Loading...
CEB Minutes 04/28/2011 R April 28, 2011 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida April 28, 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 Collier County Development Services Center, Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Kenneth Kelly Larry Dean (Excused) Ron Doino Robert Kaufman James Lavinski Gerald Lefebvre Lionel L'Esperance Tony Marino ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director Jen Waldron, Code Enforcement Specialist Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA Date: April 28, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. Location: Growth Management Planning and Regulation, Conference Room 609/610 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 NOTICE: THE RESPONDENT MA Y BE LIMITED TO TWENTY (20) MINUTES FOR CASE PRESENTATION UNLESS ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE BOARD. PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. ALL PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN THE PUBLIC HEARING ARE ASKED TO OBSERVE ROBERTS RULES OF ORDER AND SPEAK ONE AT A TIME SO THAT THE COURT REPORTER CAN RECORD ALL STATEMENTS BEING MADE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1. ROLL CALL Kenneth Kelly, Chair Robert Kaufman, Vice Chair Gerald Lefebvre James Lavinski Larry Dean Lionel L' Esperance Tony Marino Ronald Doino, Alternate 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - A. March 24, 2011 Hearing B. March 24, 2011 Workshop 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. MOTIONS Motion for Extension of Time 1. Mr. 99 Cents, Inc. 2007050898 B. STIPULATIONS C. HEARINGS 1. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: 2. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: 4. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: 5. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: CESD20110000046 RUN HE LEI KONG MING LLC. INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) ADDITION OF NON PERMITTED LANAI. 36377640002 2254 52ND LANE S.W. NAPLES, FL CESD20110000255 PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS INVESTIGA TOR JONATHON MUSSE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02. 13(F) ANNUAL PUD MONITORING REPORT HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTED 204040002 7373 V ANDERBIL T BEACH RD. NAPLES, FL CELUPM20110000047 PEE-WEE'S DUMPSTER, INC. AND VICTOR THOMAS GEORGE INVESTIGA TOR JONATHON MUSSE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 2.02.03 ILLEGAL STORAGE OF EQUIPMENT, DUMPSTERS, CONTAINERS, PILES OF DIRT AND ROCK, HUGE CEMENT BLOCKS, ETC. 38280090006 721 LOGAN BLVD. S. NAPLES, FL CESD20100019758 STEVEN T. HOVLAND & MELANIE ANN HOVLAND INVESTIGA TOR TONY ASARO COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 1O.02.06(B)(1)(a) SHED, WOOD DECKING AND GARAGE CONVERTED TO AN AP AR TMENT WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS 00103840400 7850 FRIENDSHIP LANE NAPLES, FL CESD20090008686 MARINA GUZMAN INVESTIGA TOR CHRIS AMBACH COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 1O.02.06(B)(1)(a), 1O.02.06(B)(1)(e) AND 1O.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i), FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 2004 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1 CONVERTED GARAGE TO A LIVING SPACE AND AN UNPERMITTED SHED TYPE STRUCTURE IN THE REAR YARD WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING ALL REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS 37280600002 360 WILSON BLVD. NAPLES, FL 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: 9. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: CESD20100021908 WILLIAM J. FORTE SR. TR. ITF SUZANNE M. FORTE TR. 4/11 INVESTIGATOR AZURE SORRELS COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 1O.02.06(B)(1)(a) AND FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1, SECTION 105.1 ALTERATIONSIADDlTIONS MADE TO EXISTING PERMITTED STRUCTURE TO CONSIST OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO; CONCRETE STAIRS ON THE REAR OF THE GARAGE, GARAGE DOOR REMOVED AND ENCLOSED, SECOND FLOOR OF GARAGE ALTERED WITH INTERIOR WALLS AND EXTERIOR DOOR WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING ALL REQUIRED BUILDING PERMITS 29830760009 2948 ORANGE ST. NAPLES, FL CESD20100022071 DV PROPERTY INVESTMENT LLC. INVESTIGATOR MICHELLE SCAVONE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 1O.02.06(B)(1)(a), FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1 ADDlTIONS/ALTERATIONS MADE TO THE RESIDENCE WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING ALL REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS 71630280009 3 KINGS ROAD NAPLES, FL CESD20100009548 NEWBERRY TR., RICHARD E COMALEX DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN TRUST INVESTIGA TOR MICHELLE SCAVONE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPEMT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 1O.02.06(B)(1)(a), 1O.02.06(B)(1)(e), FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1 AL TERA TIONSIREP AIRS HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED TO STRUCTURAL, ELECTRICAL, AND PLUMBING IN UNITS A AND B CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO; DRYWALL REMOVEDIREPLACED, SINKS REPLACED, AND OUTSIDE STAIRS REPLACED. WORK WAS STARTED AND CONDUCTED BEFORE OBTAINING ALL REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS 52600440005 3230 THOMASSON DRIVE NAPLES, FL CESD20100018786 OMAR J. BARREDA & VERONICA TRUJILLO INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 1O.02.06(B)(1)(a) AND 1O.02.06(B)(I)(e)(i), COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE II, FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, SECTION 22-26(b)(104.5.1.4.4) FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, SECTION 105.1 SWIMMING POOL, SCREEN ENCLOSURE AND SHED BUILT WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS. THE OWNER DID APPLY FOR A PERMIT FOR THE POOL AND THE SCREEN ENCLOSURE IN 1995 BUT THE PERMITS WERE CANCELLED. 40922240005 2650 2ND AVE S.E. NAPLES, FL 5. OLD BUSINESS 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: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: CESD20100018773 OLGA MORENO INVESTIGATOR JOSEPH MUCHA COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 1O.02.06(B)(1)(a) GARAGE CONVERTED TO LIVING SPACE WITHOUT PERMITS. 35756320009 4273 20TH AVE S.W. NAPLES, FL CESD20100017996 RICHARD L & SANDRA F. RATHJEN INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 1O.02.06(B)(1)(a) UNPERMITTED STORAGE SHED AND LANAI. 36121360004 4866 21 ST AVENUE S. W. NAPLES, FL CESD20090018373 MIKE & MARY RUTH LUCERO INVESTIGA TOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 1O.02.06(B)(1)(a) A PERMITTED SCREEN PORCH ENCLOSED INTO LIVING SPACE WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A PERMIT 66881320008 311 6TH ST. IMMOKALEE, FL CESD20100017736 HENRY J. TESNO & JILL J. WEAVER INVESTIGA TOR AZURE SORRELS COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE II, SECTION 22-26(b)(104.5.lAA) PERMITS 2002050921 FOR SWIMMING POOL, 2003010443 FOR FENCE AND 2003102442 FOR FRAMED SINGLE FAMILY HOME HAVE ALL EXPIREDI CANCELLED BEFORE OBTAINING ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCYICOMPLETION. 71800000527 3117 ARECA AVENUE NAPLES, FL 5. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 7. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 8. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: CESD20100006494 AUDUBON CENTER OF NAPLES, LLC. INVESTIGATOR DELICIA PULSE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), 1O.02.06(B)(1)(e) AND 1O.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i) INTERIOR DOOR THAT WAS INSTALLED THAT REQUIRED BREAKING DOWN THAT PORTION OF THE FIREWALL TO CREATE AN OPENING TO COMBINE UNIT 110 AND 111, WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING PROPER COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS 22493000129 15495 TAMIAMI TRAIL N. NAPLES, FL CEPM201 00010050 PHILIP R. BRADLEY IV & NANCY F. BRADLEY INVESTIGA TOR MICHAELLE CROWLEY COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22, BUILDING AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22-231, SUBSECTION 15 POOL WATER UNMAINT AINED AND DARK IN COLOR 63102120003 4945 BARCELONA CIRCLE NAPLES, FL CEPM20100009420 GOMAA ELSAID & KAREN AMAL ELSHERBEINI INVESTIGA TOR JONATHON MUSSE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22, BUILDING AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI, PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22-231 SUBSECTION 15 A POOL NOT BEING MAINTAINED IN A SANITARY CONDITION 5610160007 11334 LONGSHORE WAY W. NAPLES, FL 2007110390 DANIEL DEEREY INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, ABANDONED OR SUSPENDED PERMIT, COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE II, FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, ADOPTION & AMENDMENT OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, SECTION 22-26(b)(104.5.1AA) EXPIRED PERMIT NO. 2006120034 FOR A "GAME ROOM" 72650003725 1405 KING SAGO CT. NAPLES, FL 9. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 10. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 11. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: 12. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 13. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: CESD20090000978 MARIA RAMIREZ INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE II, SECTION 22-26(B)(l04.1.3.5), FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2004 EDITION, CHAPTER 1, SECTION 105.1 AND SECTION 111.1, AND COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 1O.02.06(B)(l)(A) AND 1O.02.06(B)(l)(E)(I) REPORTED REMODEL/CONVERSION CONSISTING OF, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ELECTRIC REQIRE, PLUMBING, WALLS REMOVEDlREPLACED 39956600004 3340 35TH AVE. NE. NAPLES, FL CEROW20090000973 MARIA RAMIREZ INVESTIGA TOR TONY ASARO COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 110, ARTICLE II, DIVISION 1, GENERALLY, SECTION 110-31(A) EXPIRED RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT 07-0945-E, CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS STILL ON THE PROPERTY, DRIVEWAY NOT COMPLETE 39956600004 3340 35TH AVE. NE. NAPLES, FL CESD20090000972 MARIA RAMIREZ INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE II, SECTION 22- 26(B) (l04.5.104o4) EXPIRED FENCE PERMIT 2007052601 WITHOUT CO. FENCE CONSTRUCTIONSTARTED ON PROPERTY 39956600004 3340 35TH AVE. NE. NAPLES, FL CESD20090000975 MARIA RAMIREZ INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE II, SECTION 22-26(B) (104.1.3.5) STRUCTURES ON PROPERTY WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS 39956600004 3340 35TH AVE. NE. NAPLES, FL CELU20100018294 OMAR RAUL GARCIA INVESTIGATOR CAROL SYKORA COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 1.04.01 (A) AN UNLICENSEDIINOPERABLE BOX TRUCK PARKEDISTORED ON AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY 00738120003 1 0651 GREENWAY RD. NAPLES, FL 14. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 15. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLA TION ADDRESS: 16. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLA TIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: CENA20100018314 OMAR RAUL GARCIA INVESTIGA TOR CAROL SYKORA COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 54, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54-181 LITTER CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO; BUCKETS, WOOD PALLETS, PILED YARD DEBRIS, WINDOW SCREENS, COOLERS, METAL MESH 00738120003 1 0651 GREENWAY RD. NAPLES, FL CEPM20100018330 OMAR RAUL GARCIA INVESTIGA TOR CAROL SYKORA COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 2-231(12)(i) BROKEN WINDOWS ON THE MAIN HOUSE 00738120003 10651 GREENWAY RD. NAPLES, FL CESD20100018347 OMAR RAUL GARCIA INVESTIGATOR CAROL SYKORA COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AMENDED, SECTION 1O.02.06(B)(1)(a) AND FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1, PERMITS SECTION 105.1 INTERIOR OF A CBS BARN WHICH WAS CONVERTED INTO A GROW HOUSE WITH EXTENSIVE ELECTRICAL ALTERATIONS, WIRING, OUTLETS, ELECTRICAL PANELS, AIR CONDITIONING UNITS, IRRIGATION SYSTEMS AND PARTITION WALLS WITH NO COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS 00738120003 10651 GREENWAY RD. NAPLES, FL B. Motion for Reduction of Fines/Lien C. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order: 1. Robert E. and Serita D. Brown 6. NEW BUSINESS CEPM20 1 000 18257 A. Code Enforcement Rules and Regulations 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens B. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. 8. REPORTS 9. COMMENTS 10. NEXT MEETING DATE - May 26,2011 11. ADJOURN April 28, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board to order for April 28th, 2011. Notice: The respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation, unless additional time is granted by the Board. Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes, unless the time is adjusted by the chair. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Robert's Rules of Order and speak one at a time so the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. May I have roll call. MS. BAKER: Mr. Ken Kelly? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Robert Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Tony Marino? MR. MARINO: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LA VINSKI: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Ron Doino? MR. DOINO: Here. MS. BAKER: And Mr. Larry Dean has an excused absence for today. Page 2 April 28, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. For the record, our alternate, Ron Doino, will be a full voting member for this meeting due to the absence of Larry Dean. Moving on to the approval of the agenda. Can we have any changes? MS. BAKER: Yes, we do. Under number four, public hearings/motions, letter A, motions, motion for extension of time, we have four additions to that. Number two will be Olga Moreno, Case CESD20 1 000 18773. Number three will be Maria Ramirez. This is being taken off of the imposition of fine section. It will be Case CEROW20090000973. The next will also be Maria Ramirez, which will be number 11 from imposition of fines, Case CESD20090000972. And the next will also be Maria Ramirez, number 12 from imposition of fines. Case CESD20090000975. Under letter B, stipulations, we have one stipulation. It will be number nine from hearings. Omar J. Barreda and Veronica Trujillo. Case CESD20100018786. Under letter C, hearings, number one, case CESD20 11 0000046, Run He Le and Kong Ming, LLC has been withdrawn. Number four, Case CESD20100019758, Steven T. Hovland and Melanie Ann Hovland has been withdrawn. Number six, Case CESD20100021908, William J. Forte, Sr., Trust, ITF Suzanne M. Forte Trust 4/11 has been withdrawn. Number seven, Case CESD20100022071, DV Property Investment, LLC has been withdrawn. Number eight, Case CESD20100009548, Newberry Trust, Richard E. Comalex Defined Benefit Pension Plan Trust has been withdrawn. Under number five, old business, letter A, motion for imposition of fines/liens: Number five, Case CESD20 1 00006494, Audubon Center of Naples, LLC has been withdrawn. Page 3 April 28, 2011 Number six, Case CEPM20100010050, Philip R. Bradley, IV and Nancy F. Bradley has been withdrawn. Number 14, Case CENA20100018314, Omar Raul Garcia, has been withdrawn. Number 15, Case CEPM2010001830, Omar Raul Garcia, has been withdrawn. And that's all the changes I have. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'll entertain a motion to accept the agenda. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the agenda. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Moving on to the approval of minutes. We have two of them. One of them's from our March 24th, 2011 hearing. Do we have any questions or changes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: With that, I'll entertain a motion. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the minutes from that date. MR. MARINO: I'll second it. Page 4 April 28, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: And seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And that one carries. N ow letter B is the workshop, same day. Any discussions or changes to the minutes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: With that, I'll entertain a motion. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the meeting agenda that we had last meeting. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion. Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. Page 5 April 28, 2011 MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And moving on to public hearings. Letter A, motions, extension for time. Number one, Mr. 99 Cents, Incorporated. (Speakers were duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please? MR. HASSAM: Diamil Hassam. THE COURT REPORTER: Would you spell it, please? MR. HASSAM: H-A-S-S-A-M, last name. THE COURT REPORTER: And the first name? MR. HASSAM: D-I-A-M-I-L. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. MR. HASSAM: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We do have your letter for request of extension of time, and we thank you for coming to join us this . mornIng. MR. HASSAM: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN KELLY: In brief, would you like to explain just real quick what's going on and why you're requesting the extension. MR. HASSAM: Our plans got approved yesterday. We had some problem getting a contractor, but we're ready to go. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there any questions for Mr. Hassam? MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion we accept the extension. When do you think this would be brought back? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Hassam, how long are you asking for? MR. HASSAM: Ninety days. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Ninety days. It's approved? Page 6 April 28, 2011 SUPERVISOR SNOW: Yes, sir, there's no objection from the county . MR. LEFEBVRE: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Cherie', you know Kitchell, right? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Go ahead. MR. LEFEBVRE: In his letter it says two months, if I'm not mistaken. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Well, sir, if I may, when I talked to Mr. Hassam this morning, we would prefer to add -- it's a large structure, he is getting it issued. He's going to pick it up today. But it is large. We didn't want to have to bring him back after 60 days if there were some delays in getting inspections. That was our only concern. That's why we recommended to him 90 days rather than the other time. MR. KAUFMAN: That's what the motion is, 90 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: I second that motion then. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Any discussion, questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Thanks very much, and let us know if you run into any more troubles. Page 7 April 28, 2011 MR. HASSAM: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next case is going to be Olga Moreno. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Good morning. For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement Supervisor. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Any objections to the request for extension? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: No. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Only thing I don't see is time frame. Do you happen to know about how long they're requesting? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: I do not know how long they're requesting. I think they're going to leave that up to the Board. MR. L'ESPERANCE: What is your recommendation or feeling? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Let me see here. I'll read this over really quickly. I would say no longer than 60 days. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Are there any ideas from the Board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to extend for 60 days. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have -- MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question. And I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a second. Go ahead. MR. KAUFMAN: My question is, this is not in compliance now? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Not in compliance, but they have made an attempt. And I believe there is a permit and applied status right now. MR. KAUFMAN: And I see that the operational costs have been paid. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any further questions? Page 8 April 28, 2011 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it passes. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, sir. Moving on to case number three under extension of time, Ramirez. There are three cases back-to-back, all with the same respondent. For the record, the first case is CEROW20090000973. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning, Mrs. Ramirez. MS. RAMIREZ: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you could speak directly in the mic., that would help the court reporter hear you better. We're going to have to take each case separately, however, if you'd like, your testimony could probably carry between the three. If you'd like to tell us a little bit about what's going on and why you're requesting an extension of time, and you can speak plainly. MS. RAMIREZ: When I came in November, I was going through the modification process, and it was approved in March. That's when I came and I paid all the -- the renewal cases and I paid the operational costs. And the only two cases, and I'm ready to start-- I mean, keep going with the other two. Page 9 April 28, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Congratulations. You're one of few who actually got the modification approved. Very good. Is there any objection for the extension of times from county? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: For the record, Code Enforcement Supervisor Cristina Perez. No objection, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Are there questions from the Board? MR. KAUFMAN: How much time? CHAIRMAN I(ELL Y: Good question. MR. RAMSEY: One of those is a concrete fence. Ninety days it will be done. And the other one, it's the right-of-way, is a little bit -- like 60 days? MR. KAUFMAN: 973 is which particular-- CHAIRMAN KELLY: The right-of-way. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: The one in 973 is for the right-of-way. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And you're requesting 60 days for the right-of-way? That's this case here. MS. RAMIREZ: I think I'll be doing -- I'm done with that one before the other. I mean, make sure, 60 days. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions or ideas from the Board? MR. LEFEBVRE: I think maybe it might be best just to keep all the time frames the same. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I agree. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I would agree. MR. LEFEBVRE: Unless there's something that's mitigating, you know, a health and safety issue. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Well, she took care of the health and safety, which was interior remodeling to the house, and permit has been COld. That's a separate case apart from these three. That will be heard later today. MR. KAUFMAN: Taking what Mr. Lefebvre said, why don't we make this one 90 days, and then when we come to the next one, it will Page 10 April 28, 2011 be easier to maintain the same time. So I make the motion that we extend the time on this to 90 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, this case is passed, 90 days. We'll move to the next one. It is a separate case. Cherie', do you need to re-swear in? MS. RAWSON: I think she's already been sworn. CHAIRMAN I(ELL Y: Okay. The next case will be, just for the record, CESD20090000972. This is also one you had already explained it, so we'll go through it quickly . You're asking for 90 days on this as well. Is there any questions or objections from County? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: No, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion that we extend this 90 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? Page 11 April 28, 2011 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN I(ELL Y: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries. And the third one is going to be CESD20090000975. Again the request is for 90 days, correct? And are there any objections from the county? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: No, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: On this one, 75, I show that the operational costs have not been paid. Is that correct? MS. RAMIREZ: No. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: No, they have been paid. MS. RAMIREZ: I paid everything. I pay all four operational costs. I have the receipt in here. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the county confirmed that, so you're okay. Is there any further questions? MR. MARINO: Yeah, mine says it's been paid. MR. KAUFMAN: Well, they all say that they have not been paid, but that must have been some sort of a typo. MR. LEFEBVRE: No, they have been paid. MR. KAUFMAN: No, I read it wrong, I'm sorry. Okay, I make a motion that we extend it 90 days as well. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. Page 12 April 28, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, that one has also been extended for 90 days. Thank you very much for your help. And good luck and let us know if you run into any other problems before the time expires. MS. RAMIREZ: If I --I'm going to do before that time. What's going to happen with the fines? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, right now there are no fines, because what we did is we extended the original orders 90 days further from today. So whereas before they had expired and those fines were starting to accrue, we've pushed that back. You have a new deadline. So all those old fines don't count anymore, now you have an additional 90 days. If you do need more time or you run into problems, please come to us before it expires. MS. RAMIREZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: One other comment. Ninety days from today, correct? CHAIRMAN KELLY : Yes, 90 days from today, yes. Page 13 April 28, 2011 MS. RAMIREZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Okay, that is the end of our extensions for time. Now we're moving on to B, stipulations. We have one case, that's Omar Barreda and Veronica Trujillo. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. Give us just one second, we'll get our papers handed out. And then Investigator, if you'd like to read the stipulation into the record, that would be great. INVESTIGA TOR BALDWIN: For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. Therefore it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Pay operational costs in the amount of $83.72 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Two: Abate all violations by: Enclosing the pool area with a permanent protective barrier within 14 days of this hearing or fines of $250 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Two (sic): Applying for and obtaining a Collier County building permit or demolition permit for the pool; request all related inspections through the issuance of certificate of completion within 30 days of this hearing or a fine of $1 00 a day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Four: Applying for and obtaining a Collier County building permit or demolition permit for the shed. Request all related inspections through the issuance of a certificate of completion within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Five: Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request that the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. And six: That if the respondent fails to abate the violation and Page 14 April 28, 2011 (sic) the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Good morning. Do you understand and agree to everything that was just read and you signed? MS. TRUJILLO: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. I think we have some questions from the Board. MS. TRUJILLO: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: Do you think that 14 days is sufficient time-- MS. TRUJILLO: No, I do not. But they say because it's open. I don't understand why 14 days. I asked for 30 days, but they say 14 days. This is the back of my house and, you know, no one's supposed to go back there. But I understand. I'm going to try to get it done in 14 days. I'll try. MR. LEFEBVRE: I have a que -- are you done? MR. KAUFMAN: I was going to ask the county to comment on that. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Just for the fact that there is no protective barrier surrounding the swimming pool right now, that's why we felt it was a health and safety issue. So we wanted to get a protective barrier surrounding the pool as soon as possible. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Can you describe what permanent protective barrier Ineans? Like just give us an idea of what it would be. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: The owner has applied for a fence for the property. Actually she applied for a fence for the property back in -- MS. TRUJILLO: Six months ago. Page 15 April 28, 2011 INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Yeah, six months ago. And she just got an extension to finish off the permit for the -- the fence permit for the property. She stated earlier that she could probably get it done, and that's what our main priority was, to get the pool secured before anything happens. CHAIRMAN I(ELL Y: There's a fence around the property. Does that qualify for protective barrier around the pool? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Yes. If she completely encloses the property that would. She could also just go around the swimming pool as well. MS. TRUJILLO: And that's what I'm doing, because I cannot do the whole property, I'm going -- I have one side of the house protected, but I'm going to close around the pool. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Gerald? MR. LEFEBVRE: Number two and three seem contradictory. Number two says 14 days, and then number three says 30. MS. TRUJILLO: Because originally we were going to do it for 30, but they -- you know, they are afraid of the safety issue, and that's why he say okay, 14 days for you to finish the -- you know, around the pool. You know, to close that. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: And she has applied for-- reapplied for the swimming pool permit. MR. LEFEBVRE: Which is it, is it 14 days or is it 30 days? Because it says apply -- number three says apply for and obtaining a Collier County building permit demolition permit for the pool. Request all related inspections through issuance of a certificate of completion within 30 days of this hearing or a fine of $1 00 per day will be imposed. Number two says the same thing, but says it's supposed to be 14 days or a $250 fine. So which is it? MS. BAKER: For the record, Jen Baker, Code Enforcement Supervisor. Page 16 April 28, 2011 There's two separate issues. There's the permanent protective barrier around the pool, which needs a separate permit. And then there's the pool issue, which is a whole separate permit in itself. There's -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay, so the -- MS. BAKER: -- two separate issues. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- pool is not permitted either? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. So you're giving 30 days to permit the pool but 14 to get the barrier up. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Yes. And again, she has -- she just has reapplied for a pool permit as well. And she has I believe three inspections left to go on that C.O., the new pool permit. I can give you the new pool permit number, if you want. MS. TRUJILLO: Can I say something about that? The pool was built back in 1995 by a contractor. We took a loan on the house. The bank paid the contractor. Every time an inspection passed, that's how the payments were issued to the contractor. I have records of all of that. I have even the back of the checks that were paid after each inspection. But somehow they say that not all of the inspections were done. When I was there myself for the last inspection when they told me everything is completed, your pool already pass all the inspections, your kids can go now and swim, you know. And now 15 years later they coming to me saying that I don't have not even a per -- well, there was a permit opened, but it was never closed. When I was even there for the last -- and they have found four inspection that that pool passed. But they say that not all the inspection were done. When over here they tell me a pool only takes four inspections. And my paper will show that my pool pass four inspections. But they cannot back it out with the paperwork they have here, because they cannot find the box. But right here on the record, you Page 1 7 April 28, 2011 look at the paper that they got, my pool pass four inspections. They have it right here. MR. LEFEBVRE: But would it be a separate permit for the fence around the pool? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Yes. MS. TRUJILLO: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: So that's why the pool passed the four inspections, but -- INVESTIGA TOR BALDWIN: Originally there were two permits that expired that I cited her for. There was a permit for the lanai, a screen enclosure and a pool. They both needed about three more inspections to be CO'd. When I cited the property owner, she then decided she was going to remove -- fill in the pool and remove the screen enclosure. She removed the screen enclosure. But then that was at the end of October. Then she decided well, no, I want the pool, so now here we are today. And there is not a barrier around the pool. MS. TRUJILLO: Because I started asking the county for, you know, my paperwork so I can finish my pool remodel. We were not using the pool. You know, my kids are already 22 years old. I live at the house by myself, you know, so nobody was using the pool. But then when he came and he say oh, your pool. Okay, I go, okay, then I'm putting it up today. And that's when I found out that they cannot find my box. You know, the box with all the paperwork. And I have my paperwork from the bank, you know, everything. And three times they had to look for the box. They cannot find it anywhere, anyplace. You know, all the record they have, what they have in the computer that my pool pass for all the inspections. Another thing, lanai, screen lanai only requires one, and they have that inspection. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question. You're going to screen or fence one side of the property? Do you have a contractor to do that? Page 18 April 28, 2011 Are you going to do it yourself? MS. TRUJILLO: Myself. He can tell you, he been there already INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: She's applied for a homeowner building permit for a fence. MS. TRUJILLO: Everything I do in the house I have to do it myself. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. And you think you could get that done in two weeks, or -- MS. TRUJILLO: You know, for the -- around the pool area, I wish I could have the 30 days; that would be better for me. But if I have to, you know, try to in 14 days, I'm going to try to do it in 14 days, you know. MR. KAUFMAN: How long has this been open so that people could get into the property? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Since late October of last year, 2010. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay, I'm from the school of it's been since October. I know it's a health and safety, but we're talking about -- MS. TRUJILLO: And this is the back of my property, you know. And it's empty right now. You know, what I did was before I took the screen off, I removed the water, wanted to make sure nobody was going to drown, you know, I don't want -- so I remove the water. The pool is empty, you know. And no one should be going back there. It's the back of my house, you know. MR. KAUFMAN: Unfortunately with pools, they may be even as dangerous without water as with water -- MS. TRUJILLO: That's what they told me, yeah. MR. KAUFMAN: -- you know, if you fall in. MS. TRUJILLO: Another thing, when I started getting the permit, because they couldn't give me the permit to finish it, they couldn't give me the permit to demolish it, because they didn't have Page 19 April 28, 2011 records that I have a pool. You know, when I have all the paperwork and -- well, when all of that was happening, I got stuck. I got stuck in the middle. Three times, like I say, I've been back here looking for those paper. Because I got stuck in the middle that I couldn't do anything. I couldn't finish it and I couldn't put it up to date. You know, I couldn't demolish it or I couldn't put it up to date. Because to demolish, you also need a permit. But to ask for a permit, you have to have a permit that there was a pool, and I didn't have none. MR. LEFEBVRE: The permit is in what status now? INVESTIGA TOR BALDWIN: They're both in issued status. MS. TRUJILLO: Yeah. MR. LEFEBVRE: So they're ready to be picked up? MS. TRUJILLO: Yeah, Monday -- INVESTIGA TOR BALDWIN: No, they have been picked up. MR. LEFEBVRE: They have been picked up. Okay, I make a lTIotion to approve the stipulated agreement as written. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second. Do we have any further discussion? MR. KAUFMAN: I have one question. On the pool, if you extended some two-by-fours across it and threw some plywood on top to cover the hole in the ground, would that be something that would make it safe so that the dates could be changed? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: That would make it safe. That would eliminate the health and safety issue. But for her to get her pool permit, she's going to need the protective barrier around the pool to get that CO anyway. MR. KAUFMAN: I understand. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is that it? MR. KAUFMAN: Yeah. Page 20 April 28, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right, all in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion passes. If you have any problems, please let us know. MS. TRUJILLO: I will. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Okay, that is the end of our stipulations, unless you're hard at work? No, okay. MS. BAKER: Hard at work, yes, but no stipulations. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That was a trap. Okay, moving on to hearings. Case number two, Prime Homes at Portofino Falls. No respondent? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Come on up. INVESTIGATOR NELSON: I'm John Nelson. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to Case CESD20110000255. Violation of Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.13(F). Description of violation: Annual PUD monitoring report has not been submitted. Page 21 April 28, 2011 Location/address where violation exists: 7373 Vanderbilt Beach Road, Naples, Florida, 34119. Folio 204040002. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Prime Homes at Portofino Falls, 4651 Sheridan Street, Suite 480, Hollywood, Florida, 33021. Care of registered agent Steven Greenfield B., Esquire, 7000 West Palmetto Parks Road, Suite 402, Boca Raton, Florida, 33021. Violation date first observed: January 19th, 2011. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: March 2nd, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: March 28th, 2011. Date of reinspect ion: March 29th, 2011. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Jonathon Musse, Collier County Code Enforcement. I would now like to present the case evidence in the following exhibits: First notification letter sent to the property owner on July 28th, 2010. And the second letter sent on October 15th, 2010 from Laurie Beard of PUD monitoring land development services, requesting that they submit their report. On February 28th, a notice of violation to the registered agent of Prime Homes at Portofino Falls, Mr. Steven Greenfield, was sent to him. Conducted numerous reinspections; no change in the violation. I checked with Mrs. Beard -- Mrs. Beard's spreadsheet that she updates every Friday. That informed me that the property owners have not yet subluitted their annual report. As of right now, the violation still remains. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there anything that you're actually admitting into evidence? INVESTIGA TOR MUSSE: Just -- that's the only evidence that I Page 22 April 28, 2011 got notifications of. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, so you do have something. All right, in that case we need to accept it. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept -- has the respondent seen that, all of those items? INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: No. MR. NELSON: I have not personally, no. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We'd like you to take a look at them in case you have an objection. MR. NELSON: Okay. INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: (Handing.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It's a little different than the last cases that you heard. This is a full case hearing. So the way it works is county is going to present the case, kind of like a court of law type of thing, but we're not that formal. MR. NELSON: Well, I found out about this at 5:00 last night, so I'm sort of new on all this, so -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you have an objection to us seeing those? MR. NELSON: No, I do not. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We have a motion, do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. Page 23 April 28, 2011 MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. L'ESPERANCE: Can you give us a brief description of -- really brief, what an annual monitoring report would be? INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: I do have Mrs. Beard present here. She's in charge of the PUD monitoring reports. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's a good idea. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. BEARD: 1'1TI Lauren Beard -- Laurie Beard. I am the PUD monitoring, which is Planned Unit Developments. The zoning of a PUD, when it is zoned into a PUD there's an ordinance approved with commitments to the ordinance for environmental, engineering, transportation and such. And annually through the Land Development Code the owner/developer of the property is to fill out an annual monitoring report so that we can determine which commitments have been fulfilled, which are past due and also how many units density/intensity have been built. F or this one I have not received back a report for the property owned by Prime Homes at Portofino Falls and Port -- which is also Porto fino Falls Builders. MR. KAUFMAN: Prior to today have you had any contact with the folks that should be sending you the monitoring report? MS. BEARD: For the 2010 reports, I had sent the original letter to them to fill it out on July 28th of2010. And then a follow-up letter went out October 15th. Yesterday at 4:41 I did receive a voice mail from a gentleman named George that he needed to talk to me about completing the report and how long that it would take. I returned his call this morning but I only got his voice mail. Page 24 April 28, 2011 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is this the only report that's late? Do you have prior reports received? MS. BEARD: That I would have to go back and look up. I took over PUD monitoring just last year, and it's all in the computer and I would have to look and see if there are any additional ones that were past due. MR. L'ESPERANCE: So we don't know the history of this particular PUD? MS. BEARD: Not at the moment. I'd have to look it up on the computer. MR. L'ESPERANCE: The status of this report. MS. BEARD: Correct. And there are -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. MS. BEARD: -- two reports. A different report is done by each owner. And I have received for the other portion of the property, just not this one. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Are there ever any exceptions when an ordinance is filed to PUD reporting? MS. BEARD: They're technically supposed to be done every year until they go through the close-out process, which is then approved by the Board of County Commissioners. We're in the process right now of trying to revise that language for development that's basically built out. In this case this property is not built out. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So there would be no exception, there absolutely would have to be a report filed every year. MS. BEARD: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: When is the due date on this report? MS. BEARD: The due date on this report was September 30th, 2010. MR. LEFEBVRE: September 30th? MS. BEARD: 30th, 2010. Page 25 April 28, 2011 MR. LEFEBVRE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there any other questions for the county? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: In that case -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, one-- CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'm sorry, go ahead. MR. LEFEBVRE: Let me ask: The person by the name of George that called, what is his capacity at the company? MR. NELSON: He works in our legal land development type of deal doing the procurelnent, that kind of issues on it; our land division of it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just curious what he -- MR. KAUFMAN: Would he be the one who would be authoring this paper? MR. NELSON: Yes, he would be the one authoring this paper. And my understanding is that we did not get the violation stuff from our registered agent, and we wanted to be able to change that so that we get everything at our office instead of going through a registered agent so this won't happen again. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Nelson, what is your capacity with the company? MR. NELSON: I'm senior project manager. I'm in charge of the west coast, which is basically Collier and Lee County. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And do you have the capacity to speak on the company's behalf here today? MR. NELSON : Yes, but they did not send them anything in writing. But I have been authorized prior to as a Power of Attorney to pull permits here and again up in Lee County. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there anyone on the Board that objects to Mr. Nelson representing? (No response.) Page 26 April 28, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, then you're fine. MR. NELSON: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Basically if you have anything else to add, you can speak freely and tell us what you'd like to do to either rectify this, whether or not this is -- MR. NELSON: Yeah, we'd like to rectify this. And we would like to give an extension so we can do that. I do have calls -- again, I just found out about this after 5:00 last night. So I do have a call in to our Engineer which is Dave Underhill from Banks Engineering to one, find out how long he's going to take and how quick we can get him on it so that we can get this taken care of. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: I think what Mr. Lefebvre was going at before was this annual report, since it's underway, probably was filed last year and the year before, possibly? MR. NELSON: My understanding is from my office, and I talked to one of the owners this morning, is that they have been up to date on the prior reports. MR. KAUFMAN: So to file this report, unless there's been some dramatic change, would be not a big deal. MR. NELSON: No, that's correct. MR. KAUFMAN: So how much time do you think it would take to -- MR. NELSON: We're asking for 60 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: Another question: Has anything changed since the previous report? I live right down from the development. It doesn't look like anything's changed in the past two years, so it should be a very simple report to produce. MR. NELSON: I would think so, but I don't have the prior reports and I haven't seen those so I'm not sure -- and I haven't seen what needs to go into them, so -- Page 27 April 28, 2011 MR. LEFEBVRE: What I'm trying to get at is let's say when that report was submitted in 2009, September 30th, 2009, the report for 2010 hasn't been submitted. No building's gone on there in a couple of years, so there hasn't been anything -- any changes. I don't see it taking 60 days to get this report. MR. NELSON: Again, I'm not familiar with the report. I'm just reporting what my office requests. I have not seen the report. I don't know what information is on that report and what they're requesting as far as updates, as far as did we do this or did we do that or -- MR. MARINO: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes, sir. MR. MARINO: How long have you been Project Manager there? MR. NELSON: Since the beginning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Before we move towards rectifying this and dates and tilnes, we need to decide as a board if there is a violation here. MR. NELSON: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion that a violation exists. MR. LA VINSIZI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LA VINSIZI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? Page 28 April 28, 2011 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great. Does the county have a recommendation? INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: Yes, sir. The county recommends that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $81.15 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days, and abate all violations by submitting the following doculnents: Two completed copies of the annual monitoring report; one of three traffic county options; one executive affidavit within X amount of days of this hearing or a fine of X amount of dollars per day will be imposed until violation is abated. 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. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opinions from the Board? MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion to fill in the blanks. $81.15 to be paid within 30 days. Sixty days to submit all the reports, or a $100 a day fine be levied. And the dates start today. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion to accept the county's recommendation for 60 days and $100 per day. Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN I(ELL Y: We have a second. Is there any discussion? MR. LEFEBVRE: I think 60 days is a long period. I think it's too long. I would agree to 30 days, and due to the fact that I haven't seen any activity on the property in a couple of years, that report should be pretty simple to produce.o Page 29 April 28, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: I also think the fine is a little high. I think 50 bucks a day is probably better than 100. But that's just my two cents. Any other discussion? MR. LA VINSKI : Yeah, these PUD forms, there's a little bit more that meets the eye to developing these, so I don't think the 60 days is unreasonable. Because that PUD form goes into every item that was in the PUD, the PUD monitoring form. So he's going to have to go back and visit each line item that was in the original PUD, which is listed on this PUD monitoring report. So I don't think the 60 days is unreasonable. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. LEFEBVRE: Opposed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Lefebvre. Motion carries. You have 60 days. And if you have any questions, here's the boss right here. MR. NELSON: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Okay, moving on to the next case. It's Pee-Wee's Dumpster, Incorporated. Registered agent, Victor Thomas George. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Before we start, I have some witnesses that are going to be wanting to do some testimony. Do you Page 30 April 28, 2011 want to swear them in as well? CHAIRMAN KELLY : Yes, please. Can we do it all at once? That would be great. Any witnesses for this association. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to Case CELUPM20110000047. Violation of Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended, Section 2.02.03. Description of violation: Illegal storage of equipment, dumpsters, containers, piles of dirt and rock and huge cement blocks, et cetera. Location/address where violation exists: 721 Logan Boulevard South, Naples, Florida, 34119. Folio 38280090006. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Pee- Wee's Dumpster, Inc. and/or Victor Thomas George, 721 Logan Boulevard South, Naples, Florida, 34119. Date violation first observed: January 10th, 2011. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: February 17th, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: March 4th, 2011. Date of reinspection: March 7th, 2011. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. CHAIRMAN I(ELL Y: Good morning. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Good morning. Mr. George, would you be more comfortable with a chair up there? MR. GEORGE: Yes, please. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement Supervisor. This is in reference to Case No. CELUPM2011000047, dealing with the violation of the illegal outside storage of dumpsters on Page 31 April 28, 2011 Estates zoned property. The violation location is at 721 Logan Boulevard, Naples, Florida, 34119. Folio No. 38280090006. Service was given on February 17th, 2011. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Six photos taken on January 10th, 2011 by Investigator Musse. I have shown these pictures to Mr. George before the hearing. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the photos. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. LA VINSKI: Second. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Pick one. All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN I(ELL Y: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: The initial inspection was conducted by Investigator Musse on January 10th, 2011 where he observed multiple dumpsters, containers, piles of rock, dirt, stacks of huge cement blocks. And he informed Mr. George at that time of the violation. Since that time, Mr. George has cleaned up some. He's obtained four permits, so the use of some of the cement and blocks are being used in building a berm and a fence. So that's not the issue. The issue I'm here today on is the outside storage of dumpsters in Page 32 April 28, 2011 Estates zoned property. (At which time, Ms. Flagg enters the boardroom.) SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Since that time, Investigator Musse has been out there numerous times. I've been out there with Mr. George on one occasion. We talked about it. I explained what I thought the violation was. Basically I'm claiming that this is a prohibited use in Estates zoned property. It's not a permitted, it's not a conditional and it's not an accessory use to store dumpsters on Estates zoned property. This would be more in line with the commercial or an industrial area. Mr. George does have a valid home occupational license for that property, but not the right to store dumpsters on Estates zoned property . MR. L'ESPERANCE: When you say Estates zoned, are we assuming residential? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: No, we're assuming Estates. The Estates does have a little bit more leeway on stuff you can do out there. Estates is I guess described as quasi residential with a little bit of residence and farming allowed out there, and various other parking you could do out there besides what you could do in residential areas. MR. L'ESPERANCE: There are some exclusions or something that's not included? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: There are some -- you can do more stuff on the Estates zoned property than you can normally do in a residential property. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Anything specifically excluded or included? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Well, I believe that they're going to COlne to the point where they're going to talk about commercial -- the parking of commercial vehicles and equipment. And I think that's going to be some of their basis of their defense. So yes, there are exemptions in that also. Page 33 April 28, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions of the county? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, sir, if you'd like to tell us what's going on, we'd be happy to hear it. MR. GEORGE: I have a dumpster business. I have my occupational there four and a half years. I have containers. I store my containers there. I take them to job sites. And when now construction is slower, I have some extra containers I'll keep on the property. And then when somebody else calls, they need a dumpster, I get it, they fill it up, I take it to the transfer station, landfill, wherever, bring it back, and that's what I've been doing. It is COlnmer -- I mean, it is my occupation. I feel that it's no difference than anybody doing contracting that's doing stucco, scaffolding, fisherman that have crab traps, you're allowed to have them there. And I see no reason for storing my dumpsters. I did pull a permit, I'm building a garage. And I would like to keep them inside so if I've got to do fixing, repairing on the dumpsters, I'll have a covered area. I poured the concrete slab back there so I have something to work on and so forth. As you can see, there's probably one picture there with some debris in it. I had a specific time to meet John on my site and I was at a job site running behind. I had something break on my truck, so I says, I've got to meet John. I think it was around 1 :00, I'm not sure. I came there, I got my piece fixed and he came on the property. I said, here, you can see what I'm doing. This is what I'm storing. They came out -- Jeff came out. We sat down and talked. I said, here's my permits to do my fencing for the blockwork. I've got that, putting fence down on the side. You cannot see those dumpsters unless you walk on my property. And I like to store my equipment on my property. Why should 1-- Page 34 April 28, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Hold on, hold on. MR. GEORGE: Why should I have to pay another spot just to store my equipment when other contracting construction people can do it? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. GEORGE: Because I am zoned Estates. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And I'm not a realtor or an engineer or a PUD guy. But I do know there are some exemptions for the Estates. And I think the issue comes down to who can approve the actual ordinance that sets the Estates for these exemptions; who can approve that these dumpsters are not allowed as part of that I think is what this boils down to. So-- MR. GEORGE: Can I have my engineer speak for me? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Please. MR. LOCIZHART: Good morning. My name is Robert Lockhart, for the record, engineer with Lockhart Engineering. I was originally retained by Mr. George to obtain permits for the garage he mentioned. In the process, the violations came to my light. I assisted in obtaining the other permits that he needed to abate those violations. And the correspondence started the first of March, this was March 2nd. And on the 15th, three different letters I had written to John, and basically all the violations were resolved, abated. In one of the correspondence, it was my response that according to Land Development Code, Section 5.02, home occupations, starting with section 01, applicability, home occupation shall be allowed in any zoning district. Okay, it doesn't have a requirement that the zoning district allow a home occupation. In Section 5.02.03, statement E, parking or storage of commercial vehicles or equipment shall be allowed. And in my opinion as an engineer, a dUlnpster is a piece of commercial equipment. And again, as long as it is in compliance with the regulations for commercial vehicles in Collier County. Page 35 April 28, 2011 As far as I'm aware, it is in compliance. I guess -- I had asked John and have not received anything in writing or verbal to explain how it is not in compliance. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there a requirement to have a house on the property and is there a house on the property? MR. LOCKHART: Yes, there is. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So you are living there or you have a house there, and then this is your commercial equipment that's parked behind that house? MR. GEORGE: Correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. It's very common in the Estates to have that type of setup. MR. GEORGE: Correct. CHAIRMAN I(ELL Y: Okay. All right, may I quickly just ask the county. County, were you able to get any type of interpretation from anyone on staff or anyone that revolves around these type of zoning areas of the zoning department to explain what is and what is not allowed? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: I did not get a planner's interpretation. However, I would like to state that I have that ordinance in front of me what he's saying about the commercial vehicles which would be allowed. I'll restate it again: Parking or storage of commercial vehicles or equipment shall be allowable only in compliance with the requirements for commercial vehicles in the county code. I'm at the commercial vehicle ordinance. And it's Section 130-97, parking of commercial vehicles or commercial equipment in residential areas. Well, the Estates is exempt from that part, because it's not considered a residential area in conjunction with vehicle ordinance. However, I'm going to go to one word. Parking of commercial Page 36 April 28, 2011 vehicles and equipment. I do not believe that when you store a dumpster on a piece of property you're parking a dumpster. You are storing a dlllnpster. It's just like anything, you'd be storing scaffolding, you're storing bricks. This is in the vehicle ordinance. So when it's referring to commercial equipment, I believe it's referring to sOlnething that you can park. Otherwise it wouldn't have said parking or storing. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So to take this to a similar trade, if I was a landscaping company and I had one truck but I had two trailers, one was set up for let's say horticultural work, the other was just simply a trailer to bring my mowing equipment, and I only brought one out at a time, because I only have one truck to pull it, they were both accessories to that vehicle, would that be allowed? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: I believe that you can park a trailer. A trailer is a vehicle of some sort. It's a vehicle, it's not a piece of equipment that is stored. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So what makes this different is the -- in this case, for instance, the trailer itself was a registered accessory vehicle, if you will, not something that sits on that vehicle. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Correct. It's something you can park. I would even go so far as to say a bulldozer, a bobcat, something like that, you park those things also. You know, this is something you can't park. I lnean, you're not parking a dumpster at any situation, you're storing a dumpster. MR. LEFEBVRE: What's the definition in the LDC of a vehicle? Because that would -- MR. MARINO: That's what I was going to ask. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: I don't have the definition with me. MR. LEFEBVRE: Would it be better maybe to have a county attorney write up -- Page 37 April 28, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: In all fairness to the respondent, I don't think it's the board's prerogative to postpone a case to allow the county to properly mount a better case because they're not able to show it today. I don't think that's the role of government. Nor would I think the department would want that image. MR. MARINO: How many dumpsters are stored on the property or parked on the property? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: When I was out there, I believe there was 13 at the time I was out there. MR. GEORGE: Thirteen. Today there's three. MR. MARINO: Because the others are all working? MR. GEORGE: Yes. MR. MARINO: But you have 13 dumpsters. MR. GEORGE: No, I have more than 13. MR. MARINO: You have more than 13? MR. GEORGE: Yes. But things were slow. That was right before -- I think you were in March, right when things slow down because of the holiday and spring break. And the people come down, they want theln off the job site, and now they're back out onjob sites . agaIn. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If it's okay with the Board, before we move to a decision, I would like to hear from the public, since we do have some people that would like to speak. Is that okay? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Certainly. THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please? MS. F ALLETI: Yes. My name is Barbara Falleti. THE COURT REPORTER: Would you spell it, please. MS. FALLETI: F-A-L-L-E-T-I. I live at 5844 Bromelia Court. And I'm very, very upset. I'm sorry if I'm angry or mad, but if you had to deal with the noise that we've been dealing with since we moved into our house eight months ago every day, you wouldn't be happy either. I feel like I want to Page 38 April 28, 2011 scream for somebody to help us. Since my husband and I bought our new home in August last year on Bromelia Court, every day, even on the weekends sometimes, we deal with terrible loud crashing, banging, metal hitting metal noises, bobcat machines running back and forth and trucks run coming in and out, dluuping debris continuously all day long on 721 Logan Boulevard. They are not storing the dumpsters there, they are using them there. This noise is continuous. We understood that we were in a zone around us that was residential single-family homes, so we assumed at the beginning that it was a neighbor building something. But unfortunately we weren't right. We learned that a trash collection and a recycle business is operating behind our back yards. I saw with my own eyes, through the bushes, dumpsters overflowing with metal and other debris left there overnight. How is this possible in a residential area to have dumpsters with debris sitting around the property for days? Why should we have to deal with constant noise in our back yards? Why should this type of business be allowed to operate in your quiet residential neighborhood? We cannot sit in our back yards and our lanais because the noise is so disturbing, so we have to go inside and keep our doors and windows closed. Sometilues I even hear the noise inside the house with the doors and windows closed. No one should have to put up with this way of life. We came to Naples to enjoy the weather and the outdoors. We're unable to do this under these conditions. We feel our neighbor -- we have a neighbor from hell who is disturbing our lives and has no respect for his fellow neighbors' peace and quiet. To make matters worse, when we are outside and the wind blows in our direction, now that the whether has warmed up, we have been hearing -- we've been sn1elling raw garbage coming from his property. Something has to be done about all this. We are asking this Page 39 April 28, 2011 Board to please help us. We should not have to live like this. Recently we learned from a zone enforcement officer that a building permit to construct a 6,000 square foot building has been issued for that property. It is unimaginable that instead of stopping this business to continue, it is instead being allowed to expand. So if you allow thelTI to build this building, they have a place to hide all their dumpsters, trucks and machinery. But what does it do for us to stop the noise that's making our lives miserable? There is nothing that will do. A fence or a burr (sic) is not going to stop this terrible loud noise we hear. No way. Fountains in our lake does not stop it. It's much too loud. Please, we do believe -- excuse me. Please do not believe anyone who says the noise we hear now is from the building of the new building. It is the same loud noise we have been hearing since we moved here. It is the dUl11ping/recycling operation, a terrible noisy one, and it must be stopped. We have a petition, which I have right here, signed by 11 families in our neighborhood who are affected by this serious problem. Eleven families who have suffered because of one person's business. This does not seem fair to us. This operation does not belong in a residential area. We respectfully request this Board put a stop to this at once and not allow it to continue. Thank you. Please help us. And I have the petition, if you would like them, with 11 families signing it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Ifwe are to see that, we would end up taking it, because it would become part of the official court records. And we would have to have the Board approve that first. Do we have a motion to approve that, or would you like to enter it into evidence? MR. LEFEBVRE: Does she want it? Page 40 April 28, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: First of all, you would lose it. You would lose it. It would become part of -- MS. F ALLETI: I have a copy. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, good. MR. KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen the 11 names on the list? MS. F ALLETI: I never seen this man till today, so I don't think so. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you have any objection with that being entered as evidence in this case? MR. GEORGE: No. MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion we accept the petition. MS. FALLETI: And I also have a question about the home occupant -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Hang on one second real quick. We have a motion and a second. Just procedurally I have to finish that. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. And you said you had a what? I'm sorry? MS. F ALLETI: I have a question about his license that he has a home occupational license. On your procedure in your book, whatever Page 41 April 28, 2011 this is, it tells that you cannot have equipment in there that's causing excessive noise, dust or smoke and equipment that vibrates and disturbs. And he should not be receiving goods, only anything that's from U.S. Post Office. Now, I know these dumpsters and dump trucks are not coming from the U.S. Post Office. So there's a lot of things that he's violating on that house occupational license. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, thank you. MR. MARINO: I have one question. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's actually one of the questions I had as well was look at the occupational. Go ahead. MR. MARINO: How long has Pee-Wee had that property? MR. GEORGE: I've been there December of'06. I have neighbors on both sides of me, excellent neighbors, across the street. Been there, never had no problems. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Next? Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead. MS. WILLIAMS: Hello. My name is Donna Williams. I live at 5852 Bromelia Court. And I'm a little nervous. We bought our new home, which we thought was our retirement home. We just moved in January 1st of this year. The first week we were there, one of our neighbors said to me, in meeting your neighbors, said, gee, you know what? I think there's a quarry behind the trees. I said, that can't be a quarry, this is a residential area. He said, well, there's something like a quarry back there. So that was it. We let that go. We come back and forth from Ohio to move into our new home. So when we come back, we began to meet neighbors. We began hearing things. Sitting on the lanai we're hearing noises and we're hearing (sic) slnells. And when we -- I'm sorry. Okay, we're living with the awful smells of trash, smells of Page 42 April 28, 2011 burning trash or something on that order. The trucks are coming and going daily. Daily. Even on Easter Sunday there was some horrible noise all day long, like saw or cutting, like a landscaper was blowing and cutting or mowing things. And it wasn't, because I looked and I went to the property line and something was going on. I can't see very well because of the trees, but it's clearly something is going on there. So just like our Waste Management trucks that we have in our neighborhood that take our dumpsters and everything, that's the similar sound that we're hearing, only worse, it's metal against metal. I have captured photographs from my camera of sounds. And it's just videos of the dumpsters. It is -- some of the video you can see these big trucks with these big arms moving through the yard. I also took videos. One morning I woke up, and I'm logging, trying to log all this infonnation and the days that it's happened. But I woke up one Inorning at 7:00 in the -- before 7:00 to this noise. And I thought it was our trash day. So I go out on the lanai, and I smell smoke. And I thought, oh, my God, one of the homes is on fire. And I'm looking around, and there's no -- nothing. Until I look at the treeline behind me. And there's smoke coming up from the treeline. And so I took my calnera and I took pictures of it. And I have pictures. I have this video that Mr. Pee- Wee has not seen. And I -- this is my first time, so I have a copy for you, if you would accept it, to prove that you can't be burning anything in a residential area. This is an issue for I believe the fire marshal. And I probably should have called, but I didn't know protocol. So he clearly knows what he's doing to his neighbors. He is building with debris, concrete and debris, like fence so you can't see what's going on on the property. And that's fine, you know, build it. But he clearly knows that what he's doing to his neighbors is wrong. My husband and I do not begrudge anyone a lifestyle to make a better life for themselves. My husband started his own business 35 years ago. We don't begrudge anyone starting their business or Page 43 April 28, 2011 wanting a better life. However, a true entrepreneur, which I'm assuming you believe you are, Mr. Pee- Wee, that you would have the integrity of an entrepreneur to be careful and considerate of your neighbors. You know, the environment, the pollution, the smell, the stench of rubbish and trash, the pollution of noise to your neighbors. This is clearly a business that does not belong in a residential area. And I say, if the shoe were on the other foot, if this were happening to you, to your home, to your family, how would you feel? You would not appreciate it. And neither do we. This is our retirement hOlne. All we want is the peace and the serenity that we thought we purchased. And I don't care if we live in the Vineyards, how expensive a home is or if it was -- it doesn't matter. This is where we live. And we are asking for help to move your business. We're not saying your business needs to be shut down, it just needs to be someplace else. That's all we're asking for. I hope this -- I don't know where this will go from here. I don't know where we can go. But we can't -- we, as our neighbors -- and we only have 11 signatures, but we just started this not too long ago. And I'm sure that we will get more signatures. In fact, we have been contacted by the Vineyards, by Michael Procacci, I think his name is, as well as Leigh Gorney or --I'm sorry, I don't remember her name, she works in the Vineyards office and has contacted us and asked all the zoning and the hearing information, names of the people and seeing what they could do to help us in this matter. We don't know where that stands as of yet, but it's nice to know that they are behind us and support us in this matter. Can I submit this, or give this to someone? These are actual-- and this is -- I did this myself, so this is a video. And this is a video, it's probably very boring, but it is a video as I went up to the fence. He has not seen this, this is true, because I've never seen him Page 44 April 28, 2011 before today. But I just -- we would go up to the fence to take mostly the video for the sound so you could hear. And this is minor. This is actually minor compared to what we hear every day. And we can't be there 24/seven to monitor this. I'm not going to hire a private investigator to sit there with a camera and watch 24/seven. But this will give you an idea of the sounds that we live with on a daily basis. Weekends as well, like I said. And then I have SOlne pictures. Well, this is just what I logged. Some of the dates and times of what I heard. But we did a Google earth. And I know Google earth is not instantaneous to the moment. This is prob -- I don't know how long ago it is. But we did do some pictures of his property, Google earth. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Ma'am, you can't show them to us unless we admit theIn. MS. WILLIAMS: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And just remember, if we do admit them, you will lose them because they'll become part of the record -- MS. WILLIAMS: That is fine. This is all a copy. But the pictures on Google earth will show that there are multiple dumpsters. The building. They will show that -- maybe not now, but there was a fire pit. You can see the fire pit was for the debris. And there still has to be a fire pit, because just last week on -- I can't remember the day, I wrote it down -- that I actually took the photographs of the smoke coming from his property. And those are also in this folder that I hope I can submit. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, first of all, do you want us to submit that -- MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- in evidence? MS. WILLIAMS: I do. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We need to show those pictures to Mr. George and have theIn -- see if there's an objection to that. Page 45 April 28, 2011 And the video, I don't think we can admit the video to begin with, just because we don't have the means to watch it or whatever, so -- MR. LEFEBVRE: And we can't show it to -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: You can't show it, so unfortunately I don't think we could admit that. But the -- MS. WILLIAMS: If I brought a computer in? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Ifwe had the technical resources and it was prearranged, we probably could have, yes, if it was admitted, yeah. Is there another speaker, a public speaker? Could I ask that -- and ma'am, I don't mean to be rude, but there was times in your speech where I was about to cut you off because I -- MS. WILLIAMS: 1'1n sorry. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- thought they were borderline attacking Mr. George. Just keep them very fair. I understand that you're under a lot of stress and this has caused you problems, but be respectful to the people in the room. MR. F ALLETI: My name is Gino Falleti. I live at 5844 Bromelia Court. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Could you spell your last name, sir? MR. FALLETI: F-A-L-L-E-T-I. As Iny wife said, we Inoved in last fall in our new home. And I couldn't believe the loud banging noise coming from our neighbor. You cannot deny facts. He knows what's going on back there. It's a recycling business going on back there. There's a trash -- full-blown trash business going on back there. What they do, the trucks come in with a roll-back, they dump the loads on the yard and then they have a bobcat running at full rpm, spreading this junk around. And then it's like steel, the metal, the concrete, the wood or what have you. And they're put in different containers so they can then sell the metals and then deliver the concrete. And the banging from a heavy piece of concrete in the Page 46 April 28, 2011 dumpsters is so loud you jump off your seat. Weare -- we go inside and close the doors. We can't go in our backyard. It is amazing that this is allowed to go on in a residential zone. We respectfully ask the Board to do something about it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, sir. Sir? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Is that evidence that the young lady here -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, we wanted to ask, do you have any objections with those images being shown? MR. GEORGE: No. Just there's no date on the pictures, that's the only thing I'd like to know. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So are you okay with it, though? MR. GEORGE: Yeah, I'm fine. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Does the Board wish to enter that into evidence? MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion that we accept the pictures. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? Page 47 April 28, 2011 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Does the county have anything further? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: We do. Just a couple things. I have the Estates zone district description from the Land Development Code right here. I'd like to read the first part of it, what was its intent, which would be -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Can you cite the section? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: The section is -- let me see here. I don't have the exact section here. It's got to be here. Okay, 2.03.01 (B). CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: The purpose and intent of the Estates district is to provide lands for low density residential develoPlnent in a semi rural to rural environment with limited agricultural activities. That's the whole synopsis of it right there of the Estates zoned district. I'd also, since they brought up the home occupation, I'd like to read a 1959 description from an ordinance. This is a definition from the county zoning regulations when home occupations first came into being. An occupation for gain or support conducted solely by immediate members of the faInily residing in a dwelling and conducted entirely within a dwelling, provided that no article is sold or offered for sale except such may be produced on the premises by members of the family, and provided further that such home occupation shall be incidental to the residential use of the premises. Home occupations shall include in general personal services such as physician, dentist, musician, artist, beauty operator, seamstress. And when performed by the person occupying the building as his or her private dwelling and not including the employment of any additional persons -- what I'm trying to get at is that hOlne occupations are meant to be incidental to Page 48 April 28, 2011 the zoning of that district. Now, I'm going to go forward to our Land Development Code Section 5.02.03, which they've already cited. And the first sentence of that code states: The home occupation shall be clearly incidental to the use of the dwelling for dwelling purposes. The existence of the home occupation shall not change the character of the dwelling. I just want to reiterate that it does -- what they were stating about commercial vehicles and commercial equipment does come from the vehicle ordinance. And it says parking and not storage. And I believe that the dumpsters are definitely storage and not parking. MR. KAUFMAN: I have one question. On the location of, quote, Estates property, is there a map that's in the -- in there that this definitely falls into the Estates and not into some other zoning district there? There's Estates from 951 to 952 or wherever it is. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Oh, Estates is the biggest probably subdivision in Florida. It runs from -- I mean, right abutting the Vineyards all the way out to, what's that, DeSoto north up to Immokalee Road and south down to 1-75. I don't have a map of the whole area. It's absolutely huge though. MR. KAUFMAN: So it's -- generally speaking, it's east ofl-75? Which is where Logan is. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: I would say generally speaking it's east of -- yeah, east ofl-75, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Do you have anything further to add? MR. LOCKHART: Only that the Estates is varied in the county. I mean, you have Estates off of Livingston Road near the school board adIninistration building. It's all the way out to Immokalee. It's again the largest subdivision, it's the largest area that has that designation, other than agricultural, which is of course, you know, is with cattle and citrus. But the Estates in that area preceded the Vineyards Development. Page 49 April 28, 2011 Actually, I believe the Vineyards was originally Estates, and it was rezoned into a PUD. Didn't have a DRI, but it did go through a PUD. And the last property abutting was previously Pro Tree Farms. And it went through the redevelopment in the early 2000's. And again, I'm just commenting back, repeating Section E of the Land Development Code, 5.02.03: Parking or storage is allowed of equipment. Doesn't say only parking. I mean, storage. I mean, if it's contradictory to the vehicle code, I don't think the Land Development Code should have it in there if it wasn't intended to be allowed to store equipment. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Could you read that sentence verbatim, please? MR. LOCKHART: Sure. Parking or storage of commercial vehicles or equipment shall be allowed only in compliance with the requirements for commercial vehicles in the county code. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And you said the Estates was exempt from the commercial vehicle ordinance? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Correct. Key word being vehicles. MR. KAUFMAN: I have two questions. Number one, would you like to COlnment on the smoke that I see in those pictures? MR. GEORGE: I think that was yesterday. They had the bad fire. MS. F ALLETI: The date was on there. MR. GEORGE: But that's not from me. You can see all that smoke. The fire departn1ent would be at the house. That's a lot. That's -- MR. LOCKHART: The pictures have no orientation. There's no definition or proof that it's his property. I mean, it's again -- MR. KAUFMAN: I was just commenting. So the second thing I have is, and I know in the past things have gone around and around with music as far as disturbing people. And Page 50 April 28, 2011 if a vehicle is parked, it's not making any sounds. So obviously something other than parking those vehicles out there is occurring. They're getting filled up with concrete; is that true? MR. GEORGE: No, I brought concrete in, yes, I brought loads and loads of concrete. MR. KAUFMAN: And what do you do with the concrete when you bring it in? MR. GEORGE: I've got to bring it in, I've got to build that berm for my permitting for my walls. I have a berm, two-foot berm all the way around the property. MR. KAUFMAN: The concrete's not going in the dumpsters? MR. GEORGE: No, no, no. MR. KAUFMAN: How about the metal that was-- MR. GEORGE: Probably what it was, when I get the concrete loads, yes, there was SOlne metal in it. And I do scrap metal now and then for Inyself. I collect old stuff. MR.I(AUFMAN: And do you also have bobcats moving stuff around there? MR. GEORGE: I've got a -- yeah, I've got a bobcat. I don't even have the backup alarm on it. And you can look at the hours, and it has very little hours on it. MR. KAUFMAN: And my final point that I'd like to question is the days. I know for instance -- MR. GEORGE: Easter Sunday I wasn't even there. I wasn't even at the house. MR. KAUFMAN: I don't know where you are, I'm just asking about the noise that occurred that was testified to that happened on Easter Sunday. MR.I(AUFMAN: Is there work that's going on there when you're not there? MR. GEORGE: No. Unless -- and the fence guys were putting poles and fence up, and they didn't work. They work Saturday there. Page 51 April 28, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: Also before 7:00 a.m.? MR. GEORGE: No. CHAIRMAN KELLY: What exactly is the occupational license that you have for the property? MR. GEORGE: It's running my dumpster business. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. GEORGE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And in order to get that occupational license, you have to go through a review process, correct? MR. GEORGE: Right, right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the county approved it? MR. GEORGE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the other question I have is I see in these photos --I'll just show you the ones that were taken by the county . MR. GEORGE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Behind the dumpsters there looks to be -- MR. GEORGE: There's debris in that particular dumpster. CHAIRMAN KELLY: No, no, I'm looking behind those. MR. GEORGE: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: There looks to be a fairily well erected wall of large -- MR. GEORGE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- concrete blocks. MR. GEORGE: Is your purpose for that wall to help block sound? MR. GEORGE: In a way. When I drop the cans I put a big pad there so I can work on them, do things. I've got water there, sometimes I'll do welding. You know, I have to repair the stuff, change hinges, et cetera, and I do work on the truck, too. CHAIRMAN KELLY: There was also one of our -- one Page 52 April 28, 2011 testimony that we heard from the public stating that you're building a 6,000 square foot facility. That's very large. MR. GEORGE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is that to house all of these? MR. GEORGE: Yeah, I'm keeping everything. I like to keep everything inside. And overflow it beyond that back pad right there. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So your eventual plan is to move everything inside to diminimize (sic) the noise? MR. GEORGE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's an awful expense. MR. GEORGE: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: I have a question. Do you have any employees? MR. GEORGE: Not at this time, no. MR. LEFEBVRE: So all these trucks -- MR. GEORGE: I only have one truck. MR. LEFEBVRE: You have one truck? MR. GEORGE: I have a guy helps me with the bobcat now and then. MR. LEFEBVRE: A couple comments I have is that it says the occupational use should not change the character or something to that effect. Should not change the outside appearance of the property. Right? So it sounds like the occupational license should be contained within the house. Whatever activities you have should be contained within the house, correct? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Correct. It should not detract from the dwelling purposes of the zoning, where it's at, the home occupation is conducted. MR. LEFEBVRE: And also regarding storage of vehicles. Let's just hypothetically say that he was -- he's storing the vehicles. And Page 53 April 28, 2011 under those -- under that assumption, he's storing them but he's working on them too. So it doesn't sound like he's actually storing them. Whereas a contractor that has a truck or something probably stores it and doesn't work on the property. I feel that there is a violation, so I make a motion that we -- SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: I'd like to -- can I say one more thing before you get going here? Just as a conclusion. I know we got off onto the home occupation, but I want to get back to what I've cited exactly, a prohibited use. I've got the full Estates zoned allowed uses, conditional, accessory and permitted uses. Nowhere does it say the outside storage of commercial equipment is allowed in conjunction with a business in Estates zoned property. That's all I wanted to say. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that there -- in fact there is a violation. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a violation and a second. Do we have any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (Indicating. ) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Cherie', one nay. Okay, do you have a recolnlnendation? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: I do. Recommendation that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all Page 54 April 28, 2011 operational costs in the amount $80 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30, and abate all violations by: Ceasing all prohibited uses other than what is allowed in Estates zoned property. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Jeff, Cherie's like -- there's smoke coming off of her keyboard. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: I'm sorry. I'll go back. Ceasing all prohibited uses other than what is allowed in Estates zoned property and remove all unauthorized dumpsters to an area designated for such use. Or: Store desired items within a completely enclosed permitted structure within X amount of days or a fine of X amount of dollars per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated. N uInber 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. MR. LEFEBVRE: Let n1e ask a question. Is a 6,000 square foot building allowed on this property? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: It is allowed. It's -- actually the permit is issued right now for this building. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a concern with your suggestion in that we may find ourselves back in the same situation somewhere down the road if the building is constructed, it's permitted, and the noise continues inside the building. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: We do have a noise case right now in conjunction with the hon1e occupation. I felt that in order to try to alleviate some of the misery of these people, that we bring this -- a prohibited use one right now, try to get it situated. Page 55 April 28, 2011 He can -- if he does get that building built and he wants to store his containers in there -- my thing is illegally outside stored containers. He can store it in a completely enclosed structure. If at that time the noise becomes prohibited (sic) and I think that it's violating that home occupation, I will come right back under that ordinance at that point. MR. MARINO: Has he started building this building? Did I hear that there was a permit pulled? MR. GEORGE: Yes. MR. MARINO: You started building it? MR. GEORGE: Yes. MR. MARINO: How far are you from completion of this building? MR. GEORGE: I don't know. I've got to have major back surgery, so I got put behind. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: The county just felt that if the dumpsters were taken off the property, at least that will alleviate that part of the noise of the -- that they're suffering from. MR. KAUFMAN: Well, let me try filling in the blanks then. $80 within 30 days. It sounds like this is going to be in several steps. Number one is the building is going to be built. MR. GEORGE: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: And the dumpsters are going to end up inside, and hopefully that will resolve the whole situation. However, let's talk about that right now, what's going on, how many days. And I think 120 days. That's just off the top of my head. And I will go to the Board to see if they feel it should be more than 120 days to resolve that situation. And after 120 days, a $200 a day fine. MR. LEFEBVRE: Would it be easier if you see the actual order? Because there's several steps, if I'm not mistaken. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Well, there's two steps. It's an Page 56 April 28, 2011 either/or. Either remove the dumpsters or store them in a completely enclosed structure. Now, just because he doesn't have a completely enclosed structure at this time doesn't mean he can't remove the dumpsters at this time off that property. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think 120 days is way excessive for a time period. And I think $200 a day is low, considering what the neighbors have experienced. They shouldn't have to go through potentially another 120 days of this noise. That's my personal belief. MR. KAUFMAN: What's your suggestion on the amount of days and the fine? MR. LEFEBVRE: I think it should be no more than I think 45, and that might be excessive. And I think at least a $350 a day fine. And is that possible to get that -- it's $500 a day, right, is the high? CHAIRMAN KELLY: For a single offense. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. MR. L'ESPERANCE: So what is your amended motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: My mnended motion would be 45 days and $350 a day. CHAIRMAN KELLY: 45 and 350 a day. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: I have no problem with changing the motion to that, if that's the Board's consent. We're looking for nods. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So you have a motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: And a second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And a second. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: I have my two cents and I'll explain why I nay'd the violation. I think it sets a horrible precedence. Not because of dumpsters and the loud noise, because I happen to agree in this particular with it maybe being excessive. What I'm concerned about is this county has enjoyed years of Page 57 April 28, 2011 cheap services because of our great Estates. I think that there are so many businesses such as the one I brought up with landscaping and plumbing contractors and people who service your homes on a daily basis and only charge you 65 bucks when they would normally charge 250 because they get to run their businesses out of their homes in the Estates. I hope that this case does not shut down all those little businesses. With that said, I agree with you in this case. I just hope that it doesn't set precedence. MR. LEFEBVRE: But we also have to look at the homeowners and what they had to endure. They paid good money for their houses to have peace and enjoyment, and I'm sure that if you had this noise next to you, you would not want it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: For the record-- MR. LEFEBVRE: So I'd rather pay an extra 30 or $40 to have my lawn mowed than to put up every day with noise like this. And I can't say that any stronger than I am. CHAIRMAN KELLY: In my backyard is the Collier County Fair once a year. We have concelis at the fairgrounds at least once a month and we have an entire orange grove that is harvested throughout the year and maintained. So I do have those noises. But I live in the Estates. And I knovv that that's the way it's zoned. And if you live next to the Estates, YOLl have to understand that those are optional uses. And if the realtor did not explain that to you, well shame on them. MR. LEFEBVRE: Here's the other thing, is the fairgrounds and the other items you mentioned are blatantly obvious. When you move there, you know. That's like living next to a shopping center, you know that going in you're moving next to a shopping center, and you buy your property with that being said. But with a property that isn't fully observable and available to the ready eye, you have to be able to protect against that. And by my ITIotion or second a motion, that is Page 58 April 28, 2011 how I feel it's protected. But if you know and it's obvious that it's there, then you make a decision to buy the property or not. And these folks, from what it sounds, they didn't say I want to live next to a noisy neighbor with concrete and so forth and smoke and all the issues that are there. They couldn't drive by and see that, knowing that that it was in their back door. MR. MARINO: I own a home in the Vineyards also. Hammock Isles used to be Pro Tree, which was Mike Procacci's farm to start with. I feel for thelTI also. But I feel that somewhere down the line the Vineyards misrepresented that particular area when they did build these houses. I don't think Mr. Pee- Wee or whatever the young man's name is is in violation of it. He was there with a business, a legitimate business, and that's my stand on it. I mean, I feel for the people, but I believe somewhere the Vineyards, Procacci or whatever was probably misrepresented when they built in that particular area. CHAIRMAN I(ELL Y: Any further comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Now onto business. We have a motion and a second. Sorry, we've already closed the public comment; I apologize. All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN I(ELL Y: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN I(ELL Y: Any opposed? Page 59 April 28, 2011 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it passes unanimously. Thank you very much for your comments in attending today. I hope that you're able to find a place for the dumpsters within 45 days. MR. LOCKHART: Can I say one more thing? CHAIRMAN KELLY: You can. MR. LOCKHART: During his period of constructing his garage, there will be dumpsters on the property associated with that work-- CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's separate. MR. LOCKHART: -- and they will be as long as the building is under construction. That needs to be understood. There's also a storage container that looks like a tractor-trailer, and I've already advised code enforcement, John, that that has been authorized to be allowed on the site under construction, and when the construction is over it needs to be removed. So there's not only the dumpster but one large tractor-trailer that will be there through the construction. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'ITI sure you understand the primary purpose here is noise. Secondary to that, we obviously know that you're going to have equipment there while you're building. Just as long as it's not in excess of what's necessary for that building. MR. LOCKHART: Understood. MR. LEFEBVRE: Let me ask a question. A building permit to build a building, does it have certain time frames that you can actually build? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: It does. But if it's a complicated building, you have a six-month start. But if you get an inspection, that adds on another six months on top of that permit, so -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Let lTIe clarify time frames. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: During the day -- SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Oh, during the day -- Page 60 April 28, 2011 MR. LEFEBVRE: -- are there restrictions -- SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: There are restrictions during the day. 6:30 to 7:00, I believe, off the top of my head. 6:30 in the morning to 7 :00, no holidays, and not on Sundays. MR. LEFEBVRE: Not on Sundays. So if you hear noise that's excessive on the property after the 45 days, on a holiday or on a Sunday, I would make a report of it. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: And at that point they'd be subject to the noise ordinance. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Very good, thank you. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Thank you. CHAIRMAN I(ELL Y: The hearing is actually closed. Good luck. Thank you. MR. LOCKHART: Thank you. CHAIRMAN I(ELL Y: Okay, Cherie', how about a break? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. CHAIRMAN I(ELL Y: All right, we'll take a 10-minute break, come back at 11 :00. Thank you. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, I'd like to reconvene the Code Enforcement Board back to order. Our next case is Marina Guzman. Case No. CESD20090008686. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Ordinance 04-41, as amended, Collier County Land Development Code, Sections 10.02.06(B)(I)(a), 10.02.06(B)(I)(e), and 10.02.06(B)(I)(e)(i), Florida Building Code, 2004 edition, chapter one, Permits, Section 105.1. Description of violation: Converted garage to a living space and an unpermitted shed type structure in the rear yard without first obtaining all required Collier County permits. Location/address where violation exists: 360 Wilson Boulevard North, Naples, Florida, 34117. Folio 37280600002. Page 61 April 28, 2011 Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Marina Guzman, 360 Wilson Boulevard North, Naples, Florida, 34120. Date violation first observed: June 25th, 2009. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: August 3rd,2009. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: August 28th, 2009. Date of reinspection: March 14th, 2011. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Chris Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20090008686, dealing with violations of a converted garage into a living space in an unpermitted shed-type structure in the rear yard, located at 360 Wilson Boulevard North. Service was given on August 3rd, 2009. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Photographs taken on June 25th, 2009, and August 3rd, 2009 of the garage conversion, and photos taken on September 17th, 2009 of the shed type structure in the rear yard, and photos taken on April 25th and 27th, 2011, showing the structure in the year yard are the garage conversion that exists today without Collier County building permits obtained. And also, you'll find a copy of the Property Appraiser property J.D. card depicting the change in square footage. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mrs. Guzman, have you seen the pictures? Do you have any problems with us seeing them? MS. GUZMAN: Yes, I have seen the pictures. No, I don't have a problem. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the-- MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. Page 62 April 28, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: -- exhibits. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And seconded by Mr. Lefebvre. All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: On June 25th, 2009, Investigator Patrick Baldwin made a site visit and observed what appeared to be a converted garage and possible unpermitted shed in the rear yard visible from the driveway. After researching the property in question, it was determined the converted garage and shed type structure were built respectively without first obtaining all required Collier County building permits. In March of 20 1 0, I received this case, and my research revealed the violations remained. I made a contact with the current owners who stated they would continue to stay at the property as long as the bank would allow, as the house was in foreclosure; however, at the time didn't have the means to abate the violations. I made a site visit on April 25th and spoke with the owners who stated they have no plans of abating the violations and will be moving within the next month or so. The permitting violations remain as of today. I would like to add that the improvements to the garage were done previous to Ms. GUZITIan'S purchase of the property in 2005. Page 63 April 28, 2011 County records will show conversion of this area was identified in March of2003, increasing the living square footage from 1,791 square feet to 2,231 square feet. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Is there any questions for the county? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Ma'am, do you -- would you like to respond to anything? MS. GUZMAN: Well, like he said for the record, the garage building was done before I purchased the home. I purchased the home as-is. I did not hire an attorney because I basically didn't know I had to. I relied on the information I received by my real estate agent back then. And the outside building was also done before we purchased the home. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, unfortunately back in 2005 there wasn't a task force that researched items like this. And you're not alone, there are many people in the same shoes you are. Do we have any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. KAUFMAN: I have one comment about the real estate agent. Back in 2005 that's exactly what would happen. Today it's different. People are notified by the real -- should be notified by the real estate agent if they suspect that there is some addition that was -- unfortunately you got stuck in the middle. MS. GUZMAN: Yes, I did. And right now we're in the process of surrendering the property. Therefore, I don't see the reason for having to do anything towards -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Again, you're not alone. You're not the .first case we've seen like that. We would just like to make sure we get all this on the record now so that whatever the eventual things that happen, we don't want the next person to inherit this particular issue. MS. GUZMAN: Okay. Page 64 April 28, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: Are you surrendering this property because of this code enforcement case, or for other reasons? MS. GUZMAN: For other reasons. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a violation? MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, I guess a quick question. Have you tried to work on a modification at all for this -- MS. GUZMAN : Yes. But I lost my employment, so it didn't go anywhere. MR. LEFEBVRE: All right. MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion that we find the respondent in violation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LA VINSI(I: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I heard it over here from Mr. Lavinski. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN I(ELL Y: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN I(ELL Y: And nothing personal, you just happen to be the owner of the house right now. MS. GUZMAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a recommendation from the Page 65 April 28, 2011 county? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Yes, we do. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $82.00 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days, and abate all violations by: Number one: Apply for and obtain building permits for all unpermitted structures and additions, or demolition permits, including all inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within X amount of days or a fine of X amount of dollars per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains. Number two: In the interim, cease occupancy of the converted garage used for dwelling purposes until the permit receives a certificate of completion/occupancy within X amount of days of this hearing or a fine of X amount of dollars per day will be imposed for each day the violation reInains. Number three: The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confinn 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: Go ahead. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question before I make a motion. When do you think you're going to be out of the property? MS. GUZMAN: We're in the process of surrendering the house. I signed over the deed in lieu to the bank already. However, they have not assigned a -- I don't know what you call that. They haven't assigned a caseworker to my case yet, so I'm not sure the period of time. The person that I spoke to last week said it could be between 60 to 90 days. MR. KAUFMAN: And my question to the county is, why part Page 66 April 28, 2011 two of the suggestion to Inove out of that section? Is there some safety and health? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Well, there could possibly be a health and safety issue, because there was never a permit pulled for that conversion. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that the $82 be paid within 30 days; 120 days, to fill in the blanks, as far as the resolution of the problem; and $200 a day after the 120 days. As for part two, I don't think that's relat -- I don't think that should be part of the motion, because the house has been occupied; that section's been occupied since 2005. I don't see any real safety hazard. I see maybe an outlet in the wall, according to the pictures, but that's about it. MR. LEFEBVRE: We do that all the time. We ask that the people turn power off to a particular area. It happens all the time. So, you know, I think we could shorten -- we could make a shorter period for that, obviously, theIn not to occupy that property, or that portion of the property. CHAIRMAN I(ELL Y: I agree with you, Gerald. Let me explain what's happening. There's two parts here: One is that we're asking you to get permits to keep the existing addition and the shed, or to turn them back to what they were originally, a garage and remove the shed. Your option. In this particular motion, we're giving you 120 days or a fine of $200 per day. Part two of this is to ask you to stop occupying that area of the garage that's now a living area, because there were no permits pulled, there were no inspections performed, and it's possible there could be an electrical short or something along those lines that could potentially cause harm to, let's say for instance, children that may be playing in there. We don't know. There hasn't been an inspector to inspect it. So usually there's a breaker, you can just turn the breaker off to that Page 67 April 28, 2011 garage, no electric, and then stop using it. Close off the AC vents, if there is, or something along those lines. And it's just for your safety. And that's what Gerald was talking about just a second ago. So would you -- what do you think of that? Do you want to amend your motion or are we going -- MR. KAUFMAN: I wouldn't turn off the air conditioning to that section, you're going to get mold. But reluctantly I'll agree to that. MR. LEFEBVRE: We would have to come up with a time frame. CHAIRMAN I(ELL Y : Yeah. MR. KAUFMAN: I would say 60 days to unoccupy, if you will, that piece of the real estate. CHAIRMAN I(ELL Y: Okay. Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN I(ELL Y: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN I(ELL Y: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN I(ELL Y: And Jean, that was 120 and 200 and 60 and 200. MS. RAWSON: 200 for the 60 days? CHAIRMAN KELLY: You said 200 for both? MR. KAUFMAN: Both. Page 68 April 28, 2011 MR. L'ESPERANCE: One final comment. Ma' am, keep in mind, these fines, these potential fines go with the property owner. MS. GUZMAN: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: So I think what Mr. L'Esperance is saying, that if you don't own the property after you surrender it, it will probably be the bank's problem. MR. LEFEBVRE: The other thing is, with 60 days to vacate they may be vacating prior to 60 days with the foreclosure, which would take care of that 60 days, because the property would be vacant. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We're not telling you how to cheat the system -- MS. GUZMAN: No. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- but just realistically how it may end up. Okay, thank you very much for coming here today and-- MS. GUZMAN: No problem. CHAIRMAN I(ELL Y: -- good luck. MS. GUZMAN: Thank you. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN I(ELL Y: All right, next case is going to be Richard and Sandra Rathjen. Are the respondents here? INVESTIGATOR PAUL: No, they're not. (Speaker was duly sworn.) INVESTIGA TOR PAUL: They are not present. CHAIRMAN I(ELL Y: Okay. Do you want to read the imposition of fine into order? INVESTIGATOR PAUL: Yes, I will. For the record, Renald Paul, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. Violations of Collier County Ordinance 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, Sections 10.02.06(B)(I)(a). Page 69 April 28, 2011 Location: 4866 21 st Avenue Southwest, Naples, Florida. Description is unpermitted storage shed and lanai. Description of past orders: On January 27th, 2011, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board, OR 4651, Page 579 for more information. The respondent has not complied with the CEB order as of April 28th, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order item number one and two, fines at a rate of $200 per day for the period between March 30th, 2011 through April 28th, 2011, 30 days, for the total of $6,000. Fines continue to accrue. Order item number five, operational costs in the amount of $81.15 have not been paid. Total amount to date, $6,081.15. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to impose. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion. Do we have a second? MR. LA VINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN I(ELL Y: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN I(ELL Y: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LA VINSI(I: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Page 70 April 28, 2011 INVESTIGATOR PAUL: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Paul. Moving on to the next one is Mike and Mary Ruth Lucero. If you look, there was information pertaining to this case from the respondents. They're not able to be here today, but they did write a little letter saying that things beyond their control force this to last longer than they thought it was going to. They're asking for a reduction or abatement of the fines. SUPERVISOR SNOW: They're here in spirit, sir. (Speaker was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR SNOW: For the record, Kitchell Snow, Collier County Code Enforcement. This concerns the violations of Collier County Ordinance 04-41, as amended, the Land Development Code, Section 10.02.06(B)(I)(a). The location is 311 Sixth Street, Immokalee, Florida. The folio number is 66881320008. And the description of the violation is a permitted screen porch enclosed and living space without first obtaining a permit. The past orders: On May 27th, 2010, 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 ordinance and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board, OR 4583, and Page 2864 for more information. An extension of time was granted on January 27th of2011. See the attached Order of the Board, OR 4651, Page 587 for more information. The respondents have complied with the CEB orders as of March 31 st, 20 11. The fines and cost to date are described as the following: Order item number one and two, fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period between March 29th, 2011 and March 31st, 2011, three days, for a total of $600. Page 71 April 28, 2011 Order number five, operational costs of 80.57 have been paid. The total amount to date is $600. If I may, for the Board, this was a permit by affidavit. This is a new process we were involved. Jamie French's folks over at the building department did a great job. It just took them a little longer because it was a newer process. They did everything they could. So he got it. The inspections needed to be done. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to abate. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN I(ELL Y: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LA VINSI(I: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the fines have been waived. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Supervisor Snow. Moving on to Henry Tesno and Jill Weaver, CESD20 1 000 17736. MS. PETRULLI: They are not present. (Speaker was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR PETRULLI: For the record, Patti Petrulli, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is a violation of Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Article 2, Section 22-26(B), 104.5.1.4.4. Page 72 April 28, 2011 The location of the violation is 3117 Areca Avenue, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 71800000527. The description of the violation are permits. Permit number 2002050921 for a swimming pool; permit number 2003010443 for a fence; and permit number 20031024424, a framed single-family home. All have expired or been canceled before obtaining all required inspections and a certificate of occupancy and completion. Past order was on January 27th, 2011. The Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board, OR 4651, Page 5646 for more information. The respondent has not complied with the CEB orders as of April 28th, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order item number one and two, fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period between March 29th, 2011 through April 28th, 2011, 31 days, for the total of $6,200. Fines continue to accrue. Order number five: Operational costs of $80.86 have not been paid. The total amount to date is $6,280.86. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to impose. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN I(ELL Y: Motion and second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. Page 73 April 28, 2011 MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Thank you, Patti. Moving on to the next case, it's going to be Gomaa Elsaid and Karen Amal Elsherbeini. Sorry if I said that wrong, which I probably did. MR. MARINO: There's nobody here to correct you. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would you like to just read the order. INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: This is reference to violations of Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Building and Building Regulations, Article 6, property maintenance code, Section 22-231, subsection 15. Location: 11334 Longshore Way West, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 5610160007. Description: A pool not being maintained in sanitary conditions. Past orders: On November 18th, 2010, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of facts, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See attached Order of the Board, OR 4629, Page 280 for more information. The respondent has complied with the CEB orders as of February 22nd,2011. Fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order items number two and four, fines at the rate of $150 per day for a period between December 19th, 2010 through February 22nd, 2011, 66 days, for a total of $9,900. Order items number six: Abatement cost of $1,152.10 have not Page 74 April 28, 2011 been paid. Order item number seven: Operational costs of $80.29 have not been paid. Total amount to date: $11,132.39. MR. KAUFMAN: I have one question on this, and that's who fixed it and we know it was abated by county. INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: So by the county abating this, the fines stop accruing. So we're actually saving them money. INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: I think that the order should reflect not that the respondent has complied, but the county has fixed the problem. Does that make any sense? And then I make a motion to impose that fine. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Are you asking that that motion include the changes? MR. KAUFMAN: No, no, that was just a side question. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, so the motion only includes the imposition of the fine as written. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN I(ELL Y: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN I(ELL Y: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. Page 75 April 28, 2011 MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Carries. INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So going back to that, I mean, it doesn't hurt anything, right? Respondent is in compliance, thanks to county's efforts. MS. FLAGG: Correct. Because our bigger goal is to keep the integrity of the comlTIunity intact. And then the property owner has to pay whatever costs were expended plus admin. costs to abate the violation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And in this case, like Mr. Kaufman said, it was probably less than letting the fines accrue. MS. FLAGG: Correct. MR. KAUFMAN: No, my comment though was on the language of the -- where it says the respondent has complied. The violation has complied because the county fixed it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: The county has complied on behalf of the respondent. Gotcha. Okay, we'll put that in, if you want to. Next is going to be Daniel Deerey. This is Department Case 2007110390. (Speaker was duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. Violation: Florida Building Code, 2007 edition, abandoned or suspended permit. Collier County Code of Laws and Laws, Chapter 22, Article 2, Florida Building Code, adoption and amendment of the Florida Building Code, Section 22-26(B), 104.5.1.4.4. Location: 1405 I(ing Sago Court, Naples, Florida. Folio 72650003728. Description: Expired Permit Number 2006120034 for game Page 76 April 28, 2011 room. Past orders: On November 18th, 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. See the attached Order of the Board, OR 4629, Page 266 for more information. The respondent has not complied with the CEB orders as of April 28th, 2011. The fines and cost to date are described as the following: Order item number one and two, fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period between March 15th, 2011 to April 28th, 2011, 45 days, for the total of $9,000. Fines continue to accrue. Order item number five: Operational costs of $81.43 have not been paid. Total amount to date: $9,000 -- $9,081.43. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to impose. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN I(ELL Y: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN I(ELL Y: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN K.ELL Y: It carries. Thank you, Patrick. Next case is going to be Maria Ramirez. Page 77 April 28, 2011 This is a new case, so we'll have to swear you in again. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator, could you read this in like the others, please? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: For the record, Tony Asaro, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20090000978. Violations of Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Article 2, Section 22-26(B); 104.1.3.5, Florida Building Code, 2004 edition, Chapter 1, Section 105.1 and Section 111.1. And Collier County Ordinance 04-41, the Land Development Code, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(I)(a), and 10.02.06(B)(I)(e)(i). Location is 3440 35th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 39956600004. Description of the violation is a reported remodel conversion consisting of but not liInited to electric rewire, plumbing, walls removed and replaced. Past orders: On November 18th, 2010, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board, OR 4629, Page 256 for more information. The respondent has complied with the CEB orders of -- as of April 12th, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order item one and two, fines at the rate of $150 per day for the period between December 19th, 2010 and April 12th, 2011, 115 days, for a total of $17,250. Order item nUlnber five: Operational costs, $81.43, have been paid, for a total aInount to date of $17,250. MR.I(AUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion to abate the fine. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. Page 78 April 28, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSI(I: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. CHAIRMAN I(ELL Y: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And there are no fines. Thank you for hanging around with us. Okay, next case is going to be Omar Raul Garcia. (Speaker was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Good morning. It's still morning time. This is in reference to CEB Case No. CELU20100018294. Violations of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 1.04.01 (A). Location: 10651 Greenway Road, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 00738120003. Description is of an unlicensed, inoperable box truck parked or stored on agricultural property. Past orders: On January 27th, 2011, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violations of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board, OR 4651, Page 594 for more information. The respondent has not complied with the CEB orders as of April 28th, 2011. Page 79 April 28, 2011 The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order number item one and two, fines at the rate of$250 per day for the periods between February 27th, 2011 through April 28th, 2011, 61 days, for a total of $15,250. Fines continue to accrue. Order number five: Operational costs of $80.29 have not been paid. Total amount to date is $15,330.29. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to impose. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and seconded by Mr. Lefebvre. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. And I believe we have one last case for the same respondent. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would you like to read it in? It is a new case. Do we need to -- Jean? Same respondent, new case. MS. RAWSON: Yes. (Speaker was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR PEREZ: This case is in reference to CEB Case No. CESD20100018348. Violations of Collier County Ordinance 04-41, as amended, the Page 80 April 28, 2011 Land Development Code section 10.02.06(B)(I)(a), and Florida Building Code, 2007 Edition, Chapter 1 for permits, Section 105.1. Location is 10651 Greenway Road, Naples, Florida. Folio No. is 00738120003. Descriptions is interior of a concrete box structure barn which was converted into a grow house with extensive electrical alterations, wiring, outlets, electrical panels, air conditioning units, irrigation system and partition walls with no Collier County permits. Past orders: On January 27th, 2011, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusions of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violations. See the attached Order of the Board, OR 4651, Page 598 for more information. The respondent has not complied with the CEB orders as of April 28th, 2011. The fines and cost to date are described as follows: Order item one and two, fines at the rate of $500 per day for the periods between February 27th, 2011 through April 28th, 2011, for 61 days, for the total of $30,500. Fines continue to accrue. Order item number five: Operational costs of $80.29 have not been paid. Total amount to date: $30,580.29. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to impose. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN I(ELL Y: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN I(ELL Y: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR.I(AUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. Page 81 April 28, 2011 MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, that concludes all of our impositions of fines. Now we're Inoving on to letter C, motion to amend previously issued order. Case Robert E. and Serita Brown, CEPM20100018257. And Jen, you have a statement. MS. BAKER: Yes. This case, we need to amend the imposition of fine/lien order due to bankruptcy that we learned about after the hearing. And the bankruptcy cases we cannot impose the money on the person, but we can impose the money on the property, the daily fine. So we just need to change the wording. And the wording that we're requesting to change is in the owner information it states Robert E. and Serita D. Brown or current property owner. So that takes the liability off of those people if there's another property owner. And also, under the ordered section that -- and usually it says the respondents, it would say Respondent Robert E. and Serita Brown paid to Collier County . We would like to change this to say are hereby imposed against the property described as. And take them out of that, due to the bankruptcy. And we have given Ms. Rawson a copy of this as well so she can revise the order to reflect this. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Does anybody have any problems with that? (No response.) MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to amend the order as stated. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. Page 82 April 28, 2011 CHAIRMAN I(ELL Y: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN I(ELL Y: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, it's amended. And the next one is our -- under new business, code enforcement rules and regs. I guess we have a hangup? MS. BAKER: Yes. And Mr. Kelly can probably talk a little bit about this as well. The suggestion that we had was to change section -- let me find it here. CHAIRMAN I(ELL Y: In our rules as -- MS. BAKER: In the rules and regulations, yes, it's Article Nine. And the suggestion was that the sentence just needs to be clarified. Instead of saying -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Can I give some background? MS. BAKER: Yes, please. CHAIRMAN KELLY: This is referring to stipulated statements and how we as a -- MS. BAI(ER: Statement of violation, right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- board handle them, the stipulated agreements. The way the orders were read or were written requires us to only hear the stateInent itself. We can't ask any additional questions. It's Page 83 April 28, 2011 either an up or down, either we accept the stipulated agreement or we don't. And this Board has had a practice of actually hearing some of those or asking questions for clarification. And so the idea from the Board was to change that statement to where we would be allowed in certain cases to ask additional questions to the respondent if they were here or to the investigator. MS. BAKER: Right. The statement currently says in a non-contested case the only evidence heard shall be the statement of violation and any stipulated agreement. And the discussion was to change the shall to a Inay. But the other suggestion that was made after the fact of trying to clarify this is to add the statement, unless additional information is requested from the Board. So that gives the opportunity for not only the statement of violation but additional documents as well to be heard. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I think it was the county attorney's office who said changing shall to may pretty much renders the whole statement ineffective, so why have it. And so leaving it shall and just adding at the end, unless additional information is requested from the Board, gives us the opportunity to pull it and use that if we need to learn more about the case. Is that acceptable? MR.I(AUFMAN: Yep. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Yes. CHAIRMAN I(ELL Y: Do we need a motion on that? MS. BAKER: If you would, yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Would someone like to make that? MR. KAUFMAN: I'll make that motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. Page 84 April 28, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN I(ELL Y: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LA VINSI(I: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, that change is good. And when will we expect those to be finished? Next month so we can sign them? MS. BAI(ER: I will bring them back for your signature next month and we will try to get the items scheduled for the next available Board of Commissioners meeting for their approval as well. CHAIRMAN I(ELL Y: Okay. Keep in Inind that as summer's coming up, if you have any vacations, this is typically where we get low on our numbers and have quorum issues. So if you're going out of town, let us know ahead of time so we can, you know, hopefully schedule if there's any conflicts. MS. RAWSON: Or schedule it around this meeting. CHAIRMAN KELLY: There you go. And do we have any reports? MS. FLAGG: Yes, we do. Good morning. To date the banks have expended $2,083,000 in Collier County to abate 1,681 violations. This is part of the Blight Prevention Program that we comlnenced in 2008. For the week ending April 17th -- and as you know, we keep statistics every week and we monitor performance measures for the Page 85 April 28, 2011 Code Enforcement Department. For the week ending April 17th, there were 187 new code cases opened, just in that one week. There were 575 property inspections conducted. There were 118 code cases closed with voluntary compliance. And one of the items that came up earlier where we didn't have this process in place in 2005, for the week there were 121 lien searches conducted for potential buyers of property. And the good news is of those 121, three of the buyers found out that there were in fact opened code cases on those properties, where prior to the commence of the program, they would have bought those properties not knowing that there were open code issues. And finally, the investigators are managing currently an average of 44 cases each. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Wow, good work. Thank you. Is there anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seeing that, our next meeting is May 26th, 2011. I think we're going to be back at the courthouse in the commission chambers. And with that, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. LEFEBVRE: Before we do, there's a couple people in the audience. Are they -- MS. BAKER: They're just observing. MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: I was actually -- good morning, guys. I was actually hoping to speak with -- THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, could you come on the microphone? Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Your statement will become -- MS. BAKER: They're not for the hearing. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oh, you're not for the hearing? MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Not for the hearing. We're actually following up on a Granada Lakes issues. Page 86 April 28, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, no problem. It won't be -- okay. So you want to make a motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to adjourn. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR.I(AUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LA VINSI(I: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right, we'll see you next month. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :31 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD KEN KELLY, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on as presented or as corrected , Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. N ottinghaln. Page 87