by title companies or potential property purchasers. MR. MARINO: Diane, excuse me, did you say there was 743 cases last week, or inspections last week? MS. FLAGG: 745 in one week, yes. These are -- the stats that I just gave you are -- the 171 new cases came in in one week. 745 property inspections done in one week. 103 cases closed in one week. MR. MERAN: How big is your staff? MS. FLAGG: Well it's been reduced by one. We have 49 total in the department. We go into -- we have 50 currently but we'll have 49 starting in FY 11. And the investigators carry an average of 52 cases as of this point. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: And what you're saying is there's quite at bit of activity out there for maybe buying and selling going on. MS. FLAGG: Uh-huh, Um-hum, there are. And that's the importance of making sure that property purchasers do a lien search and a code property inspection. All of that information is on the code enforcement website. It's in a brochure format, so you just have to click and then you can print it at your own computer. On June 30th, the foreclosure task course is having a forum for Page 65 June 24, 2010 primarily realtors and attorneys to talk about the newest laws in regard to foreclosure. Things are not slowing down in regard to foreclosures. MR. L'ESPERANCE: The total number we have is approximately? MS. FLAGG: We're approaching 20,000. MR. LEFEBVRE: Where and what time is that forum? MS. FLAGG: I'll send -- I'll have Jen send out the forum workshop information for you. And it will cover -- the workshop will cover all the new federal programs coming out in regard to foreclosures. So it should be a very valuable workshop. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. It's sad to see homeowners purchase a home that has code violations on it. It's great that your department's offering that search for them. Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Our next meeting date is going to be July 22nd. Are we back at our normal location back into the courthouse? With that, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to adjourn. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you very much. See you next month. Page 66 June 24, 2010 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:55 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD KENNETH KELLY, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on presented or as corrected as Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 67