Loading...
CEB Minutes 01/27/2011 R January 27, 2011 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida January 27, 2011 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 at 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Kenneth Kelly Gerald Lefebvre Robert Kaufman Larry Dean Lionel L'Esperance Tony Marino (Alternate) Ron Doino (Alternate) Herminio Ortega (Absent) James Lavinski (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Jean Rawson, Attorney for the CEB Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA AGENDA Date: January 27, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. Location: 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Growth Management Division Planning & Regulation Conference Room 609/610 NOTICE: THE RESPONDENT MAYBE LIMITED TO TWENTY (20) MINUTES FOR CASE PRESENT A TION UNLESS ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE BOARD. PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. ALL PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN THE PUBLIC HEARING ARE ASKED TO OBSERVE ROBERTS RULES OF ORDER AND SPEAK ONE AT A TIME SO THAT THE COURT REPORTER CAN RECORD ALL STATEMENTS BEING MADE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1. ROLL CALL Kenneth Kelly, Chair Robert Kaufman, Vice Chair Gerald Lefebvre James Lavinski Larry Dean Lionel L' Esperance Herminio Ortega Tony Marino, Alternate Ronald Doino, Alternate 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES- A. November 18,2010 Hearing 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. MOTIONS Motion for Extension of Time I. Richard Mercer, Jeffrey & Amy Mercer CESD20090000870 2. Katherine F. Smith CELU20 1 00009076 3. Jorge V & Caridad Jimenez CESD20090010253 4. Mike & Mary Ruth Lucero CESD200900 183 73 B. STIPULATIONS C. HEARINGS I. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: 2. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: 3. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: 4. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: CESD20100018773 OLGA MORENO INVESTIGA TOR JOE MUCHA COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(I)(a) GARAGE CONVERTED TO LIVING SPACE WITHOUT PERMITS 35756320009 4273 20TH AVE. SW. NAPLES, FL CESD20090014131 WINSTON R. & JANICE M. VASQUEZ INVESTIGA TOR TONY ASARO COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-4] AS AMENDED, SECTION ] 0.02.06(B)(] )(a) POOL CONSTRUCTED WITH PERMIT 2008040253 BUT NOT INSPECTED OR A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION ISSUED VOIDING PERMIT. 39656480003 4285 20TH ST. NE NAPLES, FL CEPM20100018330 OMAR RAUL GARCIA INVESTIGA TOR CAROL SYKORA COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22-23 ](I2)(i) BROKEN WINDOWS ON THE MAIN HOUSE 00738]20003 ]065] GREENWAY RD. NAPLES, FL CENA20100018314 OMAR RAUL GARCIA INVESTIGATOR CAROL SYKORA COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 54, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54-]8] LITTER CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO BUCKETS, WOOD PALLETS, PILED YARD DEBRIS, WINDOW SCREENS, COOLERS , METAL MESH 00738120003 1065\ GREENWAY RD. NAPLES, FL 5. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: 6. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO.: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: 7. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 8. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: CELU20100018294 OMAR RAUL GARCIA INVESTIGA TOR CAROL SYKORA COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-4], AS AMENDED, SECTION 1.04.0](A). AN UNLICENSED/INOPERABLE BOX TRUCK PARKED/STORED ON AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY. 00738]20003 1065] GREENWAY RD. NAPLES, FL 2007090283 AAAA HOMES INC. INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN ORDINANCE 04-4], COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 1O.02.06(B)(I)(a), ]0.02.06(B)(I)(e), 1O.02.06(B)(I)(e)(i). FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2004 EDITION AS AMENDED. UNPERMITTED HORSE BARN CONVERTED INTO LIVING SPACE WITH PLUMBING AND ELECTRICITY. FENCE WITH GATES EXPIRED PERMIT NUMBER 2001 10]45. 37]10800008 58] 7TH ST NW, NAPLES, FL CESD20100005204 CRESCENCIO LOPEZ GARCIA INVESTIGA TOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-4], AS AMENDED, SECTION 1O.02.06(B)(I)(a). TWO MOBILE HOMES, UNATTACHED CARPORT WITH AN EXPIRED PERMIT, AND A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE THAT WAS ALTERED/ADDED TO WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT. ]24]20002 604 BOSTON AVE., IMMOKALEE, FL CESD20100006494 AUDUBON CENTER OF NAPLES LLC INVESTIGA TOR JONATHAN MUSSE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-4], AS AMENDED, SECTION ]0.02.06(B)(I)(a), ]0.02.06(B)(I)(e), AND ]0.02.06(B)(I)(e)(i). INTERIOR DOOR THAT WAS INSTALLED THA T REQUIRED BREAKING DOWN THAT PORTION OF THE FIREWALL TO CREATE AN OPENING TO COMBINE UNITS] 10 AND II], WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING PROPER COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS. 22493000]29 15495 T AMIAMI TRAIL N, NAPLES, FL 9. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: ]0. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: II. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: ]2. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: ]3. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: CESD20100003342 PATTON AVENUE HOLDINGS LLC INVESTIGA TOR JONATHAN MUSSE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-4], AS AMENDED, SECTION(S) ]0.02.06(B)(I)(a), 1O.02.06(B)(])(e), AND 1O.02.06(B)(I)(e)(i). AN INJECTOR SEWER PUMP INSTALLED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING PROPER COLLIER COUNTY PERMIT. 6265]]20005 ] 0295 T AMIAMI TRAIL N, NAPLES, FL CESD20100000924 MA TTY LLC INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-4], AS AMENDED, SECTION ]0.02.06(B)(I)(a). WORKSHOP BUILT WITHOUT PERMIT. 36667240002 4109 1 ST AVE NW, NAPLES, FL CESD20100009613 CHARLESH.BARTHOLF ]NVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-4], AS AMENDED, SECTION ]0.02.06(B)(I)(a). ADDITION OF UNPERMITTED PUMP HOUSE, SHED/GUEST HOUSE AND TENT LIKE STRUCTURE ON PROPERTY. 38224920006 599] WESTPORT LANE, NAPLES, FL CESD201 00017996 RICHARD L. AND SANDRA F. RATHJEN INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-4], AS AMENDED, SECTION 1O.02.06(B)(l )(a). UNPERMITTED STORAGE SHED AND LANAI. 36121360004 4866 2]ST AVE SW, NAPLES, FL CESD20100004524 ROSARION AND IMMACULA SIMEUS INVESTIGA TOR RENALD PAUL COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-4], AS AMENDED, SECTION 1O.02.06(B)(l)(a). ADDITION OF A FENCE, SHED, AND ENCLOS]NG A LANAI WITH NO PERMITS. 36373880002 2797 53RD TERR SW, NAPLES, FL ]4. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: ]5. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: ]6. CASE NO: OWNER: OFF]CER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: CESD20100008202 PAUL LOMBARD INVESTIGA TOR AZURE SORRELS FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER], SECTION 105.], COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE II, SECTION 22-26(b)(106.1.2), COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-4], AS AMENDED, SECTION ]0.02.06(B)(I)(e)(i). ADDITION/ALTERATION/CONVERSION OF EXISTING SCREEN PORCH/STORAGE AREA TO LIVING SPACE TO INCLUDE BUT NOT LIMITED TO; STRUCTURAL, ELECTRICAL, AND PLUMBING HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING ALL REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. 764]0200000 2584 LEE ST., NAPLES, FL CESD201 00017736 HENRY J. TESNO AND JILL J. WEAVER INVESTIGA TOR AZURE SORRELS COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE II, SECTION 22- 26(b)(I04.5.IAA). PERMITS 2002050921 FOR SWIMMING POOL, 20030]0443 FOR FENCE, AND 2003] 02442 FOR FRAMED SINGLE F AMIL Y HOME HAVE ALL EXPIRED/CANCELLED BEFORE OBTAINING ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AND THEIR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY/COMPLETION. 7]800000527 3] ] 7 ARECA AVE., NAPLES, FL CESD20100007957 ANDREI V. OSINSKY INVESTIGA TOR AZURE SORRELS FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER ], SECTION ]05.], COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-4], AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 1O.02.06(B)(])(a), 1O.02.06(B)(] )(e), AND I 0.02.06(B)(] )(e)(i). ALTERATIONS/ADDITIONS CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO: KITCHEN WITH PLUMBING AND ELECTRICAL ADDED TO THE SUITE, FRENCH DOORS ARE NOT LOCATED IN PROPER LOCATION PER PERMIT, WINDOW ADDED TO EXTERIOR WALL OF SUITE, AND RISERS ARE NOT CONSTRUCTED AS PERMITTED. WORK CONDUCTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING REQUIRED BUILDING PERMITS. 6]837000005 4900 PALMETTO CT, NAPLES, FL 17. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: 5. OLD BUSINESS CESD20090005007 ROXANA SOROKOTY TR, W ALTER G. SOROKOTY JR EST INVESTIGA TOR AZURE SORRELS COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE II, SECTION 22- 26(b)(I04.1.3.5), FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2004 EDITION, CHAPTER 1, SECTION ]05.] AND SECTION 11].], COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-4], AS AMENDED, SECTION ]0.02.06(B)(l)(a) AND ]0.02.06(B)(I)(e). MEZZANINE AND STAIRS IN BAYS 9 AND] 0 ERECTED AND ELECTRICAL WORK DONE IN BAY 8 WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING COLLIER COUNTY APPROVAL, REQUIRED INSPECTIONS, AND CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION. 387040000 2435 T AMIAMI TRAIL E, NAPLES, FL A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: 2. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: CEPM20090017577 LEONEL GARZA, ET AL INVESTIGA TOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI, AND THE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTIONS 22-23 I (12)(b), (f), (g), (i), AND 0). EXTERIOR WALLS ON A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE THAT HAD HOLES, BREAKS, LOOSE ROTTING MATERIAL THA T WAS NOT WEATHER TIGHT AND NOT MAINTAINED IN GOOD REPAIR. ALSO OBSERVED NO GUARD RAILS ON THE APPROACHING FOOTSTEPS, THE STAIRS CONSIST OF UNSTABLE BLOCKS, WINDOWS AND DOORS WERE NOT WEATHER AND WATERTIGHT, NOR WERE THEY MAINTAINED IN GOOD REPAIR. THE SCREEN ON THE WINDOWS WERE MISSING OR THEY HAD BEEN REMOVED. THE EXTERIOR SURF ACE OF THE WHOLE STRUCTURE WAS IN POOR CONDITION. 25582720003 I]] 7TH ST., IMMOKALEE, FL CESD20090013027 CHARLES D. BROWN INVESTIGA TOR 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. 74031280003 414 3RD ST, IMMOKALEE, FL 3. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: 4. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: 5. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: 6. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: CESD20090017445 EMMA HOUSTON INVESTIGA TOR ED MORAD COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION ]0.02.06(B)(I)(a), AND 1O.02.06(B)(I)(e)(i). A SINGLE WIDE MOBILE HOME CONVERTED FROM A SINGLE DWELLING UNIT INTO TWO DWELLING UNITS AND AN ADDITION ADDED WITHOUT OBTAINING BUILDING AND LAND AL TERA TION PERMITS, INSPECTIONS, AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. ]26960008 4]5 3RD ST, IMMOKALEE, FL CESD20100017039 ERIC AND DAYLE WESTOVER INVESTIGA TOR JOHN SANT AFEMIA COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE II, SECTION 22-26(b), SUBSECTION (104.5.] 0404) PERMIT #] 999] ] 0448 FOR THE POOL WAS ABANDONED AND NEVER CO'ED. 3822680001 589] STAR GRASS LANE, NAPLES, FL CESD20100003695 SERGIO AND MARIA D. GOMEZ INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE II, FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, ADOPTION AND AMENDMENT OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, SECTION 22-26(b) (]04.5.1.404). PERMIT #2004030440 FOR THE FENCE AND PERMIT #2004032107 FOR THE TIKI HUT WERE BOTH ABANDONED AND THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY NEVER OBTAINED. 36]30560002 4983 ] 7TH AVE SW, NAPLES, FL CESD20090010785 GUILLERMO GOROSTIET A AND SUSANA L. MORA INVESTIGA TOR MICHELE MCGONAGLE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(I)(a) AND 10.02.06 (B)(I)(e)(i), COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LA WS, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE II, FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, ADOPTION AND AMENDMENT OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, SECTION 22-26(b)(l04.1.3.5). SEVERAL STRUCTURES ON PROPERTY TO INCLUDE A WOODEN SHED, METAL ADDITION TO THE WOODEN SHED, A STAND ALONE SHED IN REAR OF PROPERTY, AND AN ADDITION MADE TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE MOBILE HOME. 00769320005 NO SITE ADDRESS, FOLIO #00769320005 7. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: 8. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: 9. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 10. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: CESD20080010447 ALLEN W. FULLER AND BARBARA A. DAVIS INVESTIGATOR MICHELE MCGONAGLE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION ]0.02.06(B)(I)(a) AND 1O.02.06(B)(l)(e)(i). RESIDENCE ON AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY HAS BEEN ALTERED/ADDED TO CONVERTING STRUCTURE TO A TWO-STORY DUPLEX STRUCTURE WITH STRUCTURAL, PLUMBING AND ELECTRICAL AL TERA TIONS WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING REQUIRED PERMITS. 00730]60003 267 PRICE ST, NAPLES, FL CESD20080010474 ALLEN W. FULLER AND BARBARA A. DAVIS INVESTIGATOR MICHELE MCGONAGLE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-4], AS AMENDED, SECTION ]0.02.06(B)(I)(a). MOBILE HOME ON PROPERTY WITH UTILITY CONNECTIONS WITHOUT REQUIRED BUILDING PERMITS. 00730160003 267 PRICE ST, NAPLES, FL CEV20 1 00003082 PALM LAKE LLC INVESTIGATOR AZURE SORRELS COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-4], AS AMENDED, SECTION 2.0] .OO(A). APPROXIMATELY NINE UNLICENSED/INOPERABLE VEHICLES ARE PARKED/STORED ON PROPERTY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOTS 38, 31, 27, ]8, 9, AND TWO VEHICLES ACROSS FROM LOT 5. 6]842240009 3] 3] T AMIAMI TRAIL E, NAPLES, FL CEPM20100004292 PALM LAKE LLC INVESTIGA TOR AZURE SORRELS COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LA WS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22-23] (] ]). ELECTRICAL WIRING RUNNING TO THE MOBILE HOMES ARE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT NA TIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE. ELECTRICAL METERS ARE NOT SECURELY FASTENED; MISSING COVERS ON ENERGIZED ELECTRICAL PARTS, DIRECT WIRES AND CONDUIT ARE NOT BURIED TO CODE. 6]842240009 3131 T AMIAMI TRAIL E, NAPLES, FL ]1. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: 12. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: CEPM20100003098 PALM LAKE LLC INVESTIGA TOR AZURE SORRELS COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22-23 ](12)(n), SECTION 22-231 (12)(m), SECTION 22-23 I (12)(b), SECTION 22- 23] (1 6), SECTION 22-23] (12)( c), SECTION 22-242(b), SECTION 22-23] (12)(i), AND SECTION 22-24] (1)(e). MULTIPLE LOTS IN PALM LAKE HAVE SEVERAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE VIOLATIONS TO INCLUDE, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES (CARPORTS AND SHEDS) NOT MAINTAINED IN GOOD REPAIR AND SOUND STRUCTURAL CONDITION. EXTERIOR SURFACES OF DWELLING UNITS HA VEN'T ANY PROTECTIVE COATING. MANY ADDITIONS BUILT BEFORE FLOOD ELEVATION ARE BEING UTILIZED AS HABITABLE SPACE. ROOFS WITH DEFECTS WHICH ADMIT RAIN. WINDOWS BOARDED ON VACANT SWELLING UNITS WITHOUT A CURRENT BOARDING CERTIFICATE. WINDOWS AND EXTERIOR DOORS BOARDED ON OCCUPIED DWELLING UNITS WHICH COULD POSSIBLE AFFECT THE MEANS OF INGRESS AND EGRESS. WAREHOUSE ON PROPERTY HAS BROKEN WINDOWS. 6]842240009 3] 3] T AMIAMI TRAIL E, NAPLES, FL CESD20090015950 DANIEL H. GUERRERO INVESTIGA TOR AZURE SORRELS COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE II, SECTION 22-26(b)(1 04.5.1.404). PERMIT 2008 ]2028] EXPIRED ON JUNE 3, 2009 BEFORE RECEIVING A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION. 6]780440000 3240 CALEDONIA AVE, NAPLES, FL B. Motion for Reduction of Fines/Lien 6. NEW BUSINESS 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens B. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. 8. REPORTS A. Michael and Amy Facundo CESD20 1 00006940 9. COMMENTS 10. NEXT MEETING DATE - February 24, 2011 11. ADJOURN January 27, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning, everyone. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board of Collier County to order for this January 27th meeting. Notice, respondents may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation unless additional time is granted by the board. Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes unless the time is adjusted by the Chair. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Robert's Rules of Order and speak one at a time so the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of 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 shall be responsible for providing this record. May I have roll call, please. MS. BAKER: Mr. Ken Kelly? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Robert Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Gerald Levebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Tony Marino. MR. MARINO: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Larry Dean? MR. DEAN: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Ron Doino. MR. DOINO: Here. Page 2 January 27, 2011 MS. BAKER: And James Lavinski and Herminio Ortega both have excused absences for today. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seeing as how we have two normal members who are excused, both alternates will have full voting rights today. MR. DEAN: Normal. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Now, for the agenda, are there any changes? MS. BAKER: Yes, sir. Under Number 4, public hearings, motions. Letter A, motions. Motion for extension of time, Number 2, Katherine F. Smith, Case CELU20100009076, has been withdrawn. Number 3, Jorge V. and Caridad Jimenez, Case CESD200900 1 0253, has been withdrawn. Under Letter B, stipulations, we have two stipulations. The first will be Case CESD20100009613, Charles H. Bartholf. The second will be Case CESD201 00005204, Crescencio Lopez Garcia. Letter C, hearings Number 2, Case CESD200900 14131, Winston R. and Janice M. Vasquez, has been withdrawn. Number 6, Case 2007090283, AAAA Homes, Inc., has been withdrawn. Number 10, Case CESD20100000924, Matty, LLC, has been withdrawn. Number 14, Case CESD201 00008202, Paul Lombard, has been withdrawn. Number 16, Case CESD20100007957, Andrei V. Osinsky, has been withdrawn. And we have one addition, which be Number 18. It's Omar Raul Garcia, Case CESD201 000 18347. Under Number 5, old business, Letter A, motion for imposition of fines/liens, Number 3, Case CESD20090017445, Emma Houston, has been withdrawn. Number 6, Case CESD20090010785, Guillermo Gorostieta and Page 3 January 27, 2011 Susana L. Mora, has been withdrawn. And that is all the changes that I have. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. I entertain a motion to accept the changes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Now for approval of the minutes from the November 18, 2010, hearing. Any changes? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the notes from the last meeting. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 4 January 27, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? MR. DEAN: Abstain. CHAIRMAN KELLY: One abstention from Mr. Dean. Now moving on to public hearings/motions, A, motions, extension of time. The first case is Richard Mercer and Jeffrey and Amy Mercer. If we can, real quick, we'll have both parties sworn in. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. In these situations normally, since the respondent has asked for the extension of time, we just like you to briefly explain the circumstances surrounding it and maybe answer a few questions that the board might have. MR. MERCER: Okay, no problem. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So if you would like to tell us why you're requesting it, that would be great. MR. MERCER: It's a financial consideration. We had started making the improvements. The stipulation time frame for when the improvements were required to be done fell during the Christmas holidays, and just being unemployed, it put a financial strain on us, so we just requested a time extension for that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: In your letter it requested 60 days. MR. MERCER: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: As of today, do you still feel as though 60 days would be enough time? MR. MERCER: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question. Has the 81.15 been paid by you, the -- Page 5 January 27, 2011 MR. MERCER: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: How much progress has been made on the repairs for the work you're doing? MR. MERCER: I would say about 50 percent. We did the roof rafter ties and some of the sill -- four seal redhead connections have been done, and some of the strapping still remains for some of the bracing and some of the strapping yet to be done. MR. LEFEBVRE: Has he been -- have they been cooperative in working towards completing this project? MR. MUCHA: Absolutely. Mr. Mercer's been in touch with me the entire time, usually sending me a monthly email just to let me know the status and -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Joe, could you let the court reporter know your name? MR. MUCHA: I'm sorry. Investigator Joe Mucha, property maintenance specialist. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we extend it from today's date 90 more days. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and second for 90 days. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. Page 6 January 27, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Ninety days from today. MR. MERCER: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you very much for coming to us. Next case would be a motion for an extension of time. That's Mike and Mary Ruth Lucero. We'll have both parties sworn in. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. MR. LUCERO: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: What we'd like you to do is just explain, if you will, briefly, the request why you're asking for additional time, what circumstances surround it, and we may have a few questions for you afterwards. MR. LUCERO: We've been working with the county to try to get this matter resolved. We've submitted the application, paid our fee. The structural engineer has gone out and inspected, passed that. All we're waiting for now is just the electrical inspection. And that's all we're waiting for right now. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. In your letter that you wrote to the board, it did not specify an amount of time. MR. LUCERO: Well, in talking to Maria, she suggested 60 days at least just to make sure the inspector gets out. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. LUCERO: And I wasn't sure about the time limit, because I didn't know how long it'd take. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Maria, would you have any idea how long it's going to take the inspector to get out there? MS. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. He just has the electrical left to CO it, but they're doing Page 7 January 27, 2011 affirmative defense, so I figured maybe 60 days would be enough. MR. KAUFMAN: Has the 80.57 been paid? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, it has. MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion that we extend the time. CHAIRMAN KELLY: How much? MR. KAUFMAN: Sixty days you said would be sufficient? MR. LUCERO: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second for 60 days. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good. It's been extended for 60 days. Good luck. Thank you. MR. LUCERO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That concludes all of our motions for an extension of time. We're moving on to stipulations. Are there still only two right now? The first stipulation is going to be Bartholf. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. MR. PAUL: Good morning. Page 8 January 27, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator Paul, would you like to read in the stipulation? MR. PAUL: Yes, I would. For the record, Renald Paul, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. Mr. Bartolfhas agreed to the stipulation agreement, has agreed to pay operational costs in the amount of $81.15 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of the hearing. Abate all violations by: Respondent is required to obtain any and all permits as required by Collier County for the addition of the pump house, shed, and tent-like structure at the residence or obtain permits for the removal of the pump house, shed, and tent-like structure, and obtain all required inspections and Certificate of Completion within 120 days of this hearing or be fined $200 a day for each day the violation remains unabated. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the inspector to perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Bartholf, do you understand the stipulated agreement and agree to it as signed? MR. BARTHOLF: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion that we accept the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion. Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) Page 9 January 27, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. MR. PAUL: Have a nice day. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good. Thank you. Good luck, sir. The last stipulated agreement is Lopez Garcia. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. It is agreed between the parties that the respondents shall pay operational costs in the amount of$80.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of the hearing. Abate all violations by: Must apply for and obtain a Collier County building permit or a demolition permit and request required inspections to be performed and passed through a Certificate of Completion/Occupancy within 180 days of this hearing, or a fine of 250 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated. The respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Page 10 January 27, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Maria, any health or safety issues with the addition to the single-family? MS. RODRIGUEZ: The property has three structures on one lot. Two of the mobile homes were placed without any permits back 20-something years ago. There hasn't been any issues at this point, but you never know. CHAIRMAN KELLY: They're both occupied? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If they've been there for 20-something years, I wouldn't want to put anybody out on the street, you know. It's a pretty good track record, without incident, I guess. Any discussion or questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sir, do you understand the stipulated agreement and agree to it? MR. GARCIA: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. I'll entertain a motion. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Marino. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? Page 11 January 27, 2011 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Very good. You've got about six months. If there's any problems along the way, please let us know ahead of time. MR. GARCIA: Sure. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great, thank you. Good luck, sir. MS. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, we do have one additional stipulation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. In that case we'll get the information and then amend the agenda. MS. BAKER: It's Number 13, Case CESD20100004524, Rosarion and Immacula Simeus. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to amend the agenda. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator, would you like to read it in? MR. PAUL: Yes, I would. F or the record again, Renald Paul, Collier County Code Page 12 January 27, 2011 Enforcement investigator. I have spoken with Mr. Simeus, and he has agreed to the stipulation to pay operational costs in the amount of $80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate all violations by: Respondent's required to obtain any and all permits as required by Collier County for the addition of the shed and enclosing of the lanai or obtain permits for removal of the shed and the enclosing of the lanai and obtain all required inspections and Certificate of Completion within 120 days of this hearing or be fined $200 a day for each day the violation remains unabated. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator to perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good. Mr. Simeus, do you understand and agree with everything that was read and signed? MR. SIMEUS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have any questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: If not, I'll entertain a motion. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion. Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Marino. Any discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? Page 13 January 27, 2011 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. PAUL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good. If you have any problems, sir, in the next few months, please let us know ahead of time. We can talk about possibly extension of time or whatever. MR. SIMEUS: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. MR. PAUL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Does that conclude our stips? MS. BAKER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Now we're moving on to C, hearings, Case No.1, Olga Moreno. Joe, is the respondent here? MR. MUCHA: No, sir. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to Case CESD20100018773. Violation of ordinance: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 1 0.02.06(B)(1)( a). Description of violation: Garage converted to living space without permits. Location/address where violation exists: 4273 20th Avenue Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116. Folio 35756320009. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Olga Moreno, 4273 20th Avenue Southwest, Naples, Page 14 January 27, 2011 Florida, 34116. Date violation first observed: September 23, 2010. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: October 5, 2010. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: October 23, 2010. Date of reinspection: November 8, 2010. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator? MR. MUCHA: Good morning. For the record, Joe Mucha, property maintenance specialist, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CDES20100018773 dealing with violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), described as a garage that was converted to living space without permits. Violation location: 4273 20th Avenue Southwest, Naples, 34116. Folio number is 35756320009. Proof of service was obtained on October 5, 2010, by return receipt from certified mail. I would like to now present case evidence in the following exhibits: I have six photographs taken by myself on November 8, 2010. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'd entertain a motion to accept the exhibits. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibits. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Page 15 January 27, 2011 MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries. MR. MUCHA: This case initiated back on September 23rd of 2010 as a complaint in regards to a garage conversion. On that date I made a site visit to the property and attempted to reach someone at the residence. No one was at -- no one was home at the time of my visit. I looked at the outside of the garage, and it did appear to have some of the characteristics of a conversion. I saw a window, a wall unit, air-conditioner, and an entrance to the garage that had a dead bo It. At that time I left my business card. On the following day, September 24th, the owner of the property contacted me at the office. Due to a language barrier, I had another investigator speak to her. He advised her of the complaint received, and she did confirm that the garage had been converted. And at that time he advised her of what her options were to abate the violation. On October 24th the owner actually came down to the office and met with me, and I brought her down to the Permitting Department so she could start to find out what she needed to do, because she wanted to keep the garage conversion. My next dealing was actually on November 8th, and that's when I actually got inside the interior of the garage conversion, which you guys are looking at the pictures now. She allowed me in, and I observed at that time that there was a bedroom, there was a separate bathroom, and there was also a little kitchen area with a wet bar and a refrigerator. And at that time she was -- she was actually currently living in Page 16 January 27, 2011 the garage apartment and renting out the rest of the house, and I advised her at that time that the zoning would not allow for her to use that property for multifamily dwelling. She stated that she understood and she was trying to get the money together to apply for the permit, and that was my last contact with her. I've made a couple site visits to the property. I've been unable to reach her. She hasn't called me. And this is where it stands as of today. No permits have been applied for. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that we find the respondent in violation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion. Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Does the county have a recommendation? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. My recommendation is that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of 80.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days, and to abate all violations by obtaining all applicable permits, inspections, and Certificates of Completion/Occupancy for alterations Page 1 7 January 27, 2011 made to the garage or for the complete demolition of all improvements made to the garage and return to a permitted state within blank number of days or a fine of blank per day until violation is abated. The respondent must notify the Code Enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good. Would anyone like to fill in the blanks? MR. KAUFMAN: I would like to fill in the blanks, but one quick question. MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: So there is electrical and there is plumbing that has been added? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: Is this a safety and health problem at -- in your estimation? MR. MUCHA: It's hard for me to say. I mean, I didn't see anything that looked really -- you know, I didn't see any, like, loose wires. I mean, everything looked like it was done fairly properly. But, you know, again, I'd like to, you know, have an inspector go in and make that determination. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is this -- just quick question. Is this property in lis pendens or any kind of foreclosure proceedings? MR. MUCHA: No, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Dean? MR. DEAN: I just had one question. This wire hanging down where you can see the refrigerator, is that a wire hanging down loosely? Page 18 January 27, 2011 MR. MUCHA: I'm sorry. Could I-- MR. KAUFMAN: It looks like a chandelier. MR. DEAN: That little, tiny thing. MR. MUCHA: Yeah. That's like for, I think, a fan, just the chain string. MR. DEAN: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Let the record reflect that the investigator said that it looks like a fan pull string. MR. MUCHA: Yeah. There was no, like, hanging wires or anything, I can assure you of that. MR. DEAN: The place looks in good shape. MR. MUCHA: I mean, it looks like it was done fairly well, but, again, it's not for me to call. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to take a shot at filling in the blanks, and what's on my mind as I do this is that the respondent is not here and you have been unable to contact the respondent since November. MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: As far as the 80.57, within 30 days, the 60-- 60 days as far as the time frame or a fine of $200 a day. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We have a motion to accept the county's recommendation with 60 days and $200 per day. Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Marino. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 19 January 27, 2011 MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: So the respondent has 60 days or a fine of $200 per day. MR. MUCHA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. The next case is going to be Omar Raul Garcia. MS. BAKER: And, Mr. Chair, we have four cases for this. One of them was the addition that was Number 18 that we'd like to move in the same place with these cases as well. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Why don't we go ahead and do that now. I need somebody, if they will, to make a motion to amend the agenda to bring Case No. 18 to 5-1, or in this case, the new Number 6, since 6 was withdrawn. MR. KAUFMAN: So moved. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. MS. BAKER: And, Mr. Chair, the testimony will be the same for all four of these cases, so we'd like to do all four at the same time. Page 20 January 27, 2011 The supervisor will address each case but -- as for violation sake, but then the testimony will all be the same. MR. KAUFMAN: Four separate votes -- or five separate votes. MS. BAKER: Right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: No problem. As far as you reading the cases in, do you want to read them all at once or -- I mean, how are we going to admit testimony for each case? MS. BAKER: What we could do is, the Statement of Violation is going to be the same for every single one, except for the description of the violation. So what I can do is read one with -- is that possible or no, Jean? MS. RAWSON: You can, but they're going to have to give me four different orders. MS. BAKER: Right, right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, very good. MS. BAKER: Okay. The four cases are Case CEPM20100018330, Case CENA20100018314, Case CELU20100018294, and Case CESD20100018347. They are in reference -- the first case, Case CEPM20100018330, is violation of ordinance: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22-231(12)(i). Description of violation: Broken windows on the main house. Case CENA201 000 18314, violation of Collier County Code of Laws Chapter 54, Article VI, Section 54-181. Description of violation: Litter consisting of but not limited to buckets, wood pallets, piled yard debris, window screens, coolers, and metal mesh. Case CELU201 000 18294, violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 1.04.01 (A). Description of violation: Unlicensed/inoperable box truck parked/stored on agricultural property. And Case CESD20 1 000 18347, violation of Florida Building January 27, 2011 Code, 2007 Edition, Chapter 1 Permits, Section 105.1 and Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 1 0.02.06(B)(1 )(a). Description of violation: Interior of a CBS barn which was converted to a grow house with extensive electrical alterations, wiring, outlets, electrical panels, air-conditioning units, irrigation systems, and partition walls with no Collier County permits. Location/address where violation exists: 10651 Greenway Road, Naples, Florida, 34114. Folio 738120003. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Omar Raul Garcia, 10651 Greenway Road, Naples, Florida, 34114. Date violation first observed: September 8, 2010. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: September 14, 2010. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: September 28, 2010. Date of reinspection: October 15, 2010. Results of reinspection is that the violation remains. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. PEREZ: Good morning. For the record, Code Enforcement Supervisor Christina Perez. This case is in reference to -- and I'm going to say each case and then what the violation was. This case in reference to Case No. CEPM20100018330 dealing with violations of broken windows in the main residence; Case No. CENA20 1 000 18314 dealing with violations of litter consisting of but not limited to buckets, wooden pallets, piled yard debris, window screens, coolers, metal mesh; Case No. CELU20100018294, violations, an unlicensed/inoperable box truck parked/stored on agricultural property; and Case No. CESD20100018347 dealing with violations of interior of concrete blocks structure, barn, which was converted to a grow house with extensive electrical alterations, wiring, Page 22 January 27, 2011 outlets, electrical panels, air-conditioning units, irrigation system, and partition walls with no Collier County permits. Service was given on September 14,2010. Notice was posted at property and courthouse. And I'd like to present case evidence in the following exhibits. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make the motion to accept. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And let the record reflect that the evidence presented is for all four cases. MS. PEREZ: This case was initiated on September 9,2010. I received a phone call from the Collier County Sheriffs Office that they had received a search warrant to enter the premises. Upon arrival, they found the grow house. During our observation, we observed extensive work was done to this property. The pictures that you have before you is a box truck that had flat tires, that was unlicensed. We attempted to contact the phone number that you see on that truck, and it has been disconnected. The notices were posted on September 14, 2010, at the property in question. Research was done to attempt to locate the property Page 23 January 27, 2011 owner, with no luck. Numerous notices were posted on the property, both in English and Spanish, to attempt to contact us to resolve the code cases. I conducted a site visit yesterday. The gate was locked and closed. I was able to still access some of the photos that you have before you. On the second photo you can see -- through the vegetation, you can still see the image of the white box truck that's still on the property, and no further contact was -- no contact was ever made with the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Supervisor, I was under the assumption that we were getting all the pictures at once. MS. PEREZ: Okay, yeah. I'm going to pass them. Sorry. I'll pass them along to you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is the respondent possibly in jail? MS. PEREZ: The people that were apprehended on the property did not match the same name as the property owner. It was different people. MR. LEFEBVRE: Can you repeat? MS. PEREZ: The report that was in the newspaper for the people that were apprehended on the property on that day, none of them matched the same property owner, so it wasn't Mr. Garcia that had been apprehended that day on the property. The photos that are before you now is in reference to the case with the barn that was permitted and was CO' ed, but there was no electrical in that original permit. So the issue wasn't with the structure itself; it was just with the alterations that were done for the operation that was being done inside the unit, that structure. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we also have a copy of the photos for the court reporter for later? MS. BAKER: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: Do you have a picture of the broken window? Page 24 January 27, 2011 MS. PEREZ: I do. Because of the gate being closed when we were doing the follow-up, I was unable to enter the property and take more pictures of the rest of the windows. But if you can see, the first photo was from the original site visit, and then the photo behind is a photo that was taken yesterday of another window that I was able to see from the roadside with the window still broken. So there's possibly multiple windows that are broken now on the house. MR. KAUFMAN: Can I make a motion? CHAIRMAN KELLY: I think we have -- do we have one more to talk about, or is this all of them? MS. PEREZ: We talked about the vehicle, the litter, the windows, and then the alterations to that building. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We just don't have any pictures of the alterations? MS. PEREZ: It was the big packet that has CESD201018347. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is that the one that showed all the wiring and everything? MS. PEREZ: Yes. That showed all the electrical wiring that was done. MR. KAUFMAN: The boxes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sorry. MS. PEREZ: And you can see some of the partition walls that were -- that were added in there. The transformers. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sorry. It skipped right by me. Got it. Go ahead. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that Case CEPM20100018330, we find the respondent in violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? Page 25 January 27, 2011 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. KAUFMAN: The second one would be CENA20100018314 (sic). I'd like to move that we find that also is in violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELL Y: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries. MR. KAUFMAN: On Case CELU20100018294, that we find that also in violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? Page 26 January 27, 2011 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries. MR. KAUFMAN: And finally, in Case CESD20100018347, that we find that also in violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: And is there a fifth case also? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just the four. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just four, okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I need a second. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second, yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Okay. Does the county have a recommendation? Page 27 January 27, 2011 MS. PEREZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And would this be the same -- sorry. Would this be the same for each one? MS. PEREZ: No. I'll say the case number, recommendation, let you guys make your decision, and then we'll move on to the next one, if that works for you. Case No. CEPM20100018330, the county recommends that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount f $80.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by applying for and obtaining a Collier County building permit to replace broken windows, request all related inspections through to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy/Completion if applicable, or apply for a -- or apply for and obtaining a Collier County boarding certificate to include a detailed plan of rehabilitation and completing the boarding within blank amount of days of this hearing, or a fine of blank amount of dollars will be imposed until the violation is abated. Number two, if the -- the respondent must notify the Code Enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have somebody who'd like to fill in the blanks? MR. KAUFMAN: I'll try. 80.29 as mentioned within 30 days, $250-a-day fine after 30 days. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We have a motion to accept the county's recommendation, 30-day time frame or a $250-per-day fine. Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. Page 28 January 27, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Next one? MS. PEREZ: Case No. CENA20100018314, county recommends that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay operational costs in the amount of$80.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by removing all litter from the property to a site intended for final disposal or store items of value in an enclosed structure within X amount of days of this hearing, or a fine of X amount will be imposed -- per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Two, the respondent must notify Code Enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. KAUFMAN: I'll take a shot at that as well. 80.29 is the-- needs to be paid within 30 days, the fine -- the litter should be abated Page 29 January 27, 2011 also within 30 days, or a fine of $250 a day. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We have a motion -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- to accept. We have a second. All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Next. MS. PEREZ: CELU20100018294, county recommends that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$80.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by obtaining or fixing a valid license plate and repair defects so the vehicle is operable or store within a completely enclosed building or removed from the property within X amount of days of this hearing, or a fine of X amount per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Two, the respondent must notify the Code Enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would anyone like to take a stab at this Page 30 January 27, 2011 one? MR. KAUFMAN: I'm on a roll. I'd like to make a motion the 80.29 be paid within 30 days, the truck needs to be removed within 30 days or a fine of $250 a day after that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Ron. Any discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. MS. PEREZ: The last case, CESD20100018347, the county recommends that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $80.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by, one, applying for and obtaining a Collier County building permit or demolition permit for the described and permitted alterations, request all related inspections through to issuance of Certificate of Completion within X amount of days of this hearing or a fine of X amount per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Two, the respondent must notify the Code Enforcement Page 31 January 27, 2011 investigator when the violations have been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. KAUFMAN: I have one question. MS. PEREZ: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: Is this house secure? MS. PEREZ: There is a gate that surrounds the entire property. The doors do appear to be closed, from what I can see from the driveway. Just the windows that have, you know, the broken glass. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. I'd like to make a motion that the 80.29 be paid within 30 days, and the fine of $500 a day after 30 days. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Marino. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. MS. PEREZ: Thank you. Page 32 January 27, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. I have all four of these, Jen, and they're paired with the pictures. Okay. Next case, Case No.8, Audubon Center of Naples, LLC. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to Case CEDS20100006494, violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 1 0.02.06(B)(1 )(a), 1 0.02.06(B)(I)( e), and 1 0.02.06(B)(I)( e )(i). Description of violation: Interior door that was installed that required breaking down that portion of firewall to create an opening to combine Units 110 and 111 without first obtaining proper Collier County permits. Location/address where violation exists: 15495 Tamiami Trail North, Naples, Florida, 34110. Folio 22493000129. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Audubon Center of Naples, LLC, care of registered agent Fred F. Pezeshkan, 3530 Kraft Road, Suite 300, Naples, Florida, 34105. Date violation first observed: June 30, 2010. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: October 13,2010. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: October 28, 2010. Date of reinspection: November 1, 2010. Results of reinspection: No permits have been issued. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Before we go any further, could we get your names for the record, please? MR. DELGADO: Sure. My name's Frank Delgado. I'm with Summit Management Group of Naples. We're the management company responsible to take care of the Audubon Center of Naples. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And, sir? MR. MOYER: My name is Jim Moyer. I'm with Florida Built Right. I'm a certified building contractor. Page 33 January 27, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. Jean, they're not the registered agents. MS. RAWSON: No, nor are -- they're not listed on the sheet, so I guess we need to get some testimony from them that they have the authority to appear on behalf of Audubon Center. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Typically that's written. MS. RAWSON: Typically it is, so-- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you have -- sorry. MS. RAWSON: If they don't have anything in writing, you have each of them testify, and then you guys decide. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Do you have anything in writing? MR. DELGADO: I didn't bring anything in writing, or I would have. We are a contracting management company that has been managing that facility for the last three years anyways. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Do we need to swear them in first? CHAIRMAN KELLY: We did. We did swear them in. But typically we'll allow the testimony just by you stating that you have been granted permission by the owner. We just don't like to leave any loopholes -- MR. DELGADO: I understand. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- for later. Okay, great. Thank you. MR. DELGADO: Sure. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator-- MR. MUSSE: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Jonathan Musse, Collier County Code Enforcement. I would now like to present the case evidence in the following exhibits: One picture that was taken on August 23, 2010, and another photo that was taken on January 26, 2011. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept. MR. DEAN: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well-- MR. LEFEBVRE: Second -- I'll second. Page 34 January 27, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Motion by Mr. Dean, seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Motion carries. MR. MUSSE: This case originally came from an occupational license complaint that was called in by Fire Marshal Robert Berman. It stated that he observed a firewall that was -- separated Units 110 and 111, was taken down to expand the club. No permits have been obtained for this job. I then spoke with Kambiz Buzz Zand (phonetic), the property manager, explained the violation, and informed him a permit was needed for the installation of the door. Continued to conduct regular inspections with no change in the violation. On July 26, 2010, was able to get in contact with one of the owners of Ultra Night Club, David Edenfield. He informed me that he hired a contractor to pull the permit and make sure that it receives all the necessary inspections. On August 19,2010, Supervisor Capasso and I met with Otto (phonetic), the contractor. He explained that he met up with Gary Harrison, chief inspector, and he gave him step-by -step instructions on to -- how to obtain the permit. Page 35 January 27, 2011 Otto also informed us that he will be meeting with the engineer on either Friday or Saturday to complete the engineer drawings. Numerous rechecks have been conducted. No permits have been issued. Prepared case to appear before the Code Enforcement Board. Received a call from Mr. Frank Delgado from Summit Management on January 24,2011. He informed me that he removed the door and replaced the firewall back to its original settings. But, unfortunately, no permits have been issued. I informed him that he would still need to obtain a permit for the newly constructed firewall. As of yesterday, January 26, 2011, violation remains. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator, the only issue here is the fact that they cut a hole in firewall and put a door, that's correct? MR. MUSSE: And then they restored it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And now it's been restored? MR. MUSSE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And what we need is an investigator -- I'm sorry, an inspector to verify that what it was restored with is still fireproofing and properly installed? MR. MUSSE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I understand. Okay, great. Okay. Gentlemen, if we could just have you state for the record that you were given permission by the owner to speak on his or her behalf, and then if you also explain what you've done to this point so we can take that into consideration. MR. DELGADO: I have been given to permission to speak on behalf of Audubon Center of Naples, LLC. This obviously was a tenant-driven issue, and we've done as much due diligence as we can to force them to comply, failing to do so. I would also like to -- we took steps to put the door back to its -- or put the wall back to its original condition. F or the record, the tenant also is the full occupant of both sides of this existing wall. So at present, it technically doesn't actually need to Page 36 January 27, 2011 be fire rated, as -- if it's one tenant. But regardless, we put it back. I hired a regular contractor, licensed GC, to do that work for me, which was just recently done to somewhat avoid having to come here to do -- through this to take this off the tenant, because they weren't responding. And we're willing to do whatever is needed to finish this process for the board. I just need some instruction on what to do. The wall is back to its former state, so -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Since you've already been sworn in, would you like to testify as to the work that was completed, and we can add that. MR. MOYER: The work that was completed that was -- it's a wall that is constructed with metal studs, and there was three layers of five-eighths on one side and one layer of five-eighths on the other side is how we reconstructed the wall to make it flush with what it was. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And that's consistent with the amount of time necessary to stay fire-rated approval, if you will? MR. MOYER: That existing wall now would be a four-hour wall, and it's only required to be a one-hour wall. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oh, good. Thank you, sir. Do we have any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: I have one question. You mentioned that since the tenant occupies both sides that a firewall is not required? MR. MOYER: That's correct. That is correct. In between tenant separation -- the only time that a firewall separation is determined to be feasible is when it's two separate tenants. When it's the same tenant, we could take that whole wall down and it wouldn't matter to the fire department. They would still be the same. MR. KAUFMAN: Has this been run through the fire department to verify that everybody's playing from the same page? MR. MUSSE: I'm sorry. MR. KAUFMAN: Is that what you understood the law to be? Page 37 January 27, 2011 MR. MUSSE: Basically -- well, especially since this is a commercial building, it still requires a permit for the removal of the wall. They can expand -- like they have an occupational license which covers both units. But since the wall was in place, a demolition permit would have to be pulled and get inspected. MR. DELGADO: I think because it was an existing fire-rated wall at some point in the past, so they want to know the changes on record. So whatever needs to happen, we're fine with it. We just want to know what you'd like us to do now. MR. KAUFMAN: And that tenant had that property from the beginning? MR. DELGADO: Before this occurred, yes. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I believe what the investigator is saying is, you probably could have left the door if we'd had, you know, the fire inspector take a look at it, and the building department also look at it through the permitting process. MR. DELGADO: Which is what we demanded. This door has not been approved by the landlord, nor was it requested, nor were plans given to us as well. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. DELGADO: So we've been just assisting Code Enforcement to try to get this to comply. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Well, our procedure here today, since we've been presented the case, is to decide whether or not a violation either exists today or at one time did exist. So we'll take that step. And then the next thing is to decide, of course, a corrective action. The action's probably already been corrected; however, from the county's standpoint, nobody's really verified that yet. So given the testimony, I'll entertain a motion as to whether or not a violation exists. Page 38 January 27, 2011 MR. LEFEBVRE: I just have a -- I guess a comment prior to finding a violation or not. I'm just a little bit, I guess, dismayed that a licensed contractor has gone in and corrected this knowing that a permit should have been pulled. So that's just one of my -- my one comment. But I do feel that a violation has been -- has occurred. If it's been corrected, then fine. So I make a motion that a violation does occur-- or has occurred. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. MR. MOYER: Can I address that issue about being a licensed general contractor without pulling a permit? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Please. MR. MOYER: The only time that I'd have to pull a permit in that firewall when it's the same tenant that is in -- that's on both sides is if it affected life safety, fire -- which it didn't because the same tenant occupied both spaces -- it affected electrical or plumbing. And through that door, there was no electrical or plumbing running through that door. So a permit was not required to replace what I did. CHAIRMAN KELLY: It's a gray area, because Florida Building Page 39 January 27, 2011 Code does specify that all constructive improvements to any dwelling of real property requires a permit. Our county is laxed, and so is Lee County, as to, you know, dollar amounts. But I think you're both right. It's one of those gray areas. So-- MR. MOYER: Well, I just want to make sure that -- I wouldn't do anything without -- knowing it needed a permit, I would have pulled one. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I appreciate that. And your comment was absolutely noted, and I don't think the comment was meant in any derogatory way towards you personally. MR. MOYER: Good. CHAIRMAN KELLY: In that case, since the violation has already been taken care of, does the county have a recommendation as far as getting this closed out and verified and inspected? MR. MUSSE: Yes, sir. The county recommends that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $82 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violation by obtaining -- and I -- you guys got a different copy, so I'm going to update it a little bit -- obtaining a Collier County building permit for the firewall that's been in place, and obtain all inspections and Certificate of Completion within X amount of days of this hearing, or a fine of X amount of dollars per day will be imposed until violation's abated, or obtaining a Collier County demolition permit inspection/Certification of Completion within X amount of days of this hearing or a fine of X amount of dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator, hang on. Did you get that? Okay. It was a little fast. MR. MUSSE: Sorry. 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 Page 40 January 27, 2011 abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Would somebody like to-- MR. LEFEBVRE: I can't agree with this motion if, in fact, a permit is not needed. How are you going to have someone go out and inspect the property if a permit's not needed? MR. MUSSE: To my understanding a permit is needed in any kind of changes in commercial buildings like that -- of that magnitude with a firewall. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Jeff, you need to be sworn in. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. As is stated, it's the same tenant right now on both sides of that wall; however, in the future how are we going to decide whether a new tenant's going to go in one side, a new tenant's going to go on the other side? We're just here to make sure firewall is safe so in the future we don't have -- we don't have a situation. I think -- and I'm not an expert on this permit, that Collier County would like to go in there and have an inspector, and also the fire department would like to have an inspector go in there and inspect this wall. I'm of the opinion they do need to get a permit for this. MR. KAUFMAN: One quick comment. If the tenant owns -- or is using and has the right to both sides, that wall is not a firewall. It's a wall -- MR. DELGADO: That's correct. MR. KAUFMAN: -- is that correct? MR. LETOURNEAU: I would agree with that; however, even if they were to remove that wall, they would still need to get a demolition permit from Collier County and have that inspected. But as of right now, like I said, we don't know what's going to Page 41 January 27, 2011 happen in the future one way or the other. They put a door in there without a permit. They replaced it without a permit. That building is originally permitted with that firewall in there. One way or another, they need to get a permit so Collier County can come down there and make sure what they're doing is in a permitted condition. MR. KAUFMAN: I guess where I'm confused is, you have a wall. If you have two separate tenants in there, it's a firewall. If you have one tenant that has the right to both sides, it's not a firewall. MR. MOYER: That's correct. MR. KAUFMAN: So if it's not a firewall and you put a door in between the two locations, that construction in a commercial property requires or does not require a building permit. Is that where we are? MR. LETOURNEAU: I'm not sure -- that's the first I've ever heard about the same tenant being in there with the one firewall. I'm not -- you know, we just went in there at the request of the fire marshal who stated that he wasn't -- he wasn't happy about what was going on there. I'm not sure about the tenant rule myself. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I think now, if I could, it's elevated to the point where Code Enforcement's involved, and we do need to have some kind of oversight in order to verify just that the work was done. I think that's what it boils down to. And I agree with the supervisor in that, you know, the building was permitted originally one way. If there were alterations made to it, there probably should be a permit. And I also agree with the fact that if at a later date the owner decides to lease those units out to two different people, it's probably a good idea to have that inspected just in case. I'd hate to see any of this -- God forbid, a fire, and come back on any of us. MR. LETOURNEAU: Could we modify the recommendation, just one word, by putting obtaining all required Collier County building permits, so if we get notification from the fire department and our planning department that they don't require a building permit, then Page 42 January 27, 2011 we'd be good to go at that point right there. Because, to be honest, I don't know about the tenant rule at this point. MR. KAUFMAN: My concern is that the wording in the violation specifies "firewall." If it's not a firewall, then this would have to be, I would think, modified. So what is an easy way of putting this so -- where everybody can agree? Is it just getting somebody out there from the Building Department to take a look at the work that was done without the requirement of pulling a building permit? MS. FLAGG: I believe the issue is that the fire marshal's concerned because it was a firewall when the wall was intact, and the wall was re- -- a portion of the wall was removed. So this request is coming from the fire marshal. And they can work with the Building Department, but they're satisfying a request. The fire marshal has a concern. MR. MARINO: I have a question. Wouldn't the fire marshal, knowing that both spots were occupied by the same tenant -- would that make it a firewall? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, perhaps the fire marshal is telling us something here. Maybe ifhe raised a red flag on this, maybe there's a good reason for it. And I agree with the supervisor, perhaps we should change the wording on the recommendation to just simply say, "Any required permits and/or inspections." MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. And if we get notification from, like I said, the powers that be, the Planning Department, Permitting Department, and fire marshal saying that everything's good to go, that would cover that -- that would cover that with that one word in there. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You might not need a permit. You -- MR. DELGADO: Well, that's my question, is that possibly a fire inspection will satisfy that department, and if they need Jim present to verify what construction was done at the time or -- whatever we need Page 43 January 27, 2011 to do to comply, I'm, again, more than happy to help. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That could be just it. So if that's okay with everybody, if you'd like, we'll amend that motion. Did you make it? I'm sorry. MR. LEFEBVRE: I didn't make the motion. MR. KAUFMAN: Who made the -- it wasn't me. MR. LEFEBVRE: I made the initial motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oh, that's what it was. Okay. And then you were going to -- or you just had a question. MR. KAUFMAN: I seconded that motion, that's it. Then there were just questions. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: You talking about the violation? MR. KAUFMAN: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: But that was already approved, right? Now we're on recommendation? MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. We haven't made any motions. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Well, does somebody want to make a motion? MR. KAUFMAN: Well, I'll make the motion that we accept your change of the wording that you have in there, and $100 a day after 60 days should be sufficient to get this thing resolved. If it's not, come back to the board. So filling in the blanks, it would be, what is it, $82 for the cost, court costs? MR. LEFEBVRE: That's what he'd said. MR. MUSSE: Yep. MR. KAUFMAN: So it's $82, 60 days, $100 a day after 60 days to get this resolved. MR. LEFEBVRE: Eighty-two within 30 days. MR. KAUFMAN: Thirty days, correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a Page 44 January 27, 2011 second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, it carries. MR. DELGADO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Gentlemen, thanks for trying to get it resolved without having to go through all this. But it's like, once it reaches our level, we have to take care of it. MR. DELGADO: No problem. Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Next case would be Patton Avenue Holdings, LLC, Case No.9. Is the respondent here? (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to Case CESD20100003342, violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 1 0.02.06(B)(I)( a), 1 0.02.06(B)(I)( e), and 1 0.02.06(B)(I)( e )(i). Description of violation: An injector sewer pump installed without first obtaining proper Collier County permits. Location/address where violation exists: 10295 Tamiami Trail Page 45 January 27, 2011 North, Naples, Florida, 34108. Folio 62651120005. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Patton Avenue Holdings, LLC, 8720 Bay Colony Drive, Apartment No. 301, Naples, Florida, 34108. Date violation first observed: March 10, 2010. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: April 27, 2010. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: May 26, 2010. Date of reinspection: November 22, 2010. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator? MR. MUSSE: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Jonathan Musse, Collier County Code Enforcement. I would now like to present the case evidence in the following exhibits: Four photos that were taken on March 10, 2010, in aerial ( sic) location of the area of -- a photo of the location, and a copy of Permit No. 2005031857. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'll entertain a motion. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibits. MR. DEAN: Second. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I think this one actually came first on this one, Gerald. Mr. Dean seconded. MR. KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen the exhibits? MR. MINER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All of those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 46 January 27, 2011 MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries. MR. MUSSE: On March 10,2010, I received a complaint from Gregory Yanda, pre-treatment inspector of Collier County Water Reclamation Laboratory, stating that an injector pump has been installed and appears not to be up to code and possibly not permitted. Conducted a site inspection and met with Mr. Yanda and Mike Andresky of Utility Enforcement. Spoke to the property owner of K wik Pick, Rafael Esteves. He informed me that when the sewer backs up, the toilet flange starts to leak. I also spoke with the owner of Sasobravo (phonetic), Jose Myers. He informed me that when he bought -- he just bought the business and -- from the previous owner about three weeks ago and did witness a contractor installed an injector pump to help with the flow of the sewage. Was able to get a -- was able to get in contact with Bruce Miner of Cameron Realty, who is the property manager for this plaza. Mr. Miner stated that he hired Sunwest Plumbing recently to replace an injector pump. Checked CD Plus. No permits was issued. At this time I would like to introduce Gregory Yanda, pre-treatment inspector, so that he can give you more insight and details of the violation. MR. YANDA: Good morning. My name's Greg Yanda. I work for Collier County Utilities as a pre-treatment inspector. Today what we've got here is a situation that goes back for quite some time. To tell you the history at this location, there had been quite a few sewer backups and some permitting issues. And through Page 47 January 27, 2011 the years I was trying to get the tenant into compliance. At one point we thought that we had them into compliance by installing a grease trap. Got a picture here that shows that the grease trap wasn't installed properly. You can see here that -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sir, hang on one second. Mr. Musse, did you intend this to be a part of your original packet? Because we haven't voted on it just yet. MR. MUSSE: Yes, I do. MR. YANDA: It shows here that the grease trap, the outlet T was installed at the wrong elevation. And I believe at a later date the correction has been made and -- in completion of that altercation or, rather, correction. There's still outstanding problems that the grease trap is creating. Somewhere after this point an injector pit was installed, I believe, to correct the problem. And at this point, the problem still exists. There has been previous backups, and one of the main objectives that we're trying to get today is that this injector pit that has been installed, that it has been permitted, and that -- in the future that it's functioning properly. MR. KAUFMAN: You're saying that it was permitted? MR. YANDA: No. Well, at this point, there has been no proof that it has been permitted. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Is there anything further from the county? MR. MUSSE: Conducted a -- numerous checks, and finally received an email from Mr. Miner. He stated that the injector pump was included in that Permit No. 2005301857. I then pulled the permit, looked at the plans and drawings, and did not find any mention of the grease trap in that permit. Conducted a prehearing inspection yesterday, January 26, 2011. Violation remains. Page 48 January 27, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Anything further? MR. MUSSE: No, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: I have two questions. In our packet part of your evidence, you have two diagrams. One is just general plumbing diagram. The other one is also a diagram of that area and also shows a picture of this grease trap. Do you know when these were submitted? Are they part of the original permit, or are they a supplement? MR. MUSSE: They're part of the original permit. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great. Thank you, sir. Good morning. MR. MINER: Good morning. My name, for the record, is Bruce Miner. I'm with Cameron Real Estate Services, and I'm here on behalf of the owner, Patton Holdings. We're the property manager and have been for about four years or five years for that particular property. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If I could, if you would just state for the record that the owner did, in fact, give you authority to speak on their behalf today. MR. MINER: Yes, sir, he did. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great. Thank you. So what we'd like to do is get your side of the story, if you will, and tell us maybe a little bit of background, anything that differs, of course, from what county might have said and where we are today. MR. MINER: Well, originally I received a phone call from Mr. Musse, who was on site at the time so -- and, you know, he asked me when we could get together to discuss the issue. So I told him I'd be -- I'd come right over. So I went over there, and at the time I arrived there, it was about -- there were four Collier County trucks and about six Collier County employees. And I figure we had some issues here. Page 49 January 27, 2011 So they indicated that they had gotten a complaint that there were sewer backups and had pointed to the -- in the grease trap as being the culprit in the -- at least my understanding was -- being the culprit in the grease -- I mean the restroom backups. Consequently I spoke to the new owner of the restaurant and -- who had, in fact, just purchased the restaurant about three weeks prior to them coming on scene. There were a few other violations that were corrected by the restaurateur. And I then contacted the original owner of the restaurant who had installed the grease traps along with other interior renovations, and was told by Mr. Musse that the -- that the grease trap had not been permitted. He was unable to find a permit at the county. When I spoke with the previous restaurateur, he had assured me that that had been part of the repairs in the interior renovations and that it had, in fact, been inspected. So I went down to the county myself and was able to locate a permit. Now, when you bring the permits up on the screen, they're truncated if they're quite involved. So knowing about the time frame, I asked them to retrieve one of the permits which include -- did have a permit for the grease trap. And I just -- I turned that over to -- actually I'd emailed it to Mr. Musse, but I just turned it over to them this morning -- which said that the grease trap had been permitted and inspected. The response I got was that, okay, the grease trap has been permitted, but the injector pump has not. Well, my reference to Southwest Plumbing doing a repair or putting an injector pump in, the injector pump was, in fact, in there at that time. He did a repair on the injector pump because it had failed which, I think, was causing the grease to get down into the cleanout where they had -- had the feeling that it was getting into the -- into the system, the Collier County system. It's my understanding and -- that the -- that the plumbing for the Page 50 January 27, 2011 bathrooms does not exit on that end of the building and actually exits on 41. And the reason I found that out was because I got some calls from the tenants saying that their plumbing was backing up. I called Acres Plumbing in to do a -- to find out what was going on. They camera' ed the line and, in fact, the -- all the bathrooms exit onto the 41 side of the building. Now, what had happened was, the -- there's also a grease trap on that end of the building for another restaurant in there. And I believe when that company came in to pump that grease trap out, they ran over the cleanout, the PVC cleanout, and they crushed the pipe below -- about five feet below the ground. So Acres Plumbing had to go in and actually dig up that pipe and do the repair, and that resolved all my problems with the -- with the restrooms in the property. Getting back to the grease traps, on the grease trap side, I did produce the permit that said it, in fact, was permitted and approved, and -- but there was no indication on the permit that there was an injector pump approved. I find out this morning that it wouldn't have been approved because it's -- it's not even a part of the code, so they would never have approved that. I contacted the Edgewater Builders, Incorporated, who is the company that did the renovations in the property and asked him if he remembered the job, which he, in fact, did. And this morning -- when I got up, I checked my email, and he had sent me a letter indicating that he was there and present during the inspection, including the injector pump. And he sent me an email, which I have here. And I'd like to pass that in for-- CHAIRMAN KELLY: You're absolutely allowed to. If you will, show it to county real quick so that they can approve it. MR. MUSSE: I've already seen it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oh, you're okay? MR. MUSSE: Yeah. Page 51 January 27, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: In that case, I'll entertain a motion. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibit. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Marino. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: So basically what you're saying, then, is as part of the original permit, you would simply permit for a grease trap. The injector pump would be part of that assembly and not necessarily be line-itemed on any permit. MR. MINER: That's what I'm indicating. And according to a discussion out in the hall here previous, it's my understanding that grease pump would not have functioned without that injector pump. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And then, furthermore, you did also say that although it was originally part of the permit, originally approved with the permit, that it had malfunctioned since and it was needed -- and it needed to be replaced. MR. MINER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I believe county would probably want a permit on that replacement. MR. MINER: Well, that was -- that was one of my requests with Page 52 January 27, 2011 the company that did the replacement, because I'm cognizant, being a property manager, of permits. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sure. MR. MITCHELL: So I asked him if, in fact, a permit was required, and he said, no, because it's existing equipment and it wasn't needed. So that's what I was told, and that's what I went with. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: You're beyond my knowledge. I only know that A/C units or roofs need to be permitted on replacement. What about grease traps and injector pumps? MR. MUSSE: Well, there's no question that the grease trap was already permitted. It passed inspections and CO's. The only thing is that my -- my gut feeling is that when this permit was CO' ed, a grease trap -- or an inj ector pump was never even installed. It was installed after the inspection and the permit was CO'ed to assist flow of the sewage. MR. KAUFMAN: May I ask? Has everything been resolved? MR. MUSSE: No, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: As far as the actual-- is the sewage backing up at all anymore? MR. MINER: That, in my opinion, was a totally different issue on the other end of the building, but that has been resolved, the sewer backup. MR. KAUFMAN: Are there any more complaints from any of the people involved in this? MR. MUSSE: There has been more issues after this -- the first initial complaint that Mr. Yanda can go into detail. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Also, just be cognizant that we are kind of limited to the scope based on the charging documents, which refer to a permit of this particular pump, sewer pump, injector sewer pump. So anything outside of that really is almost, you know, not related. MR. YANDA: Correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Page 53 January 27, 2011 MR. YANDA: Today what we would like to resolve is, if there has been a permit for the injector pit and only their injector pit, produce it -- and a recommendation that if there's not a permit valid to date, that -- try to get one obtained. And if not, Code Enforcement would have to take steps from there. And what those steps are is possibly removal of their injector pit and so forth. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. LETOURNEAU: I'd just like to ask Mr. Yanda a couple questions. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just real quick, for the record, your name. MR. LETOURNEAU: Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. Mr. Yanda, have you had a chance to look at the original permit with the grease trap involved? MR. YANDA: Yes. MR. LETOURNEAU: Did you see any -- anything on that permit that showed the injector pump as part of that permit? MR. YANDA: No. MR. LETOURNEAU: In your experience, do you know if an injector pump like that is permittable in Collier County? MR. YANDA: Of that type right there, it would have to go through -- it would have to go through permitting. I could look at our records as far as our utility standard manual. We have details of what an injector pit should look like. It is possible that it could have been permitted. But what it comes down to is, we're looking for a permit to see if it is -- not just permitted, but inspected along with -- with it being permitted. And-- excuse me, one more thing. And along with that is the assurance that their pit was installed properly. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Can I ask a layman's question to the expert? If I pulled a permit to get an air-conditioning unit, I wouldn't Page 54 January 27, 2011 need a separate permit to also get the air handler, because they come together, right? Is there a separate permit for injector pumps and yet another one for grease traps, or are they listed separate on a master permit in any way? MR. YANDA: I don't know if there would be two separate permits. But on the original prints or the documentation that was produced to the county to install their original grease trap, there should have been some notification on it, a sketch, a detail, something showing that, hey, these are our intentions to install this contraption. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I understand what you're saying. The only thing I can point to is when Investigator Musse was originally presenting, I asked about these documents, and he said, yes, both diagrams are part of it. It doesn't show an injector pump, but it does show a kind of at-large view of the grease trap. And I guess what the board is trying to wrestle with is, is the injector pump just a simple product of the whole grease trap itself? MR. YANDA: No, no. An injector pit is in -- nowhere close to being any component of a grease trap. I inspect, I would say, about 650 different locations here in Collier County, and there's not one location that has an injector pit hooked up with a grease trap. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. YANDA: And don't quote me on this, but there's something else that should be looked into. To the best of my knowledge, a device like this should be permitted through the Health Department and the DEP, because knowing firsthand that all private lift stations that are out there amongst the Collier County sewer system, these private lift stations injector pits are permitted through the Health Department and the DEP. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And then last question. We have a few pictures that were taken by the investigator showing exposed wiring and, you know, some alterations that seem to be relatively new.R Page 55 January 27, 2011 Would this type of construction be consistent with something that would pass an inspection if a permit was pulled? MR. YANDA: That -- I personally don't inspect injector pits. By looking at it, it would have to be -- the lid of it would have to be opened and the contents inspected, which I believe I'm capable of doing. I would need approval from my supervisors to go to that extent. But even that in itself is a gray area, because it's private property, okay. Collier County's responsibility, even though that -- we inspect the grease traps that are private property, our responsibility stops at the 6-inch cleanout that's out by the street, so -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: These pictures here -- and I think Mr. Kelly, Chairman Kelly, might have alluded to it. Is this indicative -- this is the injector pump, correct? These pictures here, showing the white piping and so forth, PVC piping. MR. YANDA: That's a wooden cover that they made for the injector pit itself. Below that is, more than likely, a pump that services that line. MR. LEFEBVRE: But what I'm saying, the plumbing, the pipes, the PVC piping, would be part of the pump, correct? MR. YANDA: Can I see which picture you're looking at? MR. LEFEBVRE: The four pictures. CHAIRMAN KELLY: It looks like a grease trap for airflow maybe? MR. YANDA: That is -- yes. That's exactly what it is. That's a vent. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: The reason I ask is because those -- those pipes look like they're fairly recent. MR. YANDA: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: There doesn't appear to be any kind of dirt Page 56 January 27, 2011 from rain or anything kicked up on it. The glue around the pipes looks very new. I mean, typically that stuff does fade over time. MR. YANDA: I agree. MR. LEFEBVRE: So I think that that looks very new. Maybe when the new tenant moved in he had it installed realizing that there was an issue. But it does look very recent. You know, the wood doesn't look, you know, extremely recent, but the piping definitely does look recent. So I'm a little suspect that it's been there since 2005. It doesn't look like since 2005 to me. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sir, what we're trying to determine -- and if you have any further input, please, I would suggest you add. We're trying to determine whether or not a permit is needed, because that would be basically the entire premise of the violation to begin with. MR. MINER: The only thing that I would point to would be the letter from the builder who pulled the permit in the first place indicating that, in fact, the injector pump was there and was inspected at the same time. Now, I do know that when Southwest went in there to do the work on the pump, that he had to do some replumbing because there was damage, and this is what was causing the grease out by the county line in the cleanout. And that's the whole issue here, I understand, is the grease getting into the county line. And previous restauranteur, not being as diligent as he may have been in keeping that pump clean when they determined that that lift station was there -- and, here again, been told this morning that that grease trap would not function without that injector pump. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Does anyone else have any questions? MR. LEFEBVRE: I guess, you know, you allude to two different companies going out there, Southwest and Acres. When was Southwest out there, when was Acres out there? MR. MINER: Excuse me. Acres had nothing to do with the Page 57 January 27, 2011 grease trap. Acres was strictly on the backup for the sewer, which was the initial complaint, which was taken care of on the other end of the property . MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. MINER: Southwest Florida was a company that that previous restauranteur had, in fact, utilized to do repairs. MR. LEFEBVRE: When? When? I mean, the question is, did they -- did they put the new injector in? Was it Southwest? MR. MINER: No. They replaced it because it was -- wasn't functioning. MR. LEFEBVRE: That's what I said, put the new injection in. MR. MINER: Yes. They put -- I thought you meant the original one; 12/1/2008 was when they were out there. MR. LEFEBVRE: So that was -- MR. MINER: Just about three months prior to this. MR. LEFEBVRE: What year? MR. MINER: 2008. MR. MARINO: Two years ago. MR. KAUFMAN: According to the letter that you got this morning, it said that the -- it says, pertaining to Permit No. 2005-. So it looks like the grease pit was installed, the grease trap was installed sometime in 2005. MR. MINER: That's correct. MR. KAUFMAN: And if we had a copy of that permit-- MR. MINER: I turned it in this morning. MR. KAUFMAN: Does that show the pump? MR. MUSSE: I have a copy of the permit with inspection history. Is that in your packet or no? It is, okay. And then the drawings, which I tried to minimize it as much as possible. I don't know, maybe you would like to -- can submit this also into evidence as well. I don't believe he saw it. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. Page 58 January 27, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is that okay with you, sir? MR. MINER: Sure. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: We do have the permit record here, at least a copy of CD Plus's version of it. There was quite a few failed inspections, and -- it's kind of a mess to begin with. MR. LEFEBVRE: Chairman Kelly? CHAIRMAN KELLY : Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: Would it be best to maybe put this case off to next month to see if we can get the full permit that -- is there -- is there where it spells out exactly what components are part of the permit? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, can I dovetail on that? Because I'm -- I agree with you. Because even if we found in the beginning that there was an injector pump installed, maybe this new change-out required a permit anyways, you know. And I'd like to know that. I mean, does a change-out require a permit, and if that's the case, then it's kind of a -- it's kind of a done deal, because we have testimony admitting to the fact that there was a change-out. MR. LEFEBVRE: I don't think we have enough evidence to Page 59 January 27, 2011 make a decision if there was a permit, in fact, needed or not. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I would like to echo the same opinion and support that motion. MS. FLAGG: The county would request to withdraw the case. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KELLY: In that case, we're done. Sorry, sir. We tried our best, but we just didn't have enough information. We wouldn't want to rule against it and then, you know, be wrong. So what we're going to do is our due diligence, and we're going to, one, find out if a permit was required for the change-out and, two, see if we can't look deeper into these plans and original permits to see if, in fact, the injector pump was also added in there. Perhaps by using testimony from the original contractor, you can work together with the county investigators, and maybe this won't be presented to us anymore and we're see you at a local restaurant. MR. MITCHELL: May I say just -- just on Page 2 of3 of the permit, it does show the grease trap as final inspection on January 31, 2006 so-- , CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have that as well. I think the only question was whether or not a grease trap and the injector pump are together in the assembly. MR. MINER: Very good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good. Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: The other statement that I'd like to make before, maybe as a suggestion, if -- I don't know if it's possible to bring in the actual person that did the work, but if he has a receipt showing -- you know, spelling out exactly what he did -- I mean, I obviously wouldn't want him to falsify it. But if he has some kind of record of that, that might also help out. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Very good. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just a suggestion. MR. MINER: Thank you. Page 60 January 27, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. We'll take a 15-minute break, and we'll reconvene here at five till 11. Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board back to order. Since that case was tabled, we'll move on next to Richard L. and Sandra Rathjen. Are the respondents here? MR. PAUL: No, they're not. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to Case CESD20100017996. Violation of ordinance: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(I)(a). Description of violation: Unpermitted storage shed and lanai. Location/address where violation exists: 4866 21st Avenue Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116. Folio 36121360004. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Richard L. and Saundra F. Rathjen, 4866 21st Avenue Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116. Date violation first observed: September 7, 2010. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: October 13,2010. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: November 14, 2010. Date of reinspect ion: November 17,2010. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. MR. PAUL: Good morning. For the record, Renald Paul, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20 1 0000 17996 dealing with violations of an unpermitted shed and a lanai addition with no permits. Location is 4866 21 st Avenue Southwest. Service was given on 10/13/2010. And I'd like to present case evidence in the following: Page 61 January 27, 2011 It's four -- it's three photographs and one photograph from the property appraiser's site. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept-- MR. PAUL: It's an aerial. MR. KAUFMAN: -- the exhibits. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion. Do we have a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Dean. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. MR. PAUL: As you will view the photographs, the first photograph is of the shed that's in the rear of the residence. There's also, on the first photograph, a picture of the lanai that had been added, and the second and the third photograph also that show the same. The last photograph is an aerial shot. As you can see, it's dated -- the first one is 2001. And I circled the area where -- where all of a sudden the lanai appeared. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is this property in lis pendens? MR. PAUL: Yes, it is. This property is vacant. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions from the board? Page 62 January 27, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion we find them in violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second. Discussion I would have is, in the original there was no mention of a lanai or -- MR. PAUL: No, there isn't. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- shed? All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Violation exists. Do you have a recommendation? MR. PAUL: Yes, I do. We ask that the board order the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $82.15 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Respondent is required to obtain any and all permits as required by Collier County for the unpermitted shed and lanai addition or obtain permits for the removal of the shed and the lanai addition, and obtain all required inspections and Certificate of Completion within X amount of days of this hearing, or be fined X amount of dollars for each day the violation remains unabated. 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 Page 63 January 27, 2011 abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order. And all costs of assessed -- all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Anyone like to talk about-- MR. KAUFMAN: Yeah. Have you been in touch with the respondent? MR. PAUL: No. This property is empty. We have been in contact with the bank, but they pretty much didn't do anything because they don't own -- they don't have title at this time to this residence. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Anyone like to work on the recommendation? MR. KAUFMAN: I'll try. They pay 81.15 within 30 days, and they abate the violation within 60 days or a $200-a-day fine is imposed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Marino. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And that was accepting county's Page 64 January 27, 2011 recommendation, 60 days, $200 a day. MR. PAUL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Next case, Henry T esno and Jill Weaver. Are the respondent here? MS. SCAVONE: No. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to Case CESD20100017736. Violation of ordinance: Collier County Code of Laws Chapter 22, Article II, Section 22 to 26(b )(104.5.1.4.4). Description of violation: Permits 2002050921 for swimming pool, 2003010443 for fence, and 2003102442 for framed single-family home have all expired/canceled before obtaining all required inspections and their Certificate of Occupancy/Completion. Location address where violation exists: 3117 Areca Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34112. Folio 71800000527. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Henry J. Tesno and Jill J. Weaver, 3411 Basin Street, Naples, Florida, 34112. Date violation first observed: August 13, 2010. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: September 1, 2010. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: September 29, 2010. Date of reinspect ion: November 9,2010. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. MS. SCAVONE: For the -- good morning. For the record, Michelle Scavone, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator, presenting all cases for Investigator Azure Sorrels. This case is in reference to CESD20100017736 dealing with the violations of abandoned or suspended permits, Collier County Code of Laws Chapter 22, Article II, Section 22-26(b) and 104.1 point -- excuse me -- 104.5.1.4.4, located at 3117 Areca Ave., Naples, Florida. Page 65 January 27, 2011 Folio No. 71800000527. Service was given on September 1, 2010, posted by -- on the property and at the courthouse. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: A, four photos dated January 26, 2011. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the photos. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you have any more exhibits? MS. SCAVONE: That's all. On October 13, 2010, this case was generated through a research of the property. It was discovered by Investigator Sorrels that Permit No. 2003102442 for a framed single-family home had expired before receiving all inspections and a Certificate of Occupancy, Permit No. 2002050921 for a pool had expired and was canceled before all inspections were completed and did not receive a Certificate of Completion, and Permit No. 203010443 for a fence has expired without inspections being completed and receiving a Certificate of Completion. On September 1, 2010, Investigator Sorrels posted the property and the courthouse with the Notice of Violation. September 29, 2010, Mr. Henry Tesno came to the Code Page 66 January 27, 2011 Enforcement Office and spoke to Investigator Sorrels about the case. He was sent in contact with the Permit Department. As of this date, there has not been any contact with the property owners, and the violation remains the same. MR. KAUFMAN: Is this in lis pendens? MS. SCAVONE: This property is not. L'ESPERANCE: Is Mr. Tesno the owner of the property? MS. SCAVONE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions? MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that we find them in violation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: The motion carries. Do you have a recommendation? MS. SCAVONE: Yes. The Code Enforcement Board orders that the respondent pay all operational costs in the amount of $80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days, to abate all Page 67 January 27, 2011 violations by: The respondent must obtain all required Collier County building permits, inspections, Certificate of Occupancy or Completion for the swimming pool, fence, and framed single-family home, or obtain a demolition permit, inspections, certification and completion and demolish said structures within X amount of day of this hearing or an X amount of 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 violations, the county may abate the violations and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there any discussion about the recommendation? MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question or two. You've picked this up from Investigator Sorrels. MS. SCAVONE: Correct. MR. KAUFMAN: Do you know what the conversation -- or had she related to you what the conversation with the homeowner on this has been? MS. SCAVONE: He had come to the property -- to the Code Enforcement Office, and she -- he had told her that he spoke with Agale (phonetic) over in the Permit Department about the canceled house permits, and she was going to be working with him on getting this resolved. MR. KAUFMAN: And that was the last contact? MS. SCAVONE: And that -- yes. MR. KAUFMAN: And have you tried to reach the respondent? MS. SCAVONE: I've made a couple of site visits there, and the house is vacant, and I have not been able to get ahold of the owners. Page 68 January 27, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: And my final question is, on the -- they pulled building permits, it looks like. They just didn't have the CO on them. MS. SCAVONE: The house permit originally was in 2001. It was re-ap'ed twice, and the second one is the one that it had -- it's still, like, in an inspect status. It has not received all of the inspections made. The fence only has one inspection that needs to be done, and it's voided now because it hasn't ever been done. And the pool was -- it's canceled, and it has the three finals; the plumbing, the electric, and the final pool. CHAIRMAN KELLY: On your site inspections, were you able to verify if the fence did, in fact, wrap all the way around the backyard and isolate the pool? MS. SCAVONE: The fence -- it did; however, it is not being maintained, so the one half is kind of pushed to the side, falling over. The pool is empty with probably about a foot of water in the deep end, but it's -- it's all dirty. It's not being maintained. MR. MARINO: According to the picture, it doesn't look like it's wrapped all around. It looks like it goes side, back, and nothing on the other side. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, that's what I was concerned about. And if you look closely, it looks like the neighbor house actually creates part of the fence. I'm just worried about during summertime, if this goes this long, or if we have a good rain, we might get enough water to create a hazard to children. MS. BAKER: Mr. Chair, the other -- do you want to swear me . In. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: We did bring a case to the last special-magistrate meeting for the pool maintenance, and if that is not corrected, the county will go in and take care of that issue. Page 69 January 27, 2011 MR. LEFEBVRE: Can you just state your name. MS. BAKER: Jen Baker. MR. KAUFMAN: It looks like, if you look at this photo of the pool, that there is no fence between the pool and the adjacent house. MR. MARINO: Right. And it does not connect to the other fence either. MR. KAUFMAN: So somebody could fall in that hole whether it has water or not. They may not drown, but they could die from the fall. MS. BAKER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I feel confident that because there's another case that would address the issue, that it's being taken care of, and I wouldn't want to put double jeopardy on any property owner. In that case, is there anybody that would like to maybe accept the recommendation with some time frames and dollar amounts? MR. KAUFMAN: I'll be glad to. 80.86 paid within 30 days, abate the violation within 60 days, or a fine of $200 a day. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Marino. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? Page 70 January 27, 2011 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. MS. SCAVONE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Investigator. Are you sticking around for the next one? MS. SCAVONE: Yep. CHAIRMAN KELLY: How do you say that last name? MS. BAKER: Sorokoty. That's my best guess. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to Case CESD20090005007. Violation of ordinance: Collier County, Collier County Code of Laws Chapter 22, Article II, Section 22 to 26(b)(104.1.3.5), Florida Building Code 2004 Edition, Chapter 1, Section 105.1 and Section 111.1, Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 1 0.02.06(B)(1 )(a) and 1 0.02.06(B)(I)( e). Description of violation: Mezzanine and stairs in Bays 9 and 10 erected, and electrical work done in Bay 8 without first obtaining Collier County approval, required inspections, and Certificate of Completion. Location/address where violation exists: 2435 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida, 34112. Folio 387040000. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Roxana Sorokoty Trust and Walter G. Sorokoty, Jr., Trust Estate, 1250 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 101, Naples, Florida, 34102. Date violation first observed: April 29, 2009. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: May 7, 2009. Date on/by violation to be corrected: May 30, 2009. Date of reinspect ion: November 24,2010. Results of the reinspection: The violation remains. MS. SCAVONE: Okay. For the record, Michelle Scavone, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator presenting for Azure Page 71 January 27, 2011 Sorrels. This case is in reference to Case No. CESD20090005007 dealing with the violation of improvements prior to a building permit. Collier County Code of Laws Chapter 22, Article II, Section 22-26(b)(104.5.1.4.4), Florida Building Code, 2004 Edition, Chapter 1, Section 105.1 and 111.1. Collier County Land Development Code, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(I)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(I)(e), located at 2435 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida. Folio 387040000. Service was given on May 7, 2009, by certified mail. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Of three photos from April 29, 2009. MR. LEFEBVRE: Motion to approve. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. Have you seen the photos? MR. MINER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second. All those -- any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And we'll call to a vote. All approved, say aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: I was trying to get it out. MS. SCAVONE: April 27, 2009, this case was generated through the fire department inspector, John Bigica, for interior Page 72 January 27, 2011 remodel being done without permits. On April 30, 2009, a former code investigator Thomas Keegan, was on site and observed possible unpermitted mezzanine stairs and electrical work being done. Research was conducted May 7, 2009, by Investigator Keegan, and it was discovered there were no Collier County permits for the work, and a Notice of Violation was served to the occupant and signed. Also, Registered Mail was sent and received on May 12, 2009, by the owner. We had extended time frames to allow the owner to come into compliance due to financial hardship. And as of January 21 st, I -- we received an em ail from the property representative, Mr. Bruce Miner. He stated that the tenants have vacated the space, and due to the economic situation, they cannot bring the violations up to code at this time. He stated that the space will remain vacant. A response email was sent by Supervisor Petrulli that even though the space is vacant, the violation still does exist and it does need to be brought up into compliance. Yesterday I spoke with Inspector John Bigica from the fire department. He stated that as long as it was vacant, that -- and the electric was shut off, that their issue is fine until -- if it does become -- someone does occupy the space, it does -- everything does need to be done before that happens. So as of this date, it remains in violation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Does anybody from the board have a question for the investigator? MR. MARINO: Do you know when these pictures were taken? MS. SCAVONE: They were taken on April 29, 2009, according to case notes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions? Sir, if I could, just because this is a different case, just state that the owner has granted you permission to speak on their behalf. Page 73 January 27, 2011 MR. MINER: Sure. For the record, my name is Bruce Miner. I'm with Cameron Real Estate Services, and the owner has authorized me to speak on his behalf. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, sir. Anything further to add? MR. MINER: The only thing that I'd have to add is, in fact, the mezzanine -- this property was built approximately 1978. Mezzanine's been in place since 1978, was not put in by the existing -- by the previous tenant. And, in fact, the previous tenant was in the space for five years, did have it inspected upon his entrance into the space five years ago, and has since vacated the space due to this controversy. So we've lost a tenant, and we have been working together with -- Don Stevenson had actually come forward. The issue was that the -- the mezzanine contained an office and hadn't been permitted. They were unable to find a permit or whatever it was. But -- so I -- once I found out about it -- they were originally talking with the tenant exclusively, and I didn't find out about it immediately. But once I did, I contacted Don Stevenson Design, and he has -- and he prepared documents that -- so we could draw out a permit, and that was our intent. Once we got -- once it went out for bid, it turns out that it was probably going to be about a $4,000 cost incurred to resolve the issues. And, of course, the owner was unwilling to pay that. And, as I said, consequently we lost -- we lost that tenant. Now, what my desire is here today, because we have the plans all drawn out and ready to go and because that mezzanine could very possibly have a value to a future tenant, I'd like to make that available to a future tenant to, in fact, impose the corrections and get it permitted and, therefore, be able to use it, as opposed to destroy it and take it all down and then be placed with less square footage to be able to lease. Page 74 January 27, 2011 So that's what my request is, if it's possible to do so. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I believe as long as the structure was built correctly to the codes when it was originally built and you get either the Building Department or a general contractor or an engineer to give you a permit by affidavit, I believe this board's going to be okay. What we need to do is decide whether or not a violation exists and then come up with some time frame that we feel is appropriate to get that taken care of. MR. MINER: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: With that, is there any questions from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: I guess not a question, but a comment. If while you had a tenant there, to keep the tenant and -- to keep the tenant you'd have to resolve this issue. The owner wasn't willing to do that. What's the incentive to do that now? MR. MINER: Well, the owner was willing to do that. The owner was willing to incur the costs of keeping that -- or correcting the problems with the mezzanine; however, once the tenant told us that he was going to vacate the space, you know, we didn't see any need to move forward to correct it, because we don't know what the next tenant's going to need or require or be willing to move forward with. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, you made a correlation that the owner -- that the tenant vacated due to the fact that there was a violation. MR. MINER: No, he vacated -- well -- to go into a little bit more detail, I mean, he also occupied a space -- Space No.7, I believe, which he was putting in a spray booth, and he was in the permitting stages of that. And he was utilizing RSJ Builders, David Jeda, as his contractor to get that permitted. I don't know at this point ifhe's actually gotten the permit or ifhe's used that Suite 7 or not. He is still a tenant in that particular space. Page 75 January 27, 2011 MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. MINER: But Suite 9 and 10, because of the outstanding issues and the cost factor, he's -- you know, and his lease came up, so he vacated that space. But he's still a tenant in the building in Suite No.9 -- 7. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: I find that a violation does, in fact, exist. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any -- okay. We have a first and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those agree, signify by saying aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. A violation does exist. Does the county have a recommendation? MS. SCAVONE: Yes. The Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$82.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: The respondent must obtain all required building permits, inspections, and Certificate of Completion for the structural and electrical work mentioned or obtain a demolition permit, inspection, Certificate of Completion, and remove all structural and electrical work as mentioned within X amount of days of this hearing, Page 76 January 27, 2011 or X amount of dollars fine will be imposed for each day the violation . remaIns. The violation -- 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 violations and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to ensure the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Miner, has the owner expressed any type of time frame that they figured they could get this taken care of within? MR. MINER: Well, if -- if it's a short time frame, obviously we're going to -- we'll probably go with the demolition because we can't -- you know, because of the cost of bringing it up to code. As I said, ideally we'd like to make that -- leave that decision on a new tenant coming in as to whether he could utilize that space up there and make an arrangement to have it repaired. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I think the board would certainly be willing to work, but we just can't leave anything open-ended, so we do have to put some kind of time frame on it. MR. MINER: How about ten years? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Won't work. MR. DEAN: What'd he say? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Ten years. MR. DEAN : You've already had over a year and a half here. This started in 2'09 with us. CHAIRMAN KELLY: But we appreciate where the owner's coming from, and we also appreciate that the fire department says, as long as it remains vacant, there really isn't a fire issue; however, for code and their system and their records, we do need to put some kind of follow-up date, so -- Page 77 January 27, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: You had mentioned earlier that it was a $4,000 repair? MR. MINER: I believe that's what -- that was-- MR. KAUFMAN: And-- MR. MINER: In the $3,500 to $4,000 range. MR. KAUFMAN: And the -- what is the typical rent in a facility like that? MR. MINER: Six hundred dollars a month. I mean, it's an un-air-conditioned garage basically. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Do you think that giving the respondent -- let's just draw a date -- six months would give them the opportunity to get this thing rented or at least be in the position to come back to the board to say, we have a tenant. We're going to do the work. We may need a little bit of additional time? Do you think that's reasonable? MR. MINER: I believe that's reasonable, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any objections from the county? MS. SCAVONE: The county doesn't have any objections. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, before we have a second, would we be able to put in there that the -- it could not be occupied? CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's a great idea. MR. MINER: You know, technically it has to be inspected prior to occupation anyway. So, you know, I mean, that's kind of self-serving, but it's -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's a good idea. Would you like to amend? MR. KAUFMAN: I amend the motion to include that it can't be occupied until all inspections have been provided. MR. LEFEBVRE: I then second the motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: First and a second. Page 78 January 27, 2011 Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oop,oop. MR. KAUFMAN: We didn't give a dollar price after six months. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You're right. MR. KAUFMAN: So I'll-- MR. MINER: That's okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We're a victim-- MR. KAUFMAN: I'll make it 10,000 a -- no. Two hundred dollars a day. Obviously you know that you can come back to the board -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. MR. KAUFMAN: -- before everything runs its course to ask for an addition, a change, or whatever. MR. MINER: I understand. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. During the discussion there was a second to the original -- to another amendment. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 79 January 27, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Okay. Thank you, sir. MR. MINER: Thank you. MS. SCAVONE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Investigator. MS. SCAVONE: Thank you. MS. BAKER: Do you include the ops cost in your motion as well? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, we accepted the county's recommendation, which did list it. Okay. We are finished with hearings and new business. Now moving on to old business. A, motion for imposition of fines and liens, Case No.1, Leonel Garza. Is Mr. Garza here? Is Investigator Maria Rodriguez here? MR. LEFEBVRE: Would it be possible -- Ken, would it be possible maybe to move the mike over to the right of the court reporter? And that way he can wheel up very easily. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Maria, would you like to read the case. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Violations: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinance Chapter 22, Building and Building Regulations Article VI, and Property Maintenance Code, Section 22-231(12)(b), (f), (g), (i), and (j). Location: 111 7th Street, Immokalee, Florida, 34142. Folio No. Page 80 January 27, 2011 25582720003. Description: Exterior walls on a residential structure that has holes, breaks, loose rotting material and that was not weathertight and not maintained in repair. Also observed no guardrails on the approaching footsteps. The stairs consist of unstable blocks. Windows and doors were not weather- and watertight, nor were they maintained in good repair. The screens of the windows were missing or they had been removed. The exterior surface of the whole structure was in poor condition. Past order: On July 22,2010, 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. Order of the board, OR4591, Page 1659. The respondent has not complied with the CEB orders as of January 27,2011. The fines of a rate of 200 per day for the period between November 20, 2010, through January 27, 2011, 69 days, for the total of 13,800, fines continue to accrue. Operational costs of 84.01 have not been paid. Total amount to date is 13,884.01. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Maria, I'm just going to read the top part real quick because I never read the case. CEB Case No. CEPN20090017577, Board of County Commissioners versus Leonel Garza, et ai, respondents. Okay. Mr. Garza? MR. GARZA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Basically why we're here today is because originally you voluntarily entered into what's called a stipulated agreement to fix the violations within a certain time period. That time period expired, and then because of the original agreement, you have been, in essence, charged $200 a day since the day it expired because they continue to not be corrected. Do you -- would you like to respond to that? Page 81 January 27,2011 MR. GARZA: Yeah. Because my sister's the one that was living there, my sister. I paid over $3,000 taxes, you know. But she is not here. I don't know how many -- I paid over $3,000, and then, again, we owed already -- owe 2,000 again. And she never did fix the house. She never did got out of the house so I could fix it, because I told her -- I told her I'm going to tear it down, the house down. She said, no. You tear it down, I'm going to put you -- before you tear it down, so I never did do nothing with it because she did got out of the house. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there anybody living there now? MR. GARZA: Yeah, her. She's still there. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So when it lists here on the charging documents your name, does that mean that you're the only owner, or is there other people -- MR. GARZA: No, that -- we're -- see, I told you that my older brother and my older sister were inside the house, and then my brother told me for me to pay the taxes at that time. And I put -- you know, why I didn't do what I wanted to do with that, in the house. But my sister never did got out of house, she never did. And my sister in Texas, and she is -- everybody signed it. We're seven -- we're nine brothers -- nine of us -- five brothers and four sisters. And all of -- my brother signed, my brother signed, except my two sisters, they never did sign, because they didn't want me to do anything with the house. They wanted my sister to stay there at the house. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. GARZA: I wasn't going to pay no more. I paid -- already paid over 3,000. My daddy died ten years ago, and since that time she been living there in the house, and she never did pay nothing. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So you had an agreement that if you paid the taxes she would fix up the house that she's living in, Page 82 January 27, 2011 correct? MR. GARZA: Well, see -- when my daddy died, she was there with her -- with him, but then sister -- my older sister, the one that's -- because my brother was taking care of the house, she told my sister, stay there, when my brother was injail. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do all your brothers and sisters understand that when the county imposes fines it's going to go against the property, which you all equally own? That means everybody would have some kind of stake in this. You know, let me also say that it's really not the county's position or this board's position to get involved in your family matters. We're really just concerned about the property and bringing it up to current code. MR. GARZA: Well, I mean -- like I told them before, they could tear it down, tear the house down. MS. RODRIGUEZ: If I may? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Maria? MS. RODRIGUEZ: The sister was here earlier. She did agree with him that she would move out of the house. She's trying to find something now because they are going to demo it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MS. RODRIGUEZ: But it's like I told him, you know, they need to work together. I'm going to try and see if I can find an agency called "I HOPE" that will demo the house, because they're both disabled. All of them are disabled, pretty much. They can't afford it. So I told them I would see what we could do to try to help them demo the house. MR. LEFEBVRE: Maybe a recommendation? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah. MR. LEFEBVRE: Before we impose the fines, maybe we can draw the case and give them 90 days or maybe extend it 90 days. I don't know if it would be of the county's -- if the county would agree Page 83 January 27, 2011 with that, if they would maybe withdraw the case and then bring it back in 90 days. And we could keep the fines going at that point without -- if we don't extend it. So, I mean, there's a couple different options we can take. CHAIRMAN KELLY: There are. We could extend our original -- we can either extend our order or grant an extension of time at that point. MR. LEFEBVRE: We can extend the -- or keep the -- you know, keep their feet to the fire and have them just withdraw the case and come back in 90 days. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's up to the county. MS. FLAGG: The supervisor advises that because he's experienced difficulty with one or more of the family members, that it would be helpful to impose, and then once they do come into compliance, we'll go to the board on -- the BCC on their behalf and have the board waive the fines. MR. LEFEBVRE: You know, you did -- you said you spoke to the sister. MS. RODRIGUEZ: She left. She was here earlier, but she left. Well, the thing is that she said at the last hearing that she planned to move out and that they were going to demo it. But, you know, four months have gone by or five months, and she hasn't moved out. So if we -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Postpone it. MS. RODRIGUEZ: -- postpone it, I'm afraid she's going to say, well, they're not going to do anything, and I'm not going to move out because I don't need to. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I agree. I don't know that I want this to leave our venue, because we don't know if the BCC is going to have the same history with the case and sympathy to the case. It's kind of just left up to the County Attorney's Office and prosecuting it and, you know, possibly foreclosures and all that kind of stuff. Page 84 January 27, 2011 MR. LEFEBVRE: How about shortening it down to one month, and if she -- if she has made contact with -- you said, "I HOPE", I think it was. If she made contact with "I HOPE" and they're working on finding a place, we can -- MS. RODRIGUEZ: I gave her the information the last time she was here. I mean, all she had to do was go talk to the gentleman and explain to him her situation, and I'm sure they would have worked with her, but she just sat there and did nothing. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah. I'm trying to work with you and your sister but, you know -- I understand your situation, but it sounds like your sister, without imposing fines and having some repercussions, she's not going to make a move. So with that, unfortunately, I, you know, would hope that she would have been more understanding with the situation, but she isn't, so I make a motion to impose the fines. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Any comments? Maybe this is helping rather than hurting. You know, maybe this does get action, so -- MR. DEAN: I agree. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We have a motion and second. All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) Page 85 January 27, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Sir, this is what we've done. We've imposed the fines which means that a fine will be recorded against the property for these amounts and it will continue to add up as more time goes on. And we're hoping that you're able to get help and to take care of this issue. And maybe by doing this it will help your other brothers and sisters come together to work together on this. MR. GARZA: All right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. One important thing that I have to also state, although we've imposed the fines today, county -- the Collier County in the past has been willing to work with people who show diligence in getting these things taken care of, and you have the right to come back and ask for those fines to either be reduced or completely waived altogether. I would just suggest that you continue to work and continue to communicate well with the Collier County. MR. GARZA: All right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, sir? MR. GARZA: All right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right. Thank you very much. MR. GARZA: Thank you-all. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. The next case is Charles D. Brown, CESD200900 13027. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Supervisor Snow, would you like to read the charging documents? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thanks. MR. SNOW: This is violations of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(I)(a). The location is 414 3rd Street, Immokalee, Florida. The folio number is 74031280003. The description is failure to obtain building and land alteration Page 86 January 27, 2011 permits and inspections and a Certificate of Occupancy. The past orders: On January 28th the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact and a 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, OR4537, Pages 1720, for more information. An extension of time was granted on June 24,2010. See OR4583 and Page 2866 for additional information. An additional extension of time was granted on October 28, 2010. See OR4523 or Page 1815 for more information. The respondent has complied with the CEB order as of January 13, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as follows: Order Items No.1 and 2, fines at the rate of$200 per day for the period of December 28, 2010, to January 13, 2011, 17 days, for a total of $3,400. Operational costs of $81.15 have been paid. The fine amount to date is $3,400. MR. KAUFMAN: Did you say they have complied? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: There was additional paperwork that was not part of the original document placed at your desk today that shows that it has been complied with. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to abate. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Marino. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye.R Page 87 January 27, 2011 MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? MR. LEFEBVRE: Opposed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: One opposed, by Mr. Lefebvre. Sir, we've just abated all your fines. Do you have anything to add or say? You don't have to pay anything, and we appreciate you working hard. Sometimes in the beginning when we look at cases, we don't know exactly how much time to give, and we appreciate you coming back and asking for those extensions of time and continuing to work diligently. MR. BROWN: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Have a good day. MR. SNOW: We thank the board. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Absolutely. Next case is going to be Eric and Day Ie Westover, CESD20100017039. Are the respondents here? MR. PAUL: No, they are not. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. PAUL: CEB Case No. CESD20100017039, Board of County Commissioners versus Eric and Dayle Westover. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws Chapter 22, Article II, Sections 22-26(b), subsections 104.5.1.4.4. Location: 5891 Star Grass Lane, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 3822680001. Description: Permit No. 1999110448 for the pool was abandoned and never CO'ed. Past order: On October 28,2010, the Code Enforcement Board Page 88 January 27, 2011 issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of referenced ordinance -- ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4623, Page 1808, for more information. The respondent has not complied with the CEB orders as of January 27,2011. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item No. 1 and 2, fines at the rate of $100 per day for the period between December 28, 2010, and January 27, 2011, 31 days, for the total of $3, 100. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No.5, operational costs in the amount of$81.15 have not been paid. Total amount to date, $3,181.15. There's been no contact from either owner. The property is vacant. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to impose. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: The fines will be imposed. MR. PAUL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Next case, Case No.5, Sergio and Marie Gomez, Page 89 January 27, 2011 CESD201 00003695. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. PAUL: CEB Case No. CESD20100003695, Board of County Commissioners versus Maria D. and Sergio Gomez. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article II, Florida Building Code, adoption and amendment of the Florida Building Code, Section 22-26(b), Subsections 104.5.1.4.4. Location is 4983 17th Avenue Southwest, Naples, Florida. Folio 36130560002. Description: Permit No. 2004030440 for the fence, and Permit No. 2004032107 for the tiki hut, were both abandoned and the Certificate of Occupancy never obtained. Past orders: On August 26, 2010, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4601, Page 1821, for more information. The respondent has not complied with the CEB orders as of January 27, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as following: Order Item No.1 and 2, fines at the rate of$100 per day for the period between October 26, 2010, and January 27, 2011, 94 days, for the total of $9,400. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No.7, operational costs of$81.15 have not been paid. Total amount to date is $9,481.15. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Hi, good morning. You have the opportunity to explain the current situation, what's going on, you know, why it hasn't been complied with and so forth, so please feel free to speak plainly. MR. GOMEZ: For the record, my name's Daniel Gomez, and I am authorized to be speaking for my mother, Maria Gomez, and my Page 90 January 27, 2011 father, Sergio Gomez. My parents, due to the economic situation, have not been able to keep the house. We have been working with Wachovia for a loan modification program with HAFA; however, they did not qualify. So recently we're moving on to the next best thing, which is a short sale. Weare working with them. I have spoken with the representative from Wachovia stating that we're -- you know, there are these permit, you know, fees that are being applied to the house. And he said that Wachovia would have to eventually, you know, own up to those fees and they'd have to deal with that, and that's where we're at right now. We're working to see if we can short sale the property. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Just one comment. If the house is sold or in short sale and this is not resolved, that means that everything that is -- not been certified or the permits haven't been completed, would pass on to the next purchaser. So for that reason, I make a motion that we impose the fines here so that this gets resolved first. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. Page 91 January 27, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. What we've done is we've imposed the fines for now. Our concern as a board is that if these problems aren't resolved and, let's say, for instance, a buyer would come into the house and think, great, I'm getting a good deal for this home, they would suddenly realize that there's additional work that needs to be taken care of before they could actually move in, and we just wouldn't want to see that happen. So what we've done is now recorded these liens down at the Clerk of Court's office so that anyone interested in buying the property would see this, not just the bank, but individuals who may have cash as well. And this way everyone knows about what's going on with the property and they don't walk into something unseen. MR. GOMEZ: Yeah. I mean, the real estate agent has listed the property with the information on. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oh, great. MR. GOMEZ: So on MLS Sunshine it does state that there are these issues that need to be addressed before the property's sold. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Well, I appreciate your understanding, and good luck. I hope it works out for you. MS. GOMEZ: Thank you. MR. GOMEZ: Thank you. MR. PAUL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Now moving on to Case No.7, Allen Fuller and Barbara Davis. Are the respondents here? MS. McGONAGLE: No. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: There are two cases here. We need to vote on each one separately. Probably best just to take one at a time. MS. McGONAGLE: Okay. Good morning -- afternoon. For the Page 92 January 27, 2011 record, Michelle McGonagle, Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CEB -- I'm sorry -- CEB Case No. CESD20080010447, Board of County Commissioners versus Allen W. Fuller and Barbara A Davis. Violation: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 1 0.02.06(B)(1 )(a) and 1 0.02.06(B)(I)( e )(i). Location: 267 Price Street, Naples, Florida. Folio 00730160003. Description: Residence on agricultural property has been altered/added to converting structure to a two-story duplex with structural plumbing and electrical alterations without first obtaining required permits. Past order: On April 23, 2009, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4449, Page 2463, for more information. The respondent has not complied with the CEB orders as of January 27, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as follows: Order Item No.2, fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period between July 25, 2009, and January 27, 2011,551 days, for the total of$110,200. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No.1, operational costs of$88.14 have not been paid. Total amount to date, $110,000 -- $110,288.14. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to impose. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Page 93 January 27, 2011 MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And it carries. N ow on to the next case, please. MS. McGONAGLE: This is in reference to CEB Case No. CESD200800 1 0474, Board of County Commissioners versus Allen W. Fuller and Barbara A. Davis. Violation: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(I)(a). Location: 267 Price Street, Naples, Florida. Folio 00730160003. The description: Mobile home on property with utility connections without required building permits. Past orders: On April 23, 2009, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4449, Page 2460, for more information. The respondent has not complied with the CEB orders as of January 27, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item No.2, fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period between July 25, 2009, and January 27, 2011, 551 days, for the total of $110,200. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No.1, operational costs of$87.57 have not been paid. Total amount to date, $110,287.57. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to impose. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Marino. Page 94 January 27, 2011 Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. Okay. Thank you very much. MS. McGONAGLE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Now moving on to Case No.9. It's Palm Lake, LLC. There's three cases. The first one is CEV, as in Victor, 20100003082. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. SCAVONE: This is in reference to CEB Case No. CEV20 1 00003082, Board of County Commissioners versus Palm Lake, LLC. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 2.01.00(A). Location: 3131 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida. Folio 61842240009. Description: Approximately nine unlicensed inoperable vehicles are parked or stored on property, including but not limited to Lots 38, 31, 27, 18, 9, and two vehicles across from Lot 5. Past orders: On July 22,2010, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of facts, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinance and ordered to Page 95 January 27, 2011 correct the violation. See the attached order of the board, OR4591, Page 1639, for more information. The respondent has not complied with the CEB orders as of January 27, 2011. The fines and costs are -- excuse me -- the fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item 1 and 2, fines at a rate of $200 per day for a period between November 28, 2010, through January 27, 2011, 61 days, for a total of$12,200. Fines continue to accrue. Order No.5, operational costs of $80 have been paid. Totals amount due, $12,200. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question on this. And we've heard these cases from the respondent in the past. And I'm actually a little surprised that the attorney for the respondent isn't here now. Has something happened out there that has changed the situation in the past three or four months or so that you're aware of? MS. SCAVONE: Not that I'm aware of. I did make a site visit yesterday. There was three -- there's -- four of the cars were removed. There was two that I was unable to tell because they were parked too far up to the back and that I couldn't -- I wasn't able to see. No one was home. And there was one new car that did not have tags. They were expired. MR. LEFEBVRE: I guess what you're trying to allude to is, why is the attorney not here representing Palm Lake? I mean, usually he is. Do you know? MS. SCAVONE: I do not know. MS. BAKER: In speaking with the previous investigator on this case, I believe that there have been some issues with the owner wanting to take care of the issues. Not wanting to. Oh, sorry. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah. Technically you'll have to re-say that. Sorry. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) Page 96 January 27, 2011 MS. BAKER: In discussion with the previous investigator, it seems that the owner is being difficult in taking care of the violations, and I'm not sure what the relationship with the attorney and the owner is at this time. MR. LEFEBVRE: You seem to have an aversion to state your name. MS. BAKER: Jen Baker. MR. KAUFMAN: It's a new name. She's just trying to -- MS. BAKER: Jen Baker. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, in that case -- MR. KAUFMAN: I think our hands are tied. Motion to impose. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the fines will be imposed. Next case for Palm Lake. MS. SCAVONE: Shall I go ahead? MR. LEFEBVRE: Just a quick qu- -- up until this point, there's been no recording of any liens, correct? Okay. And the property's been for sale, or it was supposed to be listed, I think, so -- just curious. MS. SCAVONE: Okay. Board of County Commissioners Page 97 January 27, 2011 versus Palm Lake, LLC. Violation: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinance Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22 through 23 -- excuse me -- 22 through 231(11). Location: 3131 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida. Folio 61842240009. Description: Electrical wiring running to the mobile homes are not in accordance with the current National Electric Code. Electric meters are not securely fastened, missing covers on energized electrical parts. Direct wires and conduit are not buried to code. Past orders: On July 22,2010, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of facts, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinance and ordered to correct the violation. See attached order of the board, OR 4591, Page 1646, for more information. The respondent has complied with the Code Enforcement orders as of October 30,2010. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Items No. 1 and 3, fines at a rate of $500 per day for the periods between July 30, 2010, and October 30, 2010, 93 days, for a total of $46,500. Order Items 2 and 4, fines at a rate of $200 per day for the periods between September 21, 2010, through October 30, 2010, 40 days, for a total of $8,000. Order Item No.7, operational costs of$80 have been paid. The total amount to date is $54,500. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Let me also read the case number in this reference, because there's three cases. This particular one is CEB Case No. CEPM20100004292. I usually read that when I announce the case, and I just said the name, so -- MS. SCAVONE: Okay. That's correct, the case number. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to impose. MR. DEAN: Second. Page 98 January 27, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: Before you make a motion, can I -- just a comment. MS. BAKER: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: Ordinarily when we find people that have paid their operational costs and they are in compliance, if they appeared here, we're more than willing to listen to someone asking for that fine to be abated. Unfortunately, on this case today, there's nobody here, even though they have complied and paid the operational costs. I just wanted to put that in the record. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We do have a motion, and it was seconded by Mr. Dean. Any other discussions? MR. LEFEBVRE: I -- I have to think for a second. I mean, there's quite a few other violations. I make a motion to rescind. CHAIRMAN KELL Y: You're going to rescind the motion altogether? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Rescinded. Okay with you, Larry? MR. DEAN: Why you doing that? Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So let's start over. MR. LEFEBVRE: They have shown -- the reason -- I'll explain to Larry. The reason that I'm rescinding it, because they have shown good faith in this instance; they have corrected it. It has been -- in all fairness, in previous cases if they do come into compliance -- to abate fines, not that all the times I agree with that. But I think in this case they have done a fair amount of work to try to come into compliance. So that would be my rationale. MR. KAUFMAN: And one other comment, since we're all familiar with Palm Lake -- they've been before us several times. Part Page 99 January 27, 2011 of this was the emergency portion where we needed them to comply within five days. And as I recall from the last time they were before us, they did comply immediately to take that safety problem off the table. So I agree with Gerald Lefebvre's comment on this. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, currently there is no motion on the floor so-- , MR. DEAN: Would Gerald like to re-motion it? CHAIRMAN KELLY: He's throwing the ball in your court. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we do not impose any fines. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We're abating. Is that okay with you, Larry? MR. DEAN: I'm only one member. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that motion. MR. DEAN: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right. Mr. Dean is seconding. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And those fines will be abated. N ow on to the third case with a Palm Lake LLC, CEPM20100003098. Page 100 January 27, 2011 MS. SCAVONE: Again, this is the Code Enforcement Board Case No. CEPM20100000 -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: We've got -- MS. SCAVONE: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN KELLY: We didn't swear in for this one. MR. KAUFMAN: It wears off after each case. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah, it doesn't last. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: Mr. Chair, this is a really long summary. Would you like us just to drop down to the fines? Okay. MS. SCAVONE: Okay. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item No. 1 and 5, fine at a rate of $250 per day for the period between October 21, 2010, through January 27, 2011, 99 days, for a total of $24,750. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No.2 and 6, fines at a rate of$250 per day for the period between October 21st through January 27, 2011, 99 days, for a total of $24,750. Fines accrue -- fines continue to accrue. Order Item 3 and 7, fines at a rate of$250 per day for the periods between October 21, 2010, through January 27, 2011, 99 days, for a total of $24,750. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No. 10, operational costs of $81.72 have been paid. The total amount to date is $74,250, and it is not in compliance. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to impose. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion, and a second by Mr. Dean. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Page 101 January 27, 2011 MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: The fines will be imposed. The last case, under imposition of fines today, is Daniel Guerrero. MS. SCAVONE: Yes. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. SCAVONE: This is in reference to CEB Case No. CESD200900 15950, Board of County Commissioners versus Daniel H. Guerrero. Violations: Collier County Code of Law and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article II, Sections 22-26(b)(104.5.1.4.4). Location: 3240 Caledonia Ave., Naples, Florida. Folio 61780440000. Description: Permit No. 2008120281 expired on June 3, 2009, before receiving a Certificate of Completion. The past orders: On September 23,2010, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of facts, 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, OR4610, Page 2371, for more information. The respondent has not complied with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of January 27, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described in the following: Order Item 1 and 2, fines at a rate of $200 per day for the periods between November 23, 2010, through January 27,2011, 66 days, for a total of $13,200. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No.5, operational costs of $80.86 have not been paid, Page 102 January 27, 2011 and total amount to date, $13,280.86. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion from the board? MR. DEAN: Motion to impose the fine. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion. Do we have a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any the fines will be imposed. MS. SCAVONE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That concludes all of our hearings today. We're moving on to -- consent agenda did not have any items being forwarded to the County's Attorneys Office. And we do have a report, Michael and Amy Facundo. MR. LEFEBVRE: Can you state your name for the record? MS. FLAGG: Mr. Chair, if I could get a report while Ms. Waldron Baker is providing the information. The foreclosure team is the -- which is the team that works with the banks, through January 23, 2011, the banks have spent $1,967,000 in Collier County to abate their violations, and they've abated 1,605 code cases. The -- right now they're averaging spending about $18,000 a Page 103 January 27, 2011 week in Collier County to abate code violations. One of the cases that came up to you earlier was that it was in lis pendens, but currently the procedure is, in the Permitting Department, is that they will not issue a permit to the bank to abate until they have title to the property. So all of these code cases that are being abated are issues that don't require permit, but if it does require permit, we have -- the bank has to wait -- the bank agrees to abate, but they have to wait until they take title to the property so that they can acquire permit. As a follow-up to the holidays, each of the five co-district teams selected a community service project. They do this every year during the holidays. Several teams assisted the Salvation Army, St. Matthew's House, Meals on Wheels, and delivered food and toys to community members. The Golden Gate City co-district team worked with their task force and actually did a complete home makeover for a family in Golden Gate City. As of last week, there were 169 new code cases opened. There were 578 property inspections completed that week. There were a total of 289 lien searches done in that week. Of those lien searches -- you-all had requested to know how many of those lien searches actually saved a property purchaser from buying a house that had a code case on it, and there were five. So of those lien searches that were done, because the purchaser made the decision to do the code lien search, they found out that there were code cases on that property and -- so now they're working through that before they actually buy the code case when they buy the property . And the investigators are carrying an average of 47 cases apiece, which is a substantial load for the investigators. That concludes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good. MS. BAKER: On Michael and Amy Facundo, you had requested Page 104 January 27, 2011 that we come back to you and give you an update on where they're at in the process, and Supervisor Snow will give that update. MR. SNOW: Do I need to be sworn in? CHAIRMAN KELLY: It's just a report. MR. SNOW: I had a conversation with the GC yesterday, and I understand that Mr. Taylor, the contractor -- if you remember this case, he wanted to keep it with Mr. Taylor. He was the one that originally constructed and didn't meet setbacks and was over the property line. He wanted to keep it with Mr. Taylor, and you gave him a specific amount of time to do that, 45 days. I understand Mr. Taylor's license has been revoked by the state. Mr. Facundo has got his own permit, an owner/builder permit, so he is progressing. But Mr. Taylor, I guess, is not going to cease -- that entity is going to cease to function. I can't -- don't know what his intent is. I haven't talked to him, but his license has been revoked by the state. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. At least there's progress, though, since there is a permit now pulled by owner? MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. I anticipate him completing everything that he told this board he was going to do. I see him once a month. He's the chairman of the Community Redevelopment Agency of Immokalee, so he appraises me of the situation. So I anticipate no setbacks. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. Is there any comments or other reports? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seeing none, the next date for our meeting is February 24,2011, and I think we're going to go back down at the courthouse for that meeting. MR. DEAN: And I'll make a motion to adjourn. MR. KAUFMAN: Before you do that, can I just bring up one January 27, 2011 thing? MR. DEAN: No. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Shoud I second that motion to adjourn? MR. DEAN: Yes, sir, go right ahead. MR. KAUFMAN: I think we're due for our annual joint meeting with the magi- -- magistrate so we can go over the rules, et cetera, et cetera. Is it possible to schedule that either -- not before, that's too early -- but after one of our meetings when we don't have a real heavy caseload? Or not. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We did good. We -- three hours and 15 minutes for 35 cases. MR. BAKER: Real heavy -- I can tell you, though, that I believe we have even more than we did this month, so it -- the next -- expect a long meeting next month. MS. RAWSON: What day does she hear cases? MS. BAKER: She's on the fourth, which is next Friday. MS. RAWSON: Thursday. MS. BAKER: Next Friday. MS. RAWSON: Right, Friday. MS. BAKER: And she's got a very full agenda as well. MR. KAUFMAN: Maybe for March? MS. BAKER: Either that or we could -- if everyone's open to maybe doing -- another day may be better, because it would be a very quick thing; that way people aren't waiting around for meetings to get over with and not knowing when those times are. MS. FLAGG: There -- as we completed 2010, there were over 21,000 foreclosures in Collier County. So as a result of that, these caseloads are going to continue, so you may want to just select a day independent of a hearing day for the workshop. MR. KAUFMAN: How about a week from Sunday? MS. RAWSON: Is that more or less foreclosures than 2009? Page 106 January 27, 2011 MS. FLAGG: I could bring that back next month. I don't want to misquote it. What -- we monitor both -- we start with the beginning and monitoring the lis pendens. And just to kind of give you a brief overview, we're still seeing a transition by the banks where they're not actually filing the lis pendens, which is what that number represents, but there are people in default. So there will come a time, we anticipate, in 2011 when that -- the foreclosure of lis pendens filings are going to, again, increase. So there was a period of time in 2010 where there were thousands of people in default; they did not file the lis pendens, but now there's a transition occurring, and the lis pendens we anticipate to . . Increase agaIn. MS. RAWSON: Just so you know, they've added a senior judge, a general magistrate, and an administrative assistant for the judge just to do foreclosures. CHAIRMAN KELLY: End of2010, last quarter, the Mortgage Bankers' Association reported 26.83 percent of all mortgages were in some kind of default. Anyways. If it's just an hour, we might be able to dovetail kind of like our meeting at ten o'clock, rather than starting at nine, and just do it in the morning or, you know, set a separate day. But either case, we'd like to have our current rules emailed to us, if possible, so we can review them. MS. BAKER: Sure. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And you'll get back to us via email? MS. BAKER: Yes, sir. MS. FLAGG: So is your preference a separate day or a meeting preceding your scheduled meeting? MR. LEFEBVRE: I'd rather keep it the same day. MR. MARINO: Yeah. MR. LEFEBVRE: There's several of us that are Realtors. I'm Page 107 January 27, 2011 super busy, so -- MS. FLAGG: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's good. But you could email us options. Reminder to everybody, do not reply to all. Only reply back to Jen Waldron Baker. MR. MARINO: Is that Jen Baker? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Whatever. It changes. MS. RAWSON: Did you change your email address? MS. BAKER: Not yet. MS. RAWSON: It's still J. Waldron. MR. DEAN: I like Waldron. Such a nice name. You know, your husband could have taken it. MS. BAKER: You can talk to my husband about that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Don't bring him here. You ready to adjourn? MR. DEAN: I'd like to make a motion to adjourn. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: See you next month. ***** Page 108 January 27, 2011 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:18 p.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD LLY, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board on a " as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC /COURT REPORTER. Page 109