Loading...
CEB Minutes 07/28/2011 R CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES JULY 28, 2011 161 21 A6 July 28, 2011 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida, July 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 in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Kenneth Kelly Robert Kaufman Gerald Lefebvre Fiala James Lavinski Hiller Henning is Larry Dean Coyle Ronald Doino Colette Tony Marino (Excused) Lionel L'Esperance (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Misc.man Rawson, Attorney for CEB RECEIVED Date: �z\vs‘ SEP 2 6 2011 Board of County Commissioners Item O ALP= 2 v=4 kg> Page 1 Copies to: 161 20 A6 I July 28, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning, all. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board meeting to -- MR. KAUFMAN: Order. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- order. It's been a rough morning -- for July 28, 2011. Notice: The respondents may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation unless additional time is granted by the board. Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes unless the time is adjusted by the chair. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Robert's Rules of Order and speak one at a time so 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. May I have roll call, please. MS. BAKER: Mr. Ken Kelly? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Robert Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre. MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. James Lavinski. MR. LAVINSKI: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Larry Dean. MR. DEAN: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Ron Doino. MR. DOINO: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance and Mr. Tony Marino Page 2 161 ' A6 July 28, 2011 both have excused absences for today. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Given the fact that we have two absences, Ron, our alternate, will have full voting ability today. Next, any changes to the agenda? MS. BAKER: Yes, we do. Under motions, Letter A -- No. 4, public hearings, motions, Letter A, motions, motion for extension of time, we have one addition. This will be Renee Zafra, Jr., and Maria Zafra, Case CESD20090008252. We will also be adding a section for motion for continuance, and we have four additions under motion for continuance. The first will be Case CESD20100007042, Kirk N. Sanders. Number 2 will be Case CEV20110000842, Robert D. Campbell, Jr., and Nina M. Campbell. Number 3 will be Case CENA20110000844, Robert D. Campbell, Jr., and Nina M. Campbell. Number 4 will be Case CESD20100008638, Agniel and Susan Marques. Under Letter B, stipulations, we have six stipulations. The first will be Case CESD20100017164, Alexander R. Garland Trust, Joseph A. Garland Trust, and 1999 Land Trust. Number 2 will be Case CESD20100017160, Alexander R. Garland Trust, Joseph A. Garland, Trust, and 1999 Land Trust. Number 3 will be Case CESD20100005205, Bruce A. Blocker. Number 4 will be Case CEPM20100020710, Ivy Nebus, Judy Ann Blake, and Betty Jo Robertson. Number 5 will be Case 2007090878, Jon R. and Denise T.C. Brimmer. Number 6 will be Case CESD20110000679, Maderline and Edileydis Gonzalez. Under Letter C, hearings, No. 4, Case CESD20090016590, Mark G. Martin, has been withdrawn. Number 10, Case CESD20110001130, Luke and Jennifer J. Werner has been withdrawn. Number 14, Case CESD20100009135, Opera Naples, Inc., has been withdrawn. Number 15, Case CEPM20110001268, Homesales, Inc., has been Page 3 161 12 A6 July 28, 2011 withdrawn. Number 16, Case CESD20110000314, Homesales, Inc., has been withdrawn. Number 22, Case CESD20110002004, Charles and Laurie Flaum has been withdrawn. Number 23, Case CESD20110002294, Charles and Laurie Flaum, has been withdrawn. Number 2, Case CE -- I'm sorry. Under imposition of fines, No. 2, Case CESD20110000255, Prime Homes at Portofino Falls, has been withdrawn. And that is all the changes I have. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. With that, I'll accept a motion for acceptance of the agenda. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. Moving on to the approval of minute from the June 23, 2011, hearing. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? Page 4 16124 A6 July 28, 2011 MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Gerald. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And one abstention, due to absence last month. So it does carry, and I'm the exception. Now moving on to public hearing, motions. Motions A, extension for time. First case is Crescencio Garcia, CESD20100005204. Is the respondent here? Okay. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Does the county have any objection to the request for extension of time? MS. RODRIGUEZ: We do not. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: I do. Has the $80.29 been paid? MS. RODRIGUEZ: It has. MR. KAUFMAN: And this was a stip for 180 days that becomes due on August 6th; is that correct? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Correct. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Is the -- is that occupied or not occupied? MS. RODRIGUEZ: He removed all the people recently, because they were staying in the mobile home. He pulled the demolition Page 5 161 , 2 k -. July 2 , 201 b permits for both the mobile homes. So he said that he was going to start working on those if they gave him the extension, because he had first left out of the country, then came back. Then he was short on money. So I said, well, you've got the demo already. You need to go ahead and remove them. So he said he was going to try to do it this coming week. MR. KAUFMAN: Is this a difficult demo? Is it -- MS. RODRIGUEZ: There are just two mobile homes. It's just trying to get someone to pull them out. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you have any questions? MR. DEAN: I just had one question. It said soon to submit, like "soon" means? MS. RODRIGUEZ: The permits for the mobile home demos are -- they're in. MR. DEAN: Okay. MS. RODRIGUEZ: They've already been picked up. It's just to hire someone to remove them out. MR. DEAN: Okay. We're talking about the remaining permits? MS. RODRIGUEZ: The remaining permit -- the engineer that was working on it has been working on it for a while, but there is no submittal for those -- MR. DEAN: So we really don't have a time frame? MS. RODRIGUEZ: No. MR. DEAN: You know what I mean? CHAIRMAN KELLY: The letter requests 60 to 90 days. Have you had any communication with the respondent as to which one would be more appropriate? MS. RODRIGUEZ: I did speak to him. I don't think that the 90 days -- that's a little extending it. I would only -- my opinion, 60 days would be good. I think that if we give him a little bit more than 60 days, he's not going to move on it. Page 6 161 a ' , ; July 28, 201 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to extend for 60 days. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? MR. DEAN: I oppose. CHAIRMAN KELLY: One opposition, Mr. Dean, and the motion does carry -- MS. RODRIGUEZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- for the request for extension of time. Thank you. Next case is Enrique and Maria Ruiz. Are the respondents here? (No response.) (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. Would you like to state your name for the record. MR. WALKER: For the record, Weldon Walker, Jr., Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Weldon, do you know -- do you know if the county has any opposition to the request for extension? MR. WALKER: No, we don't. Actually, she has been working diligently to abate that violation. Her limitation was getting some engineering designs back. She did get those. She was working with permitting on Tuesday. Page 7 161 2 ih A6 July 28, 2011 As far as we understand, she should be able to get her permits and we should be able to move forward to abate that violation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: The request is for 30 days. Do you think 30 days is sufficient enough time to not only get the permits, but make sure she gets the CO's as well? MR. WALKER: Yes, because she's doing the designs, from what I understand, are designs that are permitted by affidavit designs. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. WALKER: And once they submit them and issue the permit, then it should suffice. So 30 days should be able to do it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, we already gave a 90-day extension, so I think we should keep her feet to the fire. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: Has the $80.57 been paid? MR. WALKER: Yes, it has. MR. KAUFMAN: It's paid. And the stipulation originally was in November for nine months. MR. WALKER: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: My question would be, if the respondent was here, what's been done in nine months? MR. WALKER: Originally the limitation was dollars, and she actually had to pay close to, I think it was, 1,800 just to get her engineering designs, and they just didn't have the money. She did get the engineering designs. We've seen those. Again, permitting looked at those engineering designs, and they said that there should be no problems with regards to her getting her permits. MR. KAUFMAN: Is there anything in the shed now? MR. WALKER: No, no. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions? Would somebody like to make a motion? MR. KAUFMAN: I'll make a motion, but not for 90 days. Page 8 161 2 A6 July 28, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: The request is 30. MR. KAUFMAN: Thirty? Thirty days' extension. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. MR. WALKER: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Walker. Next case is going to be Renee and Maria Zafara. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would you like to state your name for the record. MS. POTTER: Yes. Janis Potter, Collier County Code Enforcement investigator. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Does the county have any objection to the request for extension? MS. POTTER: No, we do not. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Are there any questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you think 60 days would be sufficient enough time for them to complete the work and get the CO's? Page 9 161 2 A6 July 28, 2011 MS. POTTER: I believe so. MR. KAUFMAN: Have you been in contact with them? MS. POTTER: Yes, I have spoken to the property owner. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Motion to extend 60 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. Thank you. MS. POTTER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. I think that concludes our motions. Now we're moving to continuances. Number 1 is going to be Sanders, Kirk Sanders. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Azure, would you like to state your name for the record. MS. BOTTS: Azure Botts, Investigator with Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Again, do you have any -- does the county have any issues with a continuance? MS. BOTTS: We will leave that to the board's decision. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Does the board have any questions? Page 10 161 2 ,! Ab July 28, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: I do. In the email that was sent, it says -- this is from the respondent. He will not be available until after August 14th, "Therefore, any meetings must be delayed until my return." I think that's up to the board, not up to his email. This thing started in June of 2010. It's been going on quite a while. I'm not in favor of extending any more time on it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Azure, is this the first time we'd be hearing this case? MS. BOTTS: That is correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: They haven't been before us before, correct? MS. BOTTS: No, they have not. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I think, personally, it would be probably better to allow the respondent to appear. Are we able to get him on next month's docket? MS. BAKER: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just an opinion. Any other comments? MR. DEAN: I have a question. We have twelve mobile homes, correct, all hooked up with plumbing, electrical? MS. BOTTS: That is correct. Actually, I believe there is -- the actual count will be 13 mobile homes. MR. DEAN: Okay. And people are living in them? MS. BOTTS: That is correct, sir. MR. DEAN: I don't buy it. You know, telling us he'll be back on the 14th, and if you have a problem with a fire or something, here we are approving something. It's ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. MS. BOTTS: Just to elaborate on that, sir, that is one of the ways this case was brought about was when the mobile homes did catch on fire, which was reported to us by Captain Hunt with the East Naples Fire Department. MR. DEAN: As -- I as a board member cannot approve anything like this. Say you have another fire. I mean, it already proves the Page 11 16 1 ` '2A6 Juy28, 2011 electrical's not right. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to deny. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second that motion. MR. DEAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. We'll go ahead and retain this in its position on the normal agenda, and we don't need any type of approval. We've got it. So thank you. MS. BOTTS: Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Next request for continuance is Campbell. There was a letter that was placed at your desk this morning that refers to both cases. We'll take the first case, CEV20110000842. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would you like to state your name for the record, please. MR. BALDWIN: For the record, Investigator Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Does the county have any issues with the continuance? MR. BALDWIN: No, I do not. No, we do not, sir. Page 12 161 2 A6 . July 28, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Is anybody living in the converted garage? MR. BALDWIN: The converted garage is not the violation. The violation is for litter and unlicensed vehicles on this property. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Because attached to the letter it says, description, garage converted to living space without permits. MS. BAKER: That's probably a different case. MR. BALDWIN: It's a different case. MR. KAUFMAN: Oh. You just put the paper clip, okay. I have no questions then. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any other questions? Seeing that, I'll entertain a motion. We're just going to continue this to the next board meeting, correct? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to continue. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. MS. BAKER: And that's for both cases, correct? CHAIRMAN KELLY: That was just the first one. MS. BAKER: Just the first one. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah, I make a motion. Page 13 161 21 July 28, 2011 A6 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah, two separate ones. MR. LEFEBVRE: If-- similar circumstances on the second case? MR. BALDWIN: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to continue also. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries unanimously. MR. BALDWIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Baldwin. The last case under continuances is going to be Agniel and Susan Marques. Are the respondents here? MS. BAKER: And I have a letter as well that they provided to us. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Would you like to come over to this podium over here, sir. And we'll have the court reporter swear you in. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: I believe she's going to be translating, correct? THE INTERPRETER: Correct. THE COURT REPORTER: Let me swear you in first. Page 14 161 2 A6 July 28, 2011 (The interpreter was sworn to truly and correctly translate English into Spanish and Spanish into English.) (The speaker was duly sworn through the interpreter and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, good. The request for continuance was brought by you, so if you'd like -- if you'd like to explain why you would like the continuance, that would be great, and then we'd also like just a moment to read this letter, because I think it's brand new, correct? We don't have it in our packet. MR. LEFEBVRE: Based on this letter -- MR. KAUFMAN: I'd make -- MR. LEFEBVRE: -- make -- we going to co- this? I make a motion that we continue. Do we need a continuance? Is that probably the best thing to do to make sure they get the -- MS. BAKER: Yeah. You continue it to whatever date you would like to. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to continue to next hearing. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. If I can, let me just ask, could you ask if one month is enough time to get the inspections that he needs. THE INTERPRETER: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. Page 15 161 A 6 July 8, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion's accepted, and it is continued. Thank you. MR. KAUFMAN: If for some reason you can't get it done -- if you can't get it done within 30 days, come back and request additional time. MR. MARQUEZ: I don't need that 30 days. Today is the final inspection. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oh, good, great. Thank you. MR. KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. BOTTS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That concludes all of our continuances. Now we're moving onto stipulations. Number 1 -- MS. BAKER: Mr. Chair, we have one addition to stipulations as well. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, you want to put it in now? MS. BAKER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. This will be No. 7. MS. BAKER: Yes. And it's Case CELU20100019844, Juan Sanchez Olvera and Pamela Jean Sanchez. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to amend the agenda. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. Page 16 161 6 July 28, 201 MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the agenda has been amended. Okay. The first case and the second case stipulations are going to be Garland Land Trust. If you'd like to come on up, and we'll get you sworn in. Also, I'd like to publicly disclose that I do know the Garlands; however, I don't have any business dealings with them. They're just a long-standing business -- had a long standing business in the community, and I know them through friends and associates. No need to recuse. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator, would you like to state your name for the record and then read in the stipulation. MR. BOX: Yes. Investigator Heinz Box, Collier County Code Enforcement. The stipulation is as follows: Therefore, it is agreed between parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $82 incurred in the prosecution in this case within 30 days of this hearing, abate all violations by obtaining any and all Collier County permits through inspections to certificate of completion or occupancy or, alternatively, obtain a demolition permit through inspections to certificate of completion within 90 days, or a fine in the amount of $150 will be imposed for each day the violation remains. Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator to perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation by use of the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Page 17 161 . ;, . A6 July 28, 011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Thank you. MR. BOX: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you understand and agree to everything that was just read? ALEX GARLAND: Yeah. Oh, yeah. We've talked about it, and everything's fine. THE COURT REPORTER: Could I get your name? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oh, I'm sorry. Could you state your name for the record. ALEX GARLAND: Alex Garland. JOSEPH GARLAND: Joseph Garland. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Do you feel 90 days will be enough time? ALEX GARLAND: I think it should be. JOSEPH GARLAND: Yes, I think. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Ron. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries. Now, that was Page 18 161 A 6 July 2 , 2011 for CESD71 -- the last four digits will be 7164. Now for the next one, is it a separate stip? MR. BOX: Yes. The last four on that's -- or I'm sorry, last five's 17160. And the stipulation reads as follows: Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of$82.58 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing, abate all violations by obtaining any and all Collier County permits through inspections to certificate of completion and occupancy or, alternatively, obtain a demolition permit through inspections to certificate of completion within 90 days, or a fine in the amount of$150 a day will be imposed for each day the violation remains. Respondent must have notify the Collier County Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance; that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation by use of the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And, again, any issues with the stipulation? ALEX GARLAND: No. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 19 161 2 A6 July 28, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries. If you have any problems, let us know ahead of time to extend it for you again. Good, thank you. ALEX GARLAND: Thank you. MR. BOX: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Can you hear okay? Okay. The next case is going to be Bruce Blocker, CESD20100005205. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would you like to read (sic) your name into the record and then read the stipulation. MS. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of$80.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing, abate all violations by: Must apply for and obtain a Collier County building permit or a demolition permit and request required inspections to be performed and passed through a certificate of completion, occupancy within 180 days of this hearing or a fine of 250 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated. The respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the Page 20 161 2 A6 July 28, 2011 provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: For the record, can you state your name. MR. LOSKANO: Chris Lascano on behalf of Bruce Blocker. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And also, if you would, please state that Mr. Blocker has given you authority to speak on his behalf today. MR. LOSKANO: Yeah. He's written a letter stating -- because he's out of town right now. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would you like that letter? Do you mind handing that in? You won't get it back, unfortunately, but -- is it okay? MR. LOSKANO: Yeah, that's it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: As Mr. Blocker's representative, do you understand and agree to everything that was signed? MR. LOSKANO: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Gerald? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. Page 21 2 A6 161 July 28, 2011 Thank you, sir. MR. LOSKANO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next stipulation is going to be Ivy Jean Nebus, Judy Ann Blake, and Betty Jo Robertson, respondents. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. Would you like to state your name and read in the stipulation. MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of$80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing and abate all violations by, one, obtaining all required Collier County building permits, inspections, and certificate of completion, occupancy, and restore all structures being used for occupation to a permitted state consistent with the property maintenance code within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of$250 a day will be imposed for each day any violation continues; or, Two, obtain all required Collier County demolition permits, inspections and certificates of completion and remove the structures and debris to an area intended for such use within 120 days of this hearing, or a fine of$250 a day will be imposed for each day any violation continues; or, Three, designate structures as part of the approved recycling junkyard business and board them up so as not to be used for any occupation or habitation, including storage, within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of$250 a day will be imposed for each day any violation continues. Four, the respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Five, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county Page 22 161 A6 July 28, 2011 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 the abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning, sir. Could you state your name for the record. MR. CADENHEAD: Robert Cadenhead. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And your relation to the parties? MR. CADENHEAD: I'm the brother to the three sisters. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And can you state for the record, please, that you have the authority to speak on their behalf? MR. CADENHEAD: I have the authority. He has a notarized letter. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great, thank you. Do you need anything else? MS. BAKER: We have it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, good. Do you understand and agree to everything that was read? MR. CADENHEAD: We worked out everything yesterday, so it's all done. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great. Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. DEAN: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. Page 23 • 161 Rb July 28, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. Thank you, sir. MR. CADENHEAD: Thank you. MR. LETOURNEAU: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Moving onto the next case is going to be Jon and Denise Brimmer. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator, would you like to state your name and read it in. MR. AMBACH: Yes. Good morning. Investigator Chris Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of$80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing, abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion, occupancy within 120 days of the date of this hearing or a fine of$150 a day will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance, that if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation with the use of-- 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. MR. LEFEBVRE: I have a question. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Go ahead. MR. LEFEBVRE: This case -- or the first time the violation was observed was September 2, 2007? MR. AMBACH: That's correct. Page 24 161 July 4, 2011A6 MR. LEFEBVRE: Nearly four years ago. MR. AMBACH: That's correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: Why has this case dragged on? MR. AMBACH: This case started -- went through a few different investigators and through records check, came back as an active case, and then was handed over to me. MS. BRIMMER: If I may, we thought this was handled in 2007. We hired a contractor, an architect, and a cam drawer to handle this. We paid them over $2,500. We had to leave the state. My brother-in-law fell off an I-beam and was run over by a dump truck. So we didn't hear anything. We just assumed it was handled, until we got the notice that Chris left on the front of the lawn that our dog sitter -- my husband is out and I'm representing both of us. His mother had surgery last night, and is ICU. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MS. BRIMMER: Since we heard about this, we have gotten the permit for affidavit, we have the drawings redone, and this is within two weeks. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Could you state your name for the record. MS. BRIMMER: Denise Brimmer. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great. Thank you. Do you have any issues with the 120 day time frame? MS. BRIMMER: I think that's more than ample. I'm assuming -- I mean, I'm -- from here I'm going to ask where I need to go to, A, pay the fine, B, go and take the drawings, the affidavit, and the surveys so I can get that submitted today. We want this off our plate. We didn't know it was there, so we were dumbfounded. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Are there any questions from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to the stipulated -- accept the stipulated agreement. Page 25 161 21 A6 July 28, 2011 MR. DEAN: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Good luck. MS. BRIMMER: Thank you. MR. AMBACH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you need any more time, let us know. MS. BRIMMER: Hopefully not. Where do I pay this? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Actually, if you have a check -- MS. BRIMMER: I have cash. MR. DEAN: This is America. We don't use cash any more. MS. BAKER: There's a young lady that just walked out; she'll be able to help you. MS. BRIMMER: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KELLY: The next stipulation is going to be Gonzalez, CESD20110000679. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Azure, would you like to state your name and read it in. MS. BOTTS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oh, I'm sorry. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Go ahead. Would you like to read it in? Page 26 161 2 A 6 July 28, 2011 MS. BOTTS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And your name? MS. BOTTS: Azure Botts, investigator with Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay the operational costs in the amount of$80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing, abate all violations by: The respondent must obtain all required building permits or demolition permit, the required inspections, a certificate of occupancy/completion within 180 days of this hearing or a $200-per-day fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains. Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would you like to state your names for the record, please. EDILEYDIS GONZALEZ: Edileydis Gonzalez. MADERLINE GONZALEZ: And Maderline Gonzalez. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you understand and agree to everything that was just read? MADERLINE GONZALEZ: Yes, we do, but we have a little concern about the time frame because we don't have enough money to finish in 180 days. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Does the board have any suggestions or questions about the time frame of 180 days? MR. KAUFMAN: Don't we have to redo the stipulation since it's a change in the stipulation? MS. BOTTS: Yes, we would. And I did explain to them that Page 27 161 2 A 6 July 28, 2011 you -- as the board you would have the ability to do that if you so chose. CHAIRMAN KELLY: From what I understand, it's just a gazebo? MS. BOTTS: Actually, it's a gazebo type structure, and there is a large concrete pad that's been poured with plumbing. That's ultimately what the complaint was about and why we were out there. And then right beside it is a gazebo type structure. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Was the slab ever permitted? MS. BOTTS: No, it was not. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So it's a rough plumbing and a raw, concrete slab with nothing else done? MS. BOTTS: That is correct, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: Why was there a complaint about a slab; do you have any idea? MS. BOTTS: This case was actually from Investigator Reggie Smith and, from my understanding, it was an anonymous complaint, and it just states that adding two bedrooms and a bath without permits and using unlicensed contractors. Contractor licensing did go out with code enforcement, and they confirmed that a contractor did not do the work; the property owner, in fact, did it themselves. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So either finish it or demo it within six months is basically what we're saying. MS. BOTTS: That is correct. We spoke in length out in the hallway. They have submitted a permit already for the addition. What they're trying to do is add a master bedroom, bathroom, enclosed porch and remove the gazebo type structure, is what the permit actually reads as a description. They submitted the permits in March, and it has been through the review process but had several rejections given. The latest rejection as of right now is the Health Department is declining until they increase their septic system. So this is obviously Page 28 161 A6 July 2 92011 1 another issue that they will have to address by engineer drawing, submitting another permit, getting the approval of that, and also the cost factor involved. CHAIRMAN KELLY: They haven't opened up the existing structure at all, have they? MS. BOTTS: No, they have not. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And you don't see any electrical that's been tampered with? MS. BOTTS: No, no. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question of the respondents. How much time do you think you need to gather the funds required to do this? EDILEYDIS GONZALEZ: Like, about a year, because we have some money saved but not enough to finish everything by, you know, that time. MS. BOTTS: Gentlemen, if I may, if I could also explain -- I'm sure you read through your statement of violations. And on the statement of violation it indicates that there is a mobile home that is on the property and is unpermitted. Again, this was done by another investigator. And upon reviewing the photographs and being out there yesterday, not on the property, but in the right-of-way and seeing what's on the property, the mobile home -- it is not actually a mobile home. It is travel trailer. I do have a picture, if you'd like to see it. But it is a travel trailer, not a mobile home. It would not be required to be permitted, so I removed it from the stipulation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, good. Up to the board what you'd like to do. Accept at 180, or we have the right to extend. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that we accept the 180 and, just a side note to the respondents, that if you find yourself 150 days from now requiring some more time, then come back, let us Page 29 161 At July 28, 2011 know your progress as to either accumulating the funds or work that's been done on it to bring it into compliance. We certainly would like to hear that at that time. So my motion is to accept the 180-days' stipulation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Dean. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. The stipulation's been accepted at 180 days. And like Mr. Kaufman said, please feel free to come back to us and request more time if you need it. EDILEYDIS GONZALEZ: Thank you. MADERLINE GONZALEZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good luck. MS. BOTTS: Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. And that's all for stipulations, correct? MS. BAKER: No. We had the addition of Juan Sanchez Olvera. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sorry, okay. What is the case number on that? MS. BAKER: It's CELU20100019844, Juan Sanchez Olvera and Pamela Jean Sanchez. Page 30 161 2 A6 July 28, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would you like -- (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would you like to state your name and read it in, please. MR. WALKER: Yes. For the record, Weldon Walker, Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of$81.15 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing, abate all violations by obtaining a Collier County building permit or demolition permit, and request required inspections to be performed and passed through a certificate of completion within 180 days of the hearing, or a fine of$200 a day will be imposed. Respondent must notify Collier County -- respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance, that the respondent -- that if the respondent were to fail to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and use the assistance of Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provision of this agreement, and all costs of the abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Sir, can you state your name for the record. MR. FREEMAN: Yes. My name is Ernest Freeman. I am a contractor that's representing Mr. Sanchez in the matter. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would you mind stating for the record that you have the authority to speak on his behalf. MR. FREEMAN: Yes, sir. I have the letter that's notarized. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. I thought you looked familiar. Helping out a few people out there. MR. FREEMAN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: On Mr. Sanchez's behalf, do you agree to Page 31 161 2 A 6 July 28, 2011 everything that was just read? MR. FREEMAN: Yes, yes, and I'd also like to add that I do have a permit for the demo. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. Any other questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as read. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I think actually Gerald beat you to it. I'm sorry. Gerald seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. MR. WALKER: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That should conclude all of our stipulations. Moving on now to public hearings, C, Case No. 1, Fidel and Esperanza Alviar. MR. ALVIAR: Alviar. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sorry, sir. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of ordinance Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section Page 32 ioi2A6 July 28, 2011 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Description of violation: Unpermitted additions and sheds without building permits. Location address where violation exists: 519 Adams Avenue West, Immokalee, Florida, 34142; Folio No. 63857240005. Name and address of owner, person in charge of violation location: Fidel and Esperanza Alviar Jr., 519 Adams Avenue West, Immokalee, Florida, 34112 (sic). Date violation first observed: January 5, 2011. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: March 28, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: April 25, 2011. Date of reinspection: May 6, 2011. Results of the reinspection: The violation remains. MR. WALKER: Yes, good morning. Weldon J. Walker, Jr., Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No., again, CESD20110000036 dealing with the violation of an unpermitted addition/shed without permits. Again, the location is 119 Adams West -- Adam Avenue West, Immokalee, Florida. And, again, the folio is 63857240005. Service was given on 03/27/2011 in the form of personal service to the property owner. The case was initiated as an anonymous complaint on 1/4/2011. On site I observed what appeared to be a single-family home with possible additions. There were also identified two shed-type structures to the rear of the property. Property appraisers revealed that the property structure changed in 1995, and aerials revealed that the property -- excuse me. And aerials revealed that the property structure changed between 1995 and 2002. The property ID card reflects several changes occurring, two additions, which were remodels in 1982, there was three changes in Page 33 161 2 A6 July 28, 2011 the porch in 1990, and a slab in 1999, an aluminum screened porch, which appeared in 2004. Further research of the old permit books, WHIPPS, and CD-Plus identified several permits. One was an '81 permit for a 12-by-12 den, which was CO'ed; an '89 permit for alteration to the remodel that was CO'ed, also to a fence reroof and a driveway, which were all CO'ed. There were no preceding permits. I have spoken with the property owner, Fidel Alviar, by phone, who indicated that the property would soon be in foreclosure and that there was -- there wasn't sufficient financial -- there was sufficient -- he was suffering, excuse me, financial hardship and would be losing their home. Stated that a code case at that time was the least of his concerns. Made several routine checks concerning abatements, and condition remained unchanged. I would like to present the following as evidence. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a motion to accept? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the pictures. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Ron. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen the pictures? Page 34 16- I d A 6 July 28, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's a good question. Jen -- Jen, has the respondent -- have you seen these pictures? MR. ALVIAR: No. But I know what he's talking about, because I know it's there, because I had -- when I bought the house, it was there. I'm wondering, why wasn't it caught when we actually signed the paperwork? Everything has to be record. Why wasn't it caught then? Because I didn't do any of it. I mean, this is the way I bought the house. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sure. MR. ALVIAR: So -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Actually, you're not alone. We've had a number of people come in front of us with the exact same situation. The last year and a half, I believe, they actually passed a little agreement stating that any home that's in foreclosure will get this extra inspection where they will run through this department in order to see if there was unpermitted structures. Unfortunately, when you bought it, that wasn't in place. And, unfortunately, to other people throughout the county, there's nothing in place for general sales. It's only on foreclosures, if I'm not mistaken. MR. KAUFMAN: No, it's on all sales. CHAIRMAN KELLY: It is on all sales? MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, good. Which is great. It will help prevent situations like this. But, unfortunately, it wasn't in place when you purchased it. MR. ALVIAR: Well, this is actually the straw that broke the camel's back. I have two full time jobs. I pay probably around 6,000 a month. I'm trying to love my country, but it's really hard when you're looking for a lifeline and they kind of push your head under the water, but -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sure. Page 35 161 2A6• July 28, 2011 MR. ALVIAR: -- like I said, I'm just going to be another statistic. But you know what, I come from nothing, and I'll survive. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's a good attitude. All right. So no problem with the pictures then? MR. ALVIAR: No, they're all there. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. ALVIAR: Like I said, I'll be moving in with my son as soon as they kick me out. That's fine. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, I wish you the best of luck. MR. WALKER: Yeah. What we identified there is the actual rear structure or part of it actually to the rear. It's a screened-in lanai that exists there. Next, that one's a little bit darker, but it shows the actual extent and the length of it. It's quite a -- quite a long screened-in lanai, and it wraps around the back. And there you can see it probably a little bit better with that picture in color. MR. KAUFMAN: Is the lanai the part of the building that has not been permitted? MR. WALKER: That's the part of the building that was -- no indication that permits were ever applied for or obtained. MR. KAUFMAN: That's the slab, the roof over the screen enclosure? MR. WALKER: That's correct, sir. That's a shed that's there. Again, there was no indications that permits were ever acquired for that as well. And, again, there's another structure that represents a shed type structure that -- MR. ALVIAR: Yeah, that was actually a playhouse. MR. WALKER: Yeah. There were no permits for it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's all the photos? MR. WALKER: That's it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Do we have any questions from Page 36 16l2A6 July 28, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: It's not livable space. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. So the impact fees typically are the huge cost. I just don't see a huge cost here. MR. ALVIAR: Well, the cost comes in, because after I got this, I actually quit paying since January, which is when I got the letter. So I'm actually seven months behind on my line of credit and my mortgage, probably $10,000 that I actually don't have. Like I said, I started a business. That was my biggest downfall. I thought I could make it. I have a 401(K), 90,000, borrowed half a million. Guess what? The economy took a nosedive two years later; I went right along with it. So that's why I had to get that second job just to try to stay afloat. But this was actually the one that said, you know what -- MR. LEFEBVRE: But -- MR. ALVIAR: Well, it's just a fact of losing sleep over -- you already struggling. You don't get enough -- and it's -- see, because I've done -- been through this once before with the county. I did put a roof over a trailer once a while back ago. I did have to come in. The only reason I did it, because I could not get a permit because I didn't live in it, even though I had done it in the past. I rectified that problem, cost me almost $8,000 that I didn't have. MR. LEFEBVRE: I just don't see this being an $8,000 problem. I see it to be a very minor problem. But now you're peeling an onion back and you're telling me that you haven't paid since January so now you owe $10,000. So this case isn't what predicated you not paying. So I'm not buying that that -- that story. That's all I have to say. MR. ALVIAR: No. What the issue was, just having to come deal with it was the issue, because I was already struggling. You just don't need somebody else just -- because I had nothing to do with the actual -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I understand. Page 38 l6h2A6 July 28, 2011 MR. ALVIAR: None of it. I don't understand why it wasn't caught in the court system when we actually filed all our paperwork when we initially bought it. That's my problem. Why should I have to fix something that I had nothing to do with? MR. LEFEBVRE: Unfortunately, any violations run with the property. And code enforcement has worked with the Board of Realtors, local Board of Realtors, and has heightened the awareness. The Board of Realtors, their awareness has been heightened. And we do -- I'm a Realtor. We do provide documentation to buyers and sellers -- I provide it to every single buyer and seller I have -- stating that there may be violations and to look into an inspection for those violations. MR. ALVIAR: And you're probably one of the exceptions. MR. LEFEBVRE: Unfortunately, that wasn't in place in '99, but it's in place -- been in place for about two years now? MR. WALKER: That's correct. MR. ALVIAR: If I understand, it falls back on the owner, right? MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct. MR. ALVIAR: So being that I'll be foreclosed on soon -- so it falls back on the bank? MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. ALVIAR: Because there's not much I can do. I'm going to be honest. I can't, you know. So I just want to say my peace. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is the property in lis pendens, yet? MR. ALVIAR: Sir? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is the property in lis pendens? MR. LEFEBVRE: Where they first file for foreclosure. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah. Did they first file a foreclosure at all? MR. ALVIAR: I've been getting letters. I know there's a backup. I'm just going to wait till they knock on my door and say, sir, you've got 30 days to move out. I'm going to pack everything, and I'm Page 39 1612A6 July 28, 2011 going to move out. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion we find the respondent in violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Does the county have a recommendation? MR. WALKER: Yes, we do. The Code Enforcement Board to order the respondent to pay operational costs in the amount of$80.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by obtaining -- must obtain a Collier County building or demolition permit and request required inspections to be performed and passed through a certificate of completion, occupancy within the number of days, as determined, of this hearing, or a fine, also to be determined, will be imposed. 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 provision of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Somebody like to take a shot at Page 40 161 $:: 2 A6 July 28, 2011 filling in the blanks? MR. KAUFMAN: I'll give it a -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sorry. MR. KAUFMAN: Do you want to put the blanks up on the screen? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. MR. KAUFMAN: Who's doing it? I'm doing it. It's -- I recommend $150-a-day fine commencing after 120 days, and the costs of-- what is it, 80 dollars and -- MR. WALKER: Fifty-seven cents. MR. DEAN: Fifty-seven cents. MR. KAUFMAN: -- and fifty-seven cents be paid within 30 days of this hearing. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: I'll second. It doesn't really matter what amount of days it is. MR. DEAN: It doesn't? MR. LEFEBVRE: It doesn't at all. It's going to be going to foreclosure, so I second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We have a second. Do we have any further discussion? You sure? MS. FLAGG: Mr. Chair, just as a reminder, when a -- the shorter time frame -- when a bank is going to take a property, it prevents them from selling the property and passing this on with the shorter time frame. MR. DEAN: So I'd like to amend the motion to 30 days. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Do you -- MR. KAUFMAN: I will amend the motion for 30 days. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Gerald? MR. LEFEBVRE: That's fine. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So, Gerald, you'll amend your second? Page 41 161 #2 A6 July 28, 2011 MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes, that's fine. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We have a motion now. It's 30 days, everything else stays the same fine wise and everything. MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries. Jean, did you get all that? MS. RAWSON: I did. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right. So basically what's going to happen is we have 30 days to rectify the situation since it's going into foreclosure anyways. What the board did is shorten that time frame so that hopefully the next person doesn't unsuspectingly inherit this problem. If it -- if there's an actual lien against the property, it'll hit public records, and we know for sure at least the buyer will know about the issues going in. MR. ALVIAR: I'm happy to hear that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We try to stop someone from being in your position. MR. ALVIAR: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. ALVIAR: All right. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We wish you luck. MR. LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You want to do another case then take a Page 42 16IaA6 July 28, 2011 break? THE COURT REPORTER: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next case is going to be Robles. MR. KAUFMAN: Who's it going to be? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Bernadita Robles? No? Mr. Baldwin? MR. BALDWIN: No, they're not here. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Florida Building Code, 2007 edition, Chapter 1, Section 105.4.1. Description of violation: Expired Permit No. 2007041510 for a framed single family, one-story modular home. Location address where violation exists: 4015 16th Avenue Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34120; Folio 41048360004. Name and address issues of owner/person in charge of violation location: Edelmiro and Bernadita Robles, 144 Royal Palm Drive, Suite 218, Marco Island, Florida, 34145. Date violation first observed: July 16, 2010. Date owner, person in charge given Notice of Violation: April 11, 2010 (sic). Date on/by which violation to be corrected: May 10, 2011. Date of reinspection: June 16, 2011. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. MR. BALDWIN: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. MR. BALDWIN: For the record, Investigator Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is reference to Case No. CESD20100009519 dealing with the violation of an expired Permit No. 2007041510 for a framed single family, one story modular home located at 4015 16th Ave. Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34120; Folio Number 41048360004. Service was given on April 11, 2011. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibit. One photo taken yesterday, July 27, Page 43 161 '2 A6 July 28, 2011 2011. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the photo. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. BALDWIN: Okay. I first observed the violation on July 16, 2010. I then transferred the case to our foreclosure team, and we simultaneously worked the case together. Both the foreclosure team and myself did not have any contact from the owner or the bank. There was a lis pendens that was filed on July 29, 2009. That lis pendens was actually dismissed on June 6, 2011. Still no contact from the owner. So we are here today. MR. KAUFMAN: Looks like the lawn needs to be cut. The property, you said, was dismissed to lis pendens? MR. BALDWIN: Yes, it was. On June 6, 2011, it was recorded. MR. KAUFMAN: So does that mean that the bank doesn't want anything to do with this property? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Bank doesn't want it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Kind of. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion we find them in violation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) Page 44 161 ' 2A6 July 28, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Do you have a recommendation? MR. BALDWIN: Yes, I do. That the CEB orders the respondent to pay all operational costs incurred in the -- incurred -- of$80.86 that -- incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing and abate all violations by: One, obtaining all required Collier County building permits and/or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion, occupancy within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars will be imposed until the violation is abated; Two, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated and ordered to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. KAUFMAN: You have been unable to contact the owners of the property? MR. BALDWIN: Yes, sir. No contact. MR. KAUFMAN: And their record of-- their address is, I think you said, Marco? MR. BALDWIN: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: Royal whatever. You would think since the Page 45 1 July 28, 2011 lis pendens was dismissed that these folks might have an asset on their hands instead of a liability. Is there any way to make another attempt before we fill out the blanks on the violation to contact them again to let them know? MR. BALDWIN: Yes, I'll try my best. I've been trying for over a year. MR. KAUFMAN: Oh. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion. I'll just fill in the blanks, within 30 days or $150 per day. MR. DEAN: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. You're going to accept the stipulated agreement, 30 days, $150 per day, and the op costs 80.86 within 30 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries unanimously. MR. BALDWIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you need a. THE COURT REPORTER: (Shakes head.) Break? We'll do a couple more then. Next case. It's going to be Carlos Hernandez and Maria Carranza. Page 46 16I ' -2A6 July 28, 2011 (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of ordinance Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 3.05.08(C), Section 4.06.05(J)(2), and Section 4.06.01(D). Description of violation: Presence of prohibited exotic vegetation on the property and the presence of landscape vegetation impeding the site design triangle. Location address where violation exists: 1855 42nd Street Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116; Folio No. 35766880005. Name and address of owner, person in charge of violation location: Carlos I. Hernandez and Maria A. Carranza, 1855 42nd Street Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116. Date violation first observed: November 29, 2010. Date owner, person in charge given Notice of Violation: December 15, 2010. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: December 21, 2010. Date of reinspection: June 24, 2011. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. MR. KELLY: Good morning. For the record, my name is Andrew Kelly with Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CEVR20100021320 dealing with the violation of the presence of prohibited exotic vegetation and the presence of landscape vegetation impeding the site design triangle located at 1855 42nd Street Southwest, Naples; Folio No. 35766880005. Service was given on December 15, 2010. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits. There will be four exhibits. There will be a photo of the Brazilian pepper landscape vegetation within the site design triangle dated November 29, 2010. A second photo will be of the Brazilian pepper and landscape vegetation within the site design triangle dated yesterday, July 27, Page 47 161T A6 t July 28, 2011 2011. There will be an aerial photo. It's a GIS map schematic of the site design triangle, and Exhibit 4 will be another GIS map of the vegetation needed to be removed to avoid the site design triangle impedance. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the four photographs. MR. DEAN: And exhibits. I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. MR. KELLY: For the record, I'm also going to just present the case with the details at this time. November 24, 2010, Collier County received a complaint for trees overgrowing into the street and blocking the view of traffic. Record shows the current owner. November 24, 2010, I conducted an on-site inspection, observed that the landscape vegetation and the Brazilian pepper were impeding the site design triangle. On December 15, 2010, I conducted another site inspection. There was no change in the vegetation. I then posted the Notice of Violation. February 2, 2011 -- I'm not going too fast? THE COURT REPORTER: You're okay. Page 48 16I 2A6 July 28, 2011 MR. KELLY: February 2, 2011, Code Enforcement Foreclosure Team reviewed the property, as the property was a foreclosure. February 16, 2011, I conducted a site inspection. No change; violation remained. March 4, 2011, Code Enforcement Foreclosure Team completed the investigation. Bank of America no longer had a legal interest in the property. July 12, 2011, I conducted a site inspection. No change; violation remains. Posted the property and courthouse for notice of hearing. July 14, 2011, the notice of hearing was mailed certified and regular mail. July 27th, yesterday, 2011, I conducted a site inspection prior to the CEB hearing; violation remains unchanged. And I'd like to go ahead and present the photos for you. The photo shown in here is at the corner of 18th and 42nd in Golden Gate City. The property structure is behind the vegetation, you see at that intersection, and this is dated November 29, 2011. This is the photo that's dated July 27, 2011, yesterday, just to show that the condition still remained as seen. MR. KAUFMAN: Have you identified what vegetation that is? MR. KELLY: The larger vegetation -- excuse me. The larger vegetation located right here is the Brazilian pepper. The shrubbery that goes around are ficus hedges. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there any of that in the county's right-of-way and responsible by the county, or is it all property owner's responsibility? MR. KELLY: This does go a proportion into the right-of-way, but it is the responsibility of the property owner to maintain the vegetation at this location. MS. BAKER: Just for clarification, too, the first photo was on November 29, 2010. MR. KELLY: This is the GIS schematic. It's an aerial photo Page 49 16I2A6 July 28, 2011 showing the location of the site design triangle. The area along here and along here is the shrub hedge. This area right here is the general location of the Brazilian pepper mixed in with the shrubbery. As you see, that you have the stop sign over here. There's a location along this area. There's a grassed portion of the property that is within the right-of-way. This line here represents the property boundary right-of-way line. The triangle is shown as specified in the Land Development Code, according to its design. Go ahead. CHAIRMAN KELLY: The diagram and the feet marking numbers, the captions, were those added? MR. KELLY: Those were added by me. This is done off the geographical information system. It gives me the ability to put in a polygon that has a measuring ability that I was able to follow the property lines out into the right-of-way coming up to the intersection, which is the point at the right triangle portion of that triangle. Once you come to that intersection, you measure back 30 feet in both directions. Once you come to the end point of those two lines, you do a line going diagonal, which is the 42 and a half feet line, and that's their site design triangle. And all vegetation within that site design triangle, which is going to be this photo, this is -- I'll give you a little bit closer up. Everything that shows in that hatched line is a violation of the site design triangle for the vegetation blocking the view of the individuals at that intersection. MR. KAUFMAN: Have you been in touch with the owner of the property at all? MR. KELLY: No, sir. I have not been able to make any contact with the owner. The current records, both through the tax office and the property appraiser's, still shows the owner located at this address. MR. KAUFMAN: Then there's nobody living in that address? MR. KELLY: No, sir. Page 50 161 2A6 July 28, 2011 MR. LEFEBVRE: The property that was diagonally from this property showed some trees on the last photo. Would that be in violation also? MR. KELLY: I did not look at that property, honestly. I cannot say. Part of the site design triangle is that you have -- the vegetation has to be between 30 inches and 8 feet clear of the property. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. KELLY: I know that I have driven down that road. It did not impede my visual -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. KELLY: -- area, but I did not specifically look at that piece of property. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Just wondering. MR. KAUFMAN: This is more of an obstruction to line of sight from a traffic perspective than it is exotic; doesn't matter what's growing there if you can't see through it. MR. KELLY: That's correct. I went ahead and put the exotics, since it is present, and the house was built after 1998, which, you know, our regulations require them to remove all prohibited exotic vegetation on the property. MR. KAUFMAN: You said -- and this is in foreclosure? MR. KELLY: Yes, sir. The -- there was a -- I'll find that information for you. MR. KAUFMAN: It is released by Bank of America. Was it picked up by another bank? MR. KELLY: According to the notes that I have, yes, it was picked up by another bank, but I do not know who that bank is at this time. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. I'd make a motion that we find it in violation. MR. DEAN: I'll second. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. Page 51 16 I i. 2 A6 July 28, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Your choice. MR. LEFEBVRE: Mr. Dean. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries unanimously. Do you have a recommendation? MR. KELLY: My recommendation? The recommendation, that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$85.72 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by, one, removing all prohibited exotic vegetation within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank per day dollars will be imposed until the violation has been abated. Two, prune landscape vegetation and maintaining the vegetation in a way that provides unobstructed visibility at a level between 30 inches and 8 feet above the crown of the adjacent roadway within blank days of this hearing, or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated. Three, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated and ordered 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 Collier County Page 52 16 Ii 2A6 July 28, 2011 Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to take a shot at filling in the blanks; 85.72 paid within 30 days, $200-a-day fine, completed within 30 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. MR. KELLY: Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: How much --just a question. How much of a hazard -- I mean, is this a very serious hazard where the county should come in after -- if it's not rectified within 30 days? Due to lack of funding -- MR. KELLY: It does pose a hazard for those coming down 42nd onto 18th looking on the right on that intersection, that in order to safely get out, you have to keep moving your vehicle slowly into the intersection so you can see something. MR. LEFEBVRE: Plus there's a crosswalk. There's bicyclists that could be riding down, and they have to impede into that crosswalk for them to see. So if someone's riding down on a bike, it could be dangerous. Page 53 1614; 2A6 July 28, 2011 We can't direct county, but this, I feel, would be a case where county should come in and rectify the problem -- MR. KELLY: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- after the 30 days. MR. KELLY: Yes, sir. We will immediately, after 30 days, do another inspection, then bid it out for -- to be abated. MR. LEFEBVRE: Thank you. MR. KELLY: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: With that, we'd like to recess for 12 minutes. We'll be back at 10:30. Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board back to order, and thank the guys downstairs for getting us water. We really appreciate it. The next case is going to be Jason Strickland, Sarah Beth Strickland, and Susan Willis. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 2.02.03 and 1.04.01(A). Description of violation: Industrial storage container in front yard. Location address where violation exists: 2370 22nd Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120; Folio No. 40290960004. Name and address of owner, person in charge of violation location: Jason H. Strickland, Sarah Beth Strickland, and Susan M. Willis, 2370 22nd Ave Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120. Date violation first observed: January 19, 2011. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: January 24, 2011. Date on by which violation to be corrected: February 24, 2011. Date of reinspection: June 15, 2011. Page 54 161 a A6 July 28, 2011 Results of reinspection: The violation remains. MS. POTTER: Good morning. For the record, Janis Potter, investigator, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CELU2011000777, a violation of the Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 2.02.03 and 1.04.01(A). The location of violation is 2370 22nd Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120; Folio ID 40290960004. Notice of Violation posted on January 24, 2011 . I'd like to enter two photographs as evidence. First taken January 13, 2011. MR. DEAN: Motion to accept the photographs. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Have you seen these photos? MS. STRICKLAND: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And you don't have any issue with us seeing them, correct? MS. STRICKLAND: No. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. MS. POTTER: A second photograph as well, taken -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Second by Jim. MS. POTTER: -- July 27th. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) Page 55 161 2A 6 01 July 28, 61 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. MS. POTTER: Okay. Violation is for a personal storage container that was first observed on January 19, 2011. The property was posted on January 24, 2011, with the correction date to be February 24, 2011. The property owner requested a review by our zoning services and building review; as such an additional 30 days were granted for compliance. On March 21, 2011, the decision was the storage container could not remain on the property and could not be permitted. At that time the compliance date was extended to April 25, 2011. Subsequently on April 26, 2011, the property owner requested additional time to abate the violation. On May 24, 2011, the property owner advised that they were not sure as to the date on which this violation could be resolved. At that time the case was set up for a hearing. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Could you clarify what the zoning department said about these type of containers? MS. POTTER: I have a memo dated July 6th -- July 3rd of 2006 regarding personal storage containers on residential property. Shall I admit this into evidence? Okay. The containers are to be treated in essentially the same way as industrial storage containers, so they cannot be on residential property. MR. KAUFMAN: Do they differ from dumpsters? MS. BAKER: Do you want us to put this on the screen and enter it into evidence? MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Has the respondent seen it? CHAIRMAN KELLY: If that -- it was part of your initial packet? MS. BAKER: No. CHAIRMAN KELLY: No, okay. Then we need another Page 56 161 2A6 July 28, 2011 motion. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibit. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Go ahead. MR. LEFEBVRE: Has the respondent seen it? CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's a good question. This is -- MS. STRICKLAND: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, good. We're okay then. Okay. The next question is, how does this situation change because the property's in Golden Gate Estates? If it was behind the eaves of the home, would it be any different? MS. PEREZ: Good morning. For the record, Code Enforcement Supervisor, Cristina Perez. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. PEREZ: Good morning. In reviewing this memo with the current Zoning Manager, Mr. Ray Bellows, he concurred with the prior interpretation that you see up there from Ms. Istenes. And the beginning of this subject talks about "on residential property." And what he clarified for us as part of our conversation with Ms. Strickland was that the residential property meant the use of the properties being Page 57 16I 2 A 6 July 28, 2011 used as residential so, therefore, it would include Estates-zoned property which primary use is as residential. CHAIRMAN KELLY: But doesn't the Estates Zoned Property get certain exceptions, and storage being one of them? MS. PEREZ: Not for these -- not for these structures. Storage is still not allowed on an Estates-zoned property, you know, to store, like, outside storage of vehicles and, you know, and so on. So part of this memo here would -- includes the Estates not being allowed to permit these structures on the property. The permitting department also clarified that they could not issue any type of permit. Ms. Strickland had said, well, if I can get somebody to tie it down or do, you know, more to it to get this permitted -- we reviewed that with the building officials, and they, again, said, no, that it did not meet the requirements as specified in the Florida Building Code as a structure to be allowed to permit it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Next question. After the hurricanes, when FEMA declared the area a natural disaster area, they allowed the storage of these type structures so that people could keep their contents safe until they were to, I guess, rehabilitate their structure that was damaged and whatnot. What was the time frame on that, and does that apply? MS. PEREZ: If we read in the memo, there is a section where it says that we use -- there's a -- it would be like a case-by-case basis, you know. So code enforcement would -- primarily in this subject here, in this memo it talks about when somebody's moving in or moving out, you know, of a dwelling unit that we use a case-by-case basis to be able to allow someone to keep it as a temporary basis. Again, there's no permits of any type that can be issued, even on the temporary basis. In Ms. Strickland's situation, this structure has been there since two thousand -- or the pod has been there since 2009, according to a memo that she provided us. And aerial photos do suggest that it's Page 58 161 2A6 July 28, 2011 been there for a long period of time. And as part of her testimony, she could explain as to why, you know, she, you know, purchased the rental of this unit to begin with. So it has nothing to do with any type of issues in the home, you know, remodeling or anything of that sort, as to why she needs this storage. She's got other reasons as to why she needs the unit. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And the last question is, can you define what temporary is in terms of days or months or years? MS. PEREZ: I probably cannot. You know, it's more of like -- you know, that last -- the last paragraph in that memo, you know, just kind of talks about a case-by-case basis, you know, if someone's, you know, more in the sense of moving or, you know, coming in or coming out. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Did the zoning manager talk about what this particular case would be as far as temporary time frame? MS. PEREZ: No, we didn't talk about, you know, if her situation would constitute for any type of a temporary -- MR. KAUFMAN: This letter says a week at most. I have a question. That pod is a big metal box. A dumpster is a big metal box without a top. And when there is construction going on in a home, regardless of if it's in the Estates or not in the Estates, that sits there for some period of time while the construction is going on. So someplace in the Land Development Code it must specify when and how long you can have a dumpster used, which I would think would be similar to this. Is there any rule on -- can you have a dumpster if you're not doing construction on a house? Is that a legitimate use, since you brought up construction? MS. PEREZ: Well, this in itself has nothing to do with construction as to why -- her reason for having the pod on the property. We would have taken that into consideration and, perhaps, followed up with the zoning department on that -- you know, that scenario if that was the case, but it's not the case here. There's no type Page 59 16 2A 6 July 28, 2011 of permit or construction activities on this property in itself. MR. KAUFMAN: Do you have any comment on when you can use a dumpster? MS. PEREZ: The dumpster, I know there's a section in the Land Development Code where it talks -- or the Code of Laws when it talks about storage of litter, you know, reference to construction sites. So, you know, perhaps that's where that information can be found. MR. DEAN: I had just a quick question. When PODS first came out, that was for people that were going to move, and they stored stuff in it in front of their home. When it got full, then they'd call a truck and they took it away. That was a company that provided that service, and it was an enclosed container. So does PODS allow their containers to be bought and sold, or is that still a business? MS. PEREZ: I still see -- you know, from time to time we do see, when people are moving out, the white boxes that say the word, red, Pods, yeah. MR. DEAN: Right, that's what I thought. MS. PEREZ: And these are, you know, kind of similar in the sense where there's some type of a personal container. Industrial containers is somewhat what you see here. And then, like you said, the pods, you know, or the smaller ones that tend to say the big word "POD" right up in the front. And that's more of what this memo in the last section refers to, when someone's moving in or moving out, you know, say someone's going to college or somebody just bought a new home, you know, and they're bringing these items in little by little, you know, putting them in the home, but it's on a case-by-case basis. MR. DEAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there any more presentation from the county? MS. POTTER: No. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Ma'am, feel free -- you're the first person that we've really had the chance to talk to about this, so speak Page 60 1611 2A 6 July 28, 2011 freely. MS. STRICKLAND: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You know, just kind of tell your side, and we may have some questions for you. MS. STRICKLAND: Okay. Back in 2008 -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oh, one more thing. Can you pull the microphone right down to your mouth. That will help the court reporter hear you better. MS. STRICKLAND: Okay. Back in 2008 we got a violation for my husband's '77 Ford that he's redoing for it being out on our front slab in front of our garage, and in order to resolve that violation, in order to put it in our garage, we had to get everything out of our garage for it to fit in our garage. In order to do that, the only thing we had a choice to do was rent a storage clear in town, or I looked into the Mobile Mini. Prior to getting this, I called permitting, I called code enforcement, to make sure, because they have you sign a paper stating that you've contacted your code enforcement with the county permitting and everything like that. That's what I did. And then -- when was it? This year is when they noticed -- you know, when they came back, or when Janis came out and saw the pod on our property. And the whole reason we have the pod is we tried to fix one violation for my husband, who is remodeling his truck, to -- we can't have it on the slab. Where else are we -- you know, where else can we put it? In order for him to work on it to remodel it, to re- -- he's redoing the whole thing. So in order to do that, right now -- as you can see, one of the pictures she has is the frame in our garage, which had to be sand- -- it had to be, you know, grinded down, repainted, for him to restore it. So that's what we were trying to do. And I gave her a memo from Mobile Mini which states when we Page 61 loi Y 2A6 7u1 28, 2011 received the pod originally, how much the pod weighs, which is 6,240 pounds, and it's made out of 16-gauge steel. It's a heavy container. I mean, it weighs more than my vehicle does. It's not -- there's no way it's going to blow away. To resolve this I even said, you know, I will have them come back out, and maybe we can move the container into the back of the yard, but I guess it can't even be on the property period. But my husband lost his job back in '09 for a half a year. We have three kids. You know, we can't fork out all this money to just go buy a shed and put it on our property, so that's why we reverted to this. It was cheaper. We could have it on our property where we can get to our stuff, and it would be much easier than driving clear into town every weekend for him to get tools out of it for him to work on his truck. He's in the A/C business. His busiest time is from March till October. He can't even take vacation in that time. He's not allowed. So it's really hard for him to work on it, to actually have time to sit there and physically work on it day to day to day. So I'm, you know, trying to see if we can get -- I mean, I don't know what else we can do to get more time. MR. KAUFMAN: When was it delivered in 2009? MS. STRICKLAND: October 12th is when it was delivered. MR. DEAN: 2009. MR. KAUFMAN: Right. So it's been there -- MR. DEAN: I thought it said 8. MS. STRICKLAND: Almost three years. MR. KAUFMAN: -- three years. MS. STRICKLAND: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: '9, '10, '11. MR. LEFEBVRE: 2008 or 2009? MS. STRICKLAND: 2009. We got the first violation in 2008 for the truck being out on our slab, him working on it. And we live, Page 62 161 2At July 28, 2011 like I said -- like she said, we live way out in Golden Gate Estates. We're the second to the last house out end of the road. Our neighbors don't even care that it's there, you know. They have -- they could care less. They -- you know, it's just the fact that, you know, we need more time to work on it. I mean, it took ten grown men to pick up the -- or the cab of the truck to get it off the frame in order for him to start working on it. MR. KAUFMAN: Do you have any idea when that's going to be -- well, we shouldn't even discuss this unless a violation exists. CHAIRMAN KELLY: In my mind, that's a big "if." I think this interpretation by the zoning department is completely irrelevant. One week at most seems absurd in any situation, especially in this one. And being in the construction industry, I would certainly want more than a week to allow a dumpster or storage container. As a resident who lives in Golden Gate Estates, I certainly would believe there was some kind of additional provision that allows Estates-zoned property to have a commercial type apparatus such as this to help with storing commercial supplies and equipment in order to operate a business as long as it doesn't increase traffic or increase the right-of-way. So if it was up to me, I'd throw out this interpretation as irrelevant. I would love to hear more opinions from the rest. MR. KAUFMAN: Well -- MR. DEAN: Well, let me throw out one question. If they sold the house next week and a new buyer comes in, he's got a problem, right? It goes with the land. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, they probably would take that pod off the property. MS. STRICKLAND: Yeah, we would have to. I rent the pod as of right now. I rent it. MR. DEAN: It's a rental. You don't own it, right? MS. STRICKLAND: No. But I can lease to own it if I choose. MR. DEAN: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you bought it. Page 63 1 161 2 A6 July 28, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: I think what you're bringing up, "Estates," but according to this letter, if you had this in Autumn Woods -- that's probably a -- that's a bad -- let's say in the Moorings and someone put one of these pods in their backyard there, I think that the neighbors might object to that, that -- it being an eyesore or whatever. So I think you have to separate whether it's way out in the Estates where the properties are all 1.4 acres or greater, or not in the Estates, which this does not provide, the letter doesn't provide. MR. DEAN: Can I ask one question. Is that property well or septic? MS. STRICKLAND: Well. Septic, yes. MR. DEAN: See, in all parts of the country that I see, if you're in town in a residential neighborhood lot, you have all these restrictions. When you're out where you have more land and property and you're on well and septic, it is not a city-improved lot, you can go along with these things. And it's allowed in, I know, several places. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If I can respond to that. In our packet we weren't given any of the additional zoning changes that sort of refer to the separation between, you know, improved areas in town and the Estates-zoned properties, but there is definitely a difference. We've seen it in prior cases. If we had that, we might be able to make a better distinction. But in my mind at this point I can't find that there's a violation. MS. FLAGG: Mr. Chair, we can withdraw the case. They do have correspondence specifying the Estates zoned property, that it's not allowed. But what we can do is withdraw it and bring it back next month and provide that correspondence. MR. KAUFMAN: One comment. How long do you think it will be until the truck is finished? MS. STRICKLAND: It really all depends on time and money with my husband. I mean, I'm the one who painted the frame because he had no time. So I'm the one -- I mean, it just all depends on -- Page 64 161 1 _ 2 A6 July 28, 2011 MR. LEFEBVRE: How far along are you on it? MS. STRICKLAND: I mean, we have all the parts to do it. It's the fact of putting it back together. The motor's out of it. I don't know if you could put that one picture up, Janis, of the -- MR. LEFEBVRE: But the motor's been rebuilt? It's ready to be MS. STRICKLAND: Yeah. The motor's sitting on a stand, transmission -- everything's out of the truck. It's all ready to be put back in. It's just literally him getting time. Last week he worked over 40 hours not being on call, and every third week he's on call. So it all just depends on -- I mean, I can't go out there and do it myself; otherwise I would to get it done and over with, trust me. I would love it to be done and finished myself just so it could be out of my garage. MR. KAUFMAN: I go along with the county. I have a problem. You said your neighbors don't mind. If I was living next to you and someone put a big black box out in the middle of my yard, I would complain. So I'd like the county to bring it back next month, and let's see where we go. We have no idea of when it will be done. It could be done in a month. It could be done in a year or more. MS. STRICKLAND: Correct. And can I say something real quick? Like Janis said, I even offered to move it to the back of my yard if-- you know, if that's what it would take. I've offered to get a permit on it, like a storage shed. I would love -- I would tie it down. I would do anything it would take, because I'm not going to drive in town, out of town, in town to get stuff out of the storage. And it's cheaper to rent one of these than it is a storage in town. MR. KAUFMAN: Your property is, what, 1.14 acres? MS. STRICKLAND: Yes, it's an acre and a quarter. MR. KAUFMAN: So it's 75 by 660 deep? MS. STRICKLAND: Yes, correct. MR. KAUFMAN: And the pod is sitting -- Page 65 161 2A6 July 28, 2011 MS. STRICKLAND: In the front yard. MR. KAUFMAN: -- in the front yard. MS. STRICKLAND: I can have the pod moved. That's not the -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I don't think that's the issue. I think it says "on residential property." It doesn't distinguish -- I guess we have to look at the LDC and see, does it distinguish where, or does it just flatly, it's not allowed. If it's not allowed, it doesn't matter where it is. So I think maybe we should just continue this case until next month. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If I can. If the county wishes to withdraw, we can't stop that, even if it's in mid case; however, I would caution the county in doing so at this point, because it may look to the public that the county didn't form a strong enough case and is wanting to withdraw it in order to find more evidence, and that might be, in a sense, almost like a double trial, and that doesn't look so good. MR. KAUFMAN: I would like the county to withdraw it so we can get some definitive answer rather than -- it goes the other way, too, if somebody makes a motion that we find them in violation. So I think that would be the fairer way and would be the way to go. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you have any objection with us postponing this and coming back at a later date? MS. STRICKLAND: That means I'd have to take off work again. I mean, I can ask my boss. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You have the right to object. MS. BAKER: If we could just put the notice of violation up, it does reference the LDC, so you can kind of get an idea. You have it in your packet as well. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We do, but the LDC isn't specific to these -- this isn't the specific Estates zoned area. This is one of those gray areas, because it's kind of a temporary structure, and if you look at construction of the structure, it's not much different than a Ted's Shed, maybe even just a little stronger. MR. LEFEBVRE: But it's not tied down or anything. Page 66 161 2A6 July 28, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, but then -- it said in the letter that they aren't even able to permit it. But if it was, you know, something that was built off site, brought on site, and if it was anchored correctly, shouldn't be any reason why they couldn't permit it. It's a shed, a storage shed. And I can attest to their sturdiness. MS. PEREZ: In the notice of violation, Section 2.02.03, it says, "Any use or structure not specifically identified in a zoning district as a permitted use, conditional use, or accessory use shall be prohibited in such a zoning district." And again, from the memo, you know, noted and the communication with the zoning manager, he concurred, you know, that this particular property -- he was provided the location, that it was on an Estates-zoned property, and he concurred with the memo that you see up there. CHAIRMAN KELLY: But yet he would allow a shed to be permitted there. MS. PEREZ: And it wouldn't -- in reviewing this with the zoning department manager, plan reviewer, and inspections, Ms. Tatiana Gust, she says that the shed in -- the pod in itself, the Florida Building Code does allow for temporary buildings or sheds exclusive with construction of process -- you know, processes on the property. And she, again, concurred with the same memo that you saw earlier. She says, a definition of a structure in the Florida Building Code, it says, "That which is built or constructed." So the inspectors can perform the inspections for the structures in accordance with the Florida Building Code regulations. And she says the only units that are allowed to be manufactured and dropped off at a specific site are structures approved by the DCA and insigna with the proof of inspections that have been previously performed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And storage sheds fall into that category? MS. PEREZ: And she said the pod shown does not meet the Page 67 161 12 A6 ti July 28, 2011 criteria, you know, furthermore, in the email message that she provided. She says that the pod shown, which I provided them a picture of what was there, does not meet either criteria, therefore cannot be permitted. CHAIRMAN KELLY: It seems to me like it wouldn't be any different than a regular shed that was built in North Fort Myers and trucked in. MR. PERRY: And the question was posed to the building department when Mrs. Strickland said, well, you know, I'll move it to the back to meet setbacks because, you know, it wouldn't meet setbacks even if it was able to be permitted as it is now. And she says, I'll get a permit or whatnot, so that's when the information -- the question was posed to the Building Department, would this structure be able to be tied down of some sort and blueprints provided or something. They said it doesn't meet the criteria of something that can be remanufactured and dropped off MS. FLAGG: I would just remind the board, it's not -- it's not for us to agree with the code. We just have to apply the code as written. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And that's where my issue is. I don't think that what we're being presented with is talking about that specific structure. I believe that, you know, they're considering those plastic pods, and this is a steel shed-type container. MS. FLAGG: I will tell you that in the Land Development Code it's the Zoning Director. The Zoning Manager, that when there is a specific case, that they take this case to them, have them review it, and per the Land Development Code, they're the ones that make the decision on whether it is a violation or not. And in this case, they clearly indicated that it was a violation. And if you look on the notice of violation, it specifies zoning district E, which is Estates. So they were, throughout, notified that it was an Estates zoning when they issued the letter saying, yes, it is a violation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And they were also told about the Page 68 x. 61 2A6 July 28, 2011 opportunity to move it to the rear of the property? MS. FLAGG: It's -- right. If you read the Land Development Code, it specifies the property. It doesn't give them dispensation to move it to the rear of the property. It's on the property. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Would you still like to withdraw it, or do you want us to continue it? MS. FLAGG: The only other thing that we would provide is just the emails back and forth. You have the official letter from the zoning manager; you have the statement of the Land Development Code where it specifically states it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MS. PEREZ: If the board feels -- we do have one other memo that we've also provided to Mrs. Strickland. It's a 2003 memo also by Ms. Susan Murray Istenes, and this also specifies -- you know, I hear going back and forth as far as what pods would be, and this specifies industrial containers, if this is more of what it's seen as. And the memo also specifies that it's for nonresidential site, you know, uses -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MS. PEREZ: -- if you'd like us to submit that into evidence. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'm okay. You guys want to continue on? MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We'll continue then, if that's okay? All right. Any more questions for the county? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Questions for the respondent? MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion that we find the respondent in violation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. Page 69 16I2A6 July 28, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Jim. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any nays? (Raises hand.) One. Okay. Do you have a recommendation? MS. POTTER: We do. Recommendation is 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, No. 1, removing industrial storage container from Estates zoned property within the determined — to be determined number of days of this hearing or a fine of to be determined amount number of dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated and, No. 2, 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. KAUFMAN: I'd like to see if I can fill in the blanks. The 81.15 to be paid within 30 days, a fine of$150 per day, and 12 months to resolve your situation. MS. STRICKLAND: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? Page 70 161 } 2 A6 tl July 28, 2011 MR. LEFEBVRE: I think 12 -- go ahead. MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? Gerald? MR. LEFEBVRE: I think 12 months is extremely excessive. You know, it's been there for almost two years already, and I think 12 months is extreme. MR. LAVINSKI: I agree. It seems way beyond reason. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Ron? No issues? MR. DOINO: No issues. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. I'll go to a vote, or you can amend. I think you've got one, two, three, four with you. MR. KAUFMAN: The reason -- let me just give you my reason on that. I know there's been some contention here, and I know that if you're in the air conditioning business, it's going to take you a while till times slow down. So if we're in July, that gives us August, September, October, let's say even to November, one, two, three, four, five -- I could go for six months, and if you have a problem within six months come back to the board. I could amend it, if that would make my other board members more comfortable. MR. DEAN: I'm still happy with my motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I like a year, too. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Leave it. Call the question. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, let's see how it falls then. In that case, all in favor for the 12 months, signify by saying aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? MR. LAVINSKI: Opposed. MR. LEFEBVRE: (Raises hand.) Page 71 161 2 A6 July 28, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Two opposed, so that means it carries. Okay. Just like Mr. Kaufman had said, it's going to be one year or a fine of$150 per day. There's an operational cost of$81.15. That does need to be paid within 30 days. That's something we don't control and we have no control over, so you'll have to pay county directly for their time. MS. STRICKLAND: Okay. That's fine. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And we wish you the best of luck. Hopefully it works out for you. MS. STRICKLAND: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You're welcome. Thank you. MS. POTTER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Next case. It's going to be AAAA Homes, Incorporated. Is there a representative here? MR. BALDWIN: No, sir. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Florida Building Code, 2007, Chapter 1, Section 105.4.1. Description of violation: Expired Permits Nos. 2001110145 for a fence, 2008050699 for a Ted shed type structure, 2008050702 for a pole barn storage shed, 2008050704 for a pump shed. Location address where violation exists: 581 7th Street Northwest, Naples, Florida, 34120; Folio 371 10800008. Name and address of owner, person in charge of violation location: AAAA Homes, Inc., care of registered agent Abel Alvarez, 671 7th Street Northwest, Naples, Florida, 34120. Date violation first observed: 9/12/2007. Date owner, person in charge given Notice of Violation: May 4, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: May 31, 2011. Date of reinspection: June 16, 2011. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. Page 72 16I2A6 July 28, 2011 MR. BALDWIN: Good morning. For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This is in reference to Case No. 2007090283 dealing with the violation of expired Permit Nos. 2001110145 for a fence, 2008050699 for a Ted shed type structure, 2008050702 for a pole barn storage shed, 2008050704 for a pump shed. This violation -- these violations are located at 581 7th Street Northwest, Naples, Florida, 34120; Folio No. 37110800008. Service was given on May 4, 2011. I would like to present case evidence in the following four photos dated September 12, 2007, and two photos taken July 27, 2011. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a motion? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibits. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, it carries. MR. BALDWIN: I'd like to present the following case details: On September 12, 2007, I responded to a complaint by Domestic Animal Services and the Collier County Sheriffs Department. There were many unpermitted structures on the property and many violations. Mr. Alvarez did remove several of the unpermitted structures, and he did abate all the other violations on the property. He then applied for four permits. He obtained a permit for one of the Page 73 X61 2 A6 July 28, 2011 structures on the property. Still today three remaining structures on the property that were applied for remain unpermitted. The reason for this, there are many extenuating and personal circumstances why the permits expired. On seven, two thousand -- I'm sorry. On July 2, 2010, I spoke with Mr. Alvarez, and he said he was going to abate the violation. I then met with Mr. Alvarez early June of this year, 2011, and he stated that he was also going to abate the violations, but still, since then, the violations still remain. CHAIRMAN KELLY: On those last dates you said June of 2010 and -- or July -- MR. BALDWIN: I said July of 2010 I spoke with Mr. Alvarez, and then on June of 2011, two months ago -- or I'm sorry -- last month I met with Mr. Alvarez. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So basically a whole year -- MR. BALDWIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- in addition? MR. BALDWIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you have any questions for Mr. Baldwin? MR. KAUFMAN: We have to accept. MR. BALDWIN: The first photo was taken on September 12, 2007. That's the pole barn slash -- the permit that he applied for, the pole barn/storage shed, there was electricity at the time. Mr. Alvarez stated to me that he has removed the electricity. So -- and the permit, I don't believe, is for electricity. So I have not gained access to this property again since 2007, so I don't know. MR. KAUFMAN: Is that structure abutting a house? MR. BALDWIN: No. It's behind the house. That's still that same structure. That is the Ted-shed-type structure that he did apply for -- a permit for, and that's still the same pole barn structure coming up next. Now, since then I have not been able to gain access to the Page 74 161 2 A6 July 28, 2011 property. They have stated that they did not want me on the back of the property, so I could only take a photo from the street. If you look through the trees and past the fence there, you can see that structure still remains there, and then the other structure that he applied for that was permitted was there, and the other structure, if you look closely, is there as well. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to find the respondent in violation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Lavinski. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. Do you have a recommendation? MR. BALDWIN: I do. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $80.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by, one, obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion, occupancy within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated; two, the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final Page 75 161 , 2A6 July 28, 2011 inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violations and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Would someone like to take a shot at it? MR. KAUFMAN: I'll take a shot; 80.57 paid within 30 days, fine of$200 a day starting 90 days from today. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have second by, who was that? MR. KAUFMAN: Gerald. CHAIRMAN KELLY: By Gerald. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. MR. BALDWIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Next case, if I'm not mistake, is Valorie Lojewski and Carol Nelson. Are the respondents here? (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. AMBACH: I'm sorry. If I could just interject real quick. For the record, again, Investigator Chris Ambach, code enforcement. Page 76 16h2A6 July 28, 2011 The owners are not here, but I do have a tenant that's present to see the outcome of the case in the audience. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would the tenant like to speak at all at any time during the hearing? MR. SCOTT: Only if I need to. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you think you might, we'd just as soon swear you in now. And, you know, if you want to come on up and be a part, that would be great. MR. SCOTT: If you have any questions. I'm not the owner, but I can answer questions. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's okay. As a member of the public, if you have any testimony that you'd like to add to the case, you have that right, too. MR. SCOTT: Okay. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Article II, Florida Building Code, Section 22-26(b)(104.5.1.4.4). Description of violation: Detached garage Permit No. 910012418 expired without getting certificate of completion. Location address where violation exists: 330 Wilson Boulevard South, Naples, Florida, 34117; Folio No. 37220800008. Name and address of owner, person in charge of violation location: Valorie K. Lojewski and Carol E. Nelson, 330 Wilson Boulevard South, Naples, Florida, 34117. Date violation first observed: October 8, 2008. Date owner, person in charge given notice of violation: October 31, 2008. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: November 30, 2008. Results of-- date of reinspection: June 21, 2011. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. MR. AMBACH: This case is in reference to Case No. Page 77 161 2A0 July 28, CESD20080014926 dealing with the violation of a detached garage, Permit No. 910012418, expired without obtaining a certificate of completion located at 330 Wilson Boulevard South, Naples, Florida; Folio No. 37220800008. Service was given on October 31, 2008. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: I have four photographs, one dated March 9, 2011, and three dated July 26, 2011. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) � p ) MR. AMBACH: This case initiated as a complaint on October 8, 2008, for an unpermitted garage with an office located at the rear of the property. Research found Permit No. 910012418 had been applied for; however, no inspections or a certificate of completion was obtained to satisfy the permit. The property was in foreclosure and transferred to the foreclosure team. After receiving this case on October 11, 2010, I made a site visit and spoke with the tenant. He advised me the owners had moved away, and I was given contact information. I had -- I spoke with owner Carol Nelson since then, who has advised me she purchased the home and didn't know the violation existed, had attempted to rectify the situation; however -- she stated, however, due to the economy, the property has fallen into foreclosure, Page 78 161 . . 2 A6 July 28, 20r1 and she has no plans to correct the violations at this time. As of today the violations remain. This is the structure located at the rear of the property here. It's being used for storage only at this point. This is to the right of the storage unit. It's basically a garage; tools and motorcycle and some other odds and ends are being stored in there. This is all the same structure, correct. MR. KAUFMAN: Could you go back to the first picture when you get a chance. Is there electric there? MR. AMBACH: There is. MR. KAUFMAN: Plumbing, any plumbing? MR. AMBACH: I'm not -- I don't think there's any plumbing in there. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You said that there was a permit pulled. Were there any inspections on that? MR. AMBACH: Never an inspection done. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have any questions from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion that a violation does exist. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Pick one. Sir, as a member of the public, would your testimony change what we're doing right now about a violation existing? MR. SCOTT: No. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. If I can then, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. Page 79 1 6 I 2 A6� July 28, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great. Now we have a recommendation from the county, and we'd love to hear what you have to say about it as well if you'd like to comment on anything. MR. SCOTT: Bill Scott, William Scott. We moved into that property at the end of March 2010, was tagged on the gate by Inspector Ambach, I'm going to guess, roughly May -- correct me if I'm wrong -- in May of 2010. I called him, asked him what the situation was, because I was unaware of any of it. So I asked him to come back out if he wanted to talk about it and tell me what's going on so I could be aware. We had leased the property knowing it was in foreclosure. We're watching it to see what's going to happen with Chase Manhattan. I don't know how it's going to play out. My family -- I have a wife and three kids; we live there. We do use that unit for storage. Inspector Ambach identified that that was one of the structures that was under permit violation. I asked what I could do and, of course, as the -- as not being an owner, there isn't anything I can do but let this play out. So that's what I'm trying to do is watch each hurdle and see what happens, see what Chase does. She's already identified she has no interest in the property, to do anything with it, so I just have to wait. Meanwhile, I continue to pay her a lease payment on a property that's in foreclosure. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We'll -- you'll see in a moment here when we come up with our final order that usually when these properties are in foreclosure we try to shorten the time frame to make sure that an unsuspecting buyer doesn't fall trap to absorb, you know, this violation thinking that they've got a property worth more than it is. MR. SCOTT: Well, in this case it's probably a little different Page 80 161 f2 A6 July 28, 2011 because now you have somebody who's interested in the property who understands that it's going to be fined, it's going to be penalized, it's going to end up probably with the bank who may have a lis pendens and just forget the property altogether if the fines accrue. She has no interest in repairing them, so they will. They can run forever. CHAIRMAN KELLY: In these cases, if something was to happen, let's say a scenario as such, that it was to go into foreclosure, nothing was fixed, fines were to accrue, and you were to come back to the board and say, listen, I fixed it -- I bought the house, I fixed it up, you know, the fines were accrued from, you know, back when. MR. SCOTT: Sure. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You have the option to ask us to reduce or maybe even completely abate those fines. We're interested in just making sure the structure is permitted and up to code. MR. SCOTT: I understand that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I know it's difficult. MR. SCOTT: I know everything has to stay with the property. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I know it will be difficult because you'll have to rectify the situation, most likely, before you'll be able to get a loan on the property -- MR. SCOTT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- but there is a possibility here. MR. SCOTT: Right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Gerald, did you want to comment? MR. LEFEBVRE: Is the property currently for sale? MR. SCOTT: No, it's not. I've asked her about short sale, I've asked her what she did. She just clearly identifies that she has an attorney, and they're just -- and she's playing it out with Chase. But as far as I know, none of that exists. It's all verbal. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah, okay. MR. KAUFMAN: Has this gone to the foreclosure team? MR. AMBACH: It has gone to the foreclosure team, and it was Page 81 161 ai6 July 28, 2011 given back to me. It was -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: So Chase doesn't want to do anything with it? MR. AMBACH: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Why don't we go through the recommendation. MR. AMBACH: Okay. 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, No. 1, obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections, and certificate of completion, occupancy within blank days of the date of this hearing or a fine of blank a day will be imposed until the violation is abated and, No. 2, 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. KAUFMAN: I have a comment. This is probably one of the easier ones to rectify. I'm surprised that they haven't looked at it. If they pulled a building permit and they paid their impact fees -- MR. LEFEBVRE: There wouldn't be impact fees. MR. KAUFMAN: There wouldn't be any impact fees. It's not living space anyhow -- that -- I'm surprised that they're just -- if you'll pardon the expression, "walking away" when it's a property that's probably viable. You're obviously living there. Justify my comments. MR. LEFEBVRE: I don't think the issue is the violation. I think the issue is the mortgage. That's why. CHAIRMAN KELLY: From outsiders looking in at just a couple of photos, what we see here is a reapp. of a permit, which gives Page 82 161 2A6 July 28, 2011 you a date at which that building needs to be installed (sic) to -- at a prior code. MR. SCOTT: Right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So you wouldn't even need to bring up to today's codes, which, in probability, the structure's fine as it is. It just needs an inspector to come out and say, yeah, it looks good -- MR. SCOTT: That's what I believe. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- or an engineer -- MR. SCOTT: I believe exactly that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- you know, to -- MR. SCOTT: Do I have the right to do that, as not being the owner? I mean, that's a question that you have to ask. I don't have that right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Nope. MR. SCOTT: So I've got to let this play out, let the fines go, and just ride each wave and see what my time frame is, ride the next wave and just see what happens. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Unless the owner, you know, signs an affidavit giving you power of attorney for -- to pull a permit or hires a contractor to pull in her behalf, or his behalf, there's not much you can do. I'm sorry. MR. SCOTT: Yeah. Intelligence tells me that's not a practical thing to do. I have to be careful. I'm maintaining the property in order so that I don't have a dangerous living situation with my children there, but realistically for me to make improvements for her to be able to sell it for whatever, until I have -- I mean, I don't have a first right of refusal, and you know as well as I do that's not worth the paper it's printed on. So she's going to go for the highest price, whatever she can do. Doesn't make much sense for me, financially or otherwise, to improve the property. MR. KAUFMAN: Do you know when she purchased this Page 83 161 2A6 A July 28, 2011 property? MR. SCOTT: My understanding is about 1998. Would you -- Inspector, would you verify? Do you know that? MR. AMBACH: I'm not sure -- MR. LEFEBVRE: '04. MR. AMBACH: -- the exact -- MR. KAUFMAN: '04? MR. SCOTT: No. I think there's a '98 purchase. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Maybe that's a refs. MR. SCOTT: There's two houses. There's two houses. You're going to -- you'll find this out later. But there's two houses. And I think '04 was the documentation for the secondary house, for the guesthouse. But the original purchase on the property, my understanding, was in the late '90s. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Gotcha. Well, if you find yourself curious, you could go down to the Horseshoe Drive community services building, ask what it would cost to reapp. this, ask how much the permit inspection fees would be, and then maybe offer to her. Say, listen, you know, I won't pay you $500 in my lease payment, and I'll take care of this for you. Maybe she'll do it for you. MR. SCOTT: Oh, I would love that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Anyways, let's go ahead and come up with something. That's not advice. That's just an opinion. MR. DEAN: I'm glad. MR. SCOTT: I know. It's a weird situation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah. Does anybody want to take a shot at this? MR. LEFEBVRE: Simply 30 days to correct the violation or a $200-a-day fine. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. DEAN: And operational costs of 81.15. MR. LEFEBVRE: Correct, yes. Page 84 161 2 A6 July 28, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is that your second, Larry? MR. DEAN: Second, thanks. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. MR. AMBACH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right. Good luck. MR. SCOTT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Now we're going to go to Sanders, correct? Is that the next one? That was the motion for continuance that was denied. So Kirk Sanders. And, Azure, if you want to come back up. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Florida Building Code, 2007 Edition, Chapter 1, Section 105.1, Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i), and 2.02.03. Description of violation: Approximately 12 mobile homes were installed with several additions added to the mobile homes consisting of carports, screen porches, roof overs, and living space below flood level with electrical and plumbing without first obtaining all required building permits. Location address where violation exists: 2280 Pineland Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34110; Folio Nos. 5615020005 (sic) and Page 85 161 2A6 July 28, 2011 56150520002. Name and address of owner, person in charge of violation location: Kirk N. Sanders, PO Box 2481, Naples, Florida, 34106. Date violation first observed: June 8, 2010. Date owner, person in charge given notice of violation: September 1, 2010. Date on by which violation to be corrected: September 29, 2010. Date of reinspection: May 17, 2011. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Go ahead. MS. BOTTS: For the record, Azure Botts, investigator with Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CSD20100007042 pertaining to the violations of prohibited land use, unpermitted mobile homes, additions, carports, porches, roof overs, living space below flood with electrical and plumbing located at 2280 Pineland Avenue, 34112; Folio 56150200005 and 56150520002. Proof of service was received on September 1, 2010. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: 17 photos dated July 27, 2011. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) Page 86 161 2A 6 July 28, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We can see them. MR. KAUFMAN: We could make a movie out of it. MS. BOTTS: As mentioned in the hearing for the continuance, the complaint was actually made by two different resources (sic). The Bayshore Community Redevelopment had made a complaint asking -- or expressing concerns about this property. Approximately three days later I received an email from Marlene Serrano, our operations manager, stating that she had been contacted by Captain Hunt with the East Naples Fire Department indicating that a mobile home had caught on fire and burnt to the ground, pretty much. Fortunately nobody was there, so no one was hurt. And he had many concerns with the electrical and other code violations. I made my first site visit on the 8th of June 2010. And here's where I'm going to go through the photos. And it's going to get very in-depth because there's a lot of-- it's -- to begin with, this is a legal, nonconforming property. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MS. BOTTS: And so it's getting into time frames and what's been done and what's not allowed and so forth and so on. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Can we just interrupt as we go and just ask you questions? MS. BOTTS: Absolutely. I hope you do. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right. MS. BOTTS: Okay. The first photos -- well, actually, all the photos are just going to be specifically of the mobile homes with -- and the additions. Some are porches, carports, roof-overs, things of that nature. If you just want to go ahead and go through them. MR. KAUFMAN: Approximately how many of them are occupied? MS. BOTTS: From my knowledge, all of them are. And the reason why I say "from my knowledge" is this is -- prior to 1975, this property was zoned MR -- or MHRP, mobile home rental park. Page 87 161 2A6 July 28, 2011 Mobile home rental parks are -- the property is usually owned by a particular individual, and they rent out spaces to owners of the mobile homes. So I have not been able to gain access into the mobile homes. I've only been able to get onto the property. There is 13 homes. I did count them. There's approx- -- there is 13 mobile homes. This one -- this picture that you're looking at right here, on June 7, 2010, the mobile home that was there was the one that had caught on fire. By the time I arrived the following morning, the mobile home had already been removed, and it was just an empty space. I explained to Mr. Sanders, who is the property owner that was on site at the time, that if he was to replace the mobile home, he would need to have permits. I was out of the office for five months for family reasons, and in that time frame he did put a mobile home back in that space without obtaining permits. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Azure, so this now is -- we went down to 12 because of the fire; we're back to 13 now, correct? MS. BOTTS: Correct. MR. KAUFMAN: Does it matter whether they have tires on them or not? MS. BOTTS: We're going to get into that. There is travel trailers on this property as well as mobile homes. Travel trailers would not be allowed unless there was a master plan submitted to the county, and it has not been -- according to the property owner, there is, but he's not been able to submit it, and I have not been able to obtain one. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MS. BOTTS: Again, this is a -- this one is a mobile home with an addition and a carport. CHAIRMAN KELLY: When you say addition and carport, you mean that have not been permitted, correct? MS. BOTTS: Correct. Nothing on this has been permitted. Page 88 161 2A6 July 28, 2011 We're going to get to aerial photos showing you where everything had changed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MS. BOTTS: The fence, as well, is erected without a permit. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MS. BOTTS: I'm not sure -- again, when it gets into mobile homes and trailer -- travel trailers, this one's very questionable. I would leave that up to the Building Department. It appears that the travel trailer hitch is still intact and, obviously, is covered up with skirting. But if you look at the outside of it, siding's been put on, stucco's been put on, and an addition as well. MR. DEAN: Ready to go. MS. BOTTS: Mobile home, most likely, from the looks of what I can see on the outside. Again, I would let that up to the Building Department, but that is a living space, porch that is below flood. MR. DEAN: Is that a propane gas tank there, on that last photo? Oh, here. This one. MR. KAUFMAN: On the right. MR. DEAN: That's propane gas? CHAIRMAN KELLY: It looks like it. MS. BOTTS: Behind the bushes? MR. DEAN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah. MS. BOTTS: Yes. MR. DEAN: So is that how they heat the home? CHAIRMAN KELLY: A stove. MS. BOTTS: I can't answer that, sir. I've not been able to obtain inside. Another unit with additions that are living space below flood. This is a travel trailer or a -- actually, a recreational vehicle that has a roof over it. Obviously, that would never be permitted as such. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Wouldn't it be funny to watch that go Page 89 6 1 2 Abp July 28, 2011 down the road, that roof thing? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. MS. BOTTS: Again, living space below flood attached to a mobile home or a travel trailer. I wanted to take this photo of that -- this is the side view of that last photo you had just seen just clearly indicating that this is living space. It's got an A/C unit, enclosed walls, windows. This would be a travel trailer attached with an addition. Again, this is an addition. You can't really see it, with the foliage all planted in front of it, so it's just the side view. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is that a separate structure behind it, that two-story thing? MS. BOTTS: That is actually -- let me put in perspective where this property is located. The Wendy's on Tamiami Trail East, it sits between Pineland and Pelton Avenue, the building right beside Wendy's. It has the ABC Liquor in it; that's the commercial building behind it. That should be all of them. After I had made my first site visit on the 8th of June and I seen everything that had taken place, I did speak with the property owner, Mr. Sanders, explained to him about the mobile home that he removed, if he was to put one back in its place, what he needed to do, and expressed my concerns with all the other structures, mobile homes, travel trailers on the property. I told him I would need to do some research and I would get back with him after doing so. I conducted research from August 9th to -- and mind you, I know there's a big time frame here. Research took place during that whole time, but we did a lot of research with the zoning and planning department between August 9, 2010, and August 13, 2010. As I mentioned before, this property was zoned mobile home rental park in 19- -- before 1975. Towards the end of 1975, this property was rezoned to C4 commercial. It does fall in the Page 90 161 2 A6 July 28, 2011 Gateway/Bayshore Triangle; however, the overlay has nothing to do with what's on -- going on with the property. So I'm going to now show you some aerials that go through from '73 to '75, '85, '95, 2001, all the way to 2011. The '73 aerial, you're going to see what it looked like when it was zoned mobile home rental park. Forgive me, sorry. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do we need to enter those? CHAIRMAN KELLY: This is all part of the original exhibit package, correct? We don't need another motion for this? You said pictures and aerials when you originally -- MS. BOTTS: No. I only said pictures, but I can add the aerials. MR. DEAN: I'll make a motion to accept the aerials. MR. DOING: Second. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: We just want to -- MS. BOTTS: Thank you, gentlemen. Sorry. I should have done that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's okay. MS. BOTTS: All right. The first aerial is from the City of Naples 1973 aerial image, and it shows -- it's a very small picture, unfortunately. Hopefully Ms. Baker will -- Mrs. Baker will be able to zoom in for us. As you can see Tamiami Trail clearly, and then the side streets is Page 91 161 2A6 July 28, 2011 Pineland and Pelton. In between you see multiple mobile homes, and that's what it looked like in 1973 when it was zoned mobile home rental park. MR. LEFEBVRE: Can you just point out to specifically which -- MR. DEAN: It's in the middle? MS. BOTTS: It's going to be from here over and down. MR. LEFEBVRE: Oh, okay. Okay. MR. DEAN: Looks like Nevada. MS. BOTTS: When they -- I'm not sure of all the dates, but when they rezoned it, it looked like parcels had been divided and sold out separately, so what was remaining is what you'll see as of today. MR. KAUFMAN: Did Mr. Sanders own this in '73? MS. BOTTS: No. A family with the last name of Wainright has owned it as far back as I can track, and in 1998 it was sold to Mr. Sanders. MR. KAUFMAN: And this is the most -- the expression to use -- "relaxed" zoning as what it was in 1973, and since that time there have been zoning changes that become more restrictive? MS. BOTTS: It was definitely zoned mobile home residential park at -- before 1975. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. So it was grandfathered with that? MS. BOTTS: Correct. When they decided to do the rezoning, for whatever reason that I cannot answer, it was made to be C4, and obviously since this was an existing condition, they allowed it to be legal nonconforming. It could remain, but if they was to increase structures, remove structures, things of that nature, it would break the legal nonconforming. MR. KAUFMAN: So each change in the property would require permits? If the permits weren't provided, then it would be in violation? MS. BOTTS: I'm not sure I follow you, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I think I got what you're saying. So in Page 92 16I2A6 July 28, 2011 other words, they can still continue to operate as a rental mobile home park -- MS. BOTTS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- however, they couldn't expand on those mobile homes because they would require a permit, and that permit would be in violation of LDC? MS. BOTTS: Everything would require a permit no matter what, but the continued use would be allowed as long as -- and I can read off the sections that I have provided, the sections indicating that nonconforming uses may remain as long as they do not increase the structure sizes on the property or change the land use. If they do that, then it automatically goes to C4 zoning, and that's what they have to comply with. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So in other words, if a trailer, let's say, for instance, had an issue and a wall rotted out and they needed a permit to repair that wall, they could easily get that permit; however, if they wanted to build an addition, they would not because that would Y y increase the size, correct? MS. BOTTS: That is correct. Maybe I can make some clarification real quick if I read something for you. Is that -- MR. KAUFMAN: Let me -- one quick point. MS. BOTTS: Sure. MR. KAUFMAN: If one trailer changes, does it make the whole thing change or just the one trailer? MS. BOTTS: The one trailer. As soon as they altered that property in any way, it automatically -- it voids out their legal nonconforming. MR. KAUFMAN: On that trailer? MS. BOTTS: The whole property. MR. KAUFMAN: On the whole property. MS. BOTTS: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: That's what I want to know. Page 93 161 2 A6 July 28, 2011 MR. LEFEBVRE: We're not talking about zoning in this particular case. We're talking about additions to the mobile homes. MS. BOTTS: That is correct, but -- MR. LEFEBVRE: So zoning is irrelevant. MS. BOTTS: Well, not exactly, because he's also cited for prohibited land use. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So real quick. Since you're allowed to repair one of these trailers and get a permit for that, as long as you don't increase size, if one was to completely be destroyed with a fire and you were to bring another one in and it's replaced, is that considered -- MS. BOTTS: No, that would -- that would not. As long as you were putting what was already existing in place, it would not. As soon as you increase the square footage or you add more mobile homes than what was allowed, approved, in 1975 when they gave them their legal nonconforming. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MS. BOTTS: So as of right now, from my understanding from the zoning and planning department, 12 mobile homes were allowed in 1975. They have 13, but they also have travel trailers, which are not allowed. So it all kind of falls underneath the prohibited land. So that's why we're just kind of touching this so you understand why there's prohibited land use on there. MR. KAUFMAN: So the whole place is in violation then, but because of all the different changes that have occurred? MR. DEAN: I'd like you to read that, please. MS. BOTTS: Yes, I will. This is 9.03.00, nonconformities, B, declaration. Nonconforming uses are declared by this section to be incompatible with permitted uses in the districts involved. A nonconforming use of a structure, a nonconforming use of land or water, or a nonconforming use of structure, land, or water in combination shall not be extended or enlarged after the effective date Page 94 lot 2 A6 July 28, 2011 of the Land Development Code or relevant amendment thereto by attachment on a structure -- so there would be the additions, the attachment onto a structure -- or premises of additional signs intended to be seen from off the premise or by the addition of other uses of a nature which would be prohibited generally in the district involved, except as prohibited where -- within Section 9.03.03(B)(4). If you go to that section, it talks about nonconforming structures, residential structures which, for the purpose of this section, shall mean detached single-family dwellings, duplexes, or mobile homes in existence at the effective date of this zoning code or its relevant amendment and in continuous residential use thereafter may be altered, expanded, or replaced upon recommendation of the Collier County Planning Commission and approved (sic) of the Board of Zoning Appeals by resolution. So for them to do any of those things, adding additions to their mobile homes, they have to have permission from the Collier County Planning Commission and the zoning. MR. KAUFMAN: Have you been in contact with Mr. Sanders? MS. BOTTS: I have, yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: Is there any reason that you know of that he's not here today? MS. BOTTS: No, sir. All I under- -- my understanding is that he was going to be out of town; however, he does feel that -- he's expressed to me that he feels that he falls underneath the state jurisdiction and not the county. I did explain to Mr. Sanders that the state jurisdiction only applies to mobile homes and that that's why they come in once a year to inspect them; however, the land use and the additions would fall underneath county. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion we find him in violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. Page 95 161 2 A6 July 28, 2011 MR. DOINO: Second on that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It carries unanimously. Do you have a recommendation? You thought it was going to be a lot harder, didn't you? You thought you were going to be here for a couple hours. MS. BOTTS: I'm sorry, yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And I'm sorry -- first of all, let me apologize for making a joke. It's almost so bad you have to laugh because it's a shame that -- here we are, but there was a fire in one of these trailers, and it did burn to the ground. And we're very lucky that nobody was in it. So we don't mean to laugh, but it's like, you know, it's just blatant that you have to laugh, so -- and then also, I apologize for you putting so much time and effort into presenting such a great case. And I'm sure that we cut you off probably a quarter of the way through, but that's how effective your first part was. MS. BOTTS: Well, thank you. And I'd rather be well prepared than not prepared, so -- now if I could just find my recommendation, we'd be doing really good. CHAIRMAN KELLY: It's on the screen. MS. BOTTS: Okay. The county recommends Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay the operational costs Page 96 16 a A6 July 28, 2011 in the amount of-- and I have it, but I don't have it written down. MR. DEAN: Eighty one seven-two. MS. BOTTS: Thank you, gentlemen -- 81.72 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate the violations by: The respondent must obtain all required Collier County building permits or a demolition permit, the required inspections, and a certificate of completion, occupancy within X amount of days of this hearing -- sorry -- of this hearing, or a two hun- -- or an X-amount-per-day fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains. The respondent must remove the -- from the property any extra mobile homes other than what was approved in 1975 for the legal nonconforming statutes, including the recreational vehicles, within X amount of days of this hearing or an X amount per day fine will be imposed for each day the violation remains. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated and ordered to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails the abatement -- 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 cost of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to fill in the blanks, if I can; 81.72 paid within 30 days of this hearing, $250-a-day fine will begin accruing after 30 days. MR. DEAN: Number 2? MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, do we need a second before -- MR. DEAN: You going to do them both or one? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, I was wondering if you were going to second. MR. LEFEBVRE: Oh, Gerald. Page 97 16I 2 6 July 28, 201 CHAIRMAN KELLY: No second from Gerald. Any seconds? MR. DEAN: Are we just talking about Part No. 1 or Part No. 2? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you want that for all of them? MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. DEAN: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. That's for each individual one. MR. DEAN: Okay. Sorry. I didn't understand. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is that a second? MR. DEAN: I will second that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. We have a second. Now we can discuss it. Gerald? MR. LEFEBVRE: I think 30 days is very short, and here's a couple reasons. First of all, there's currently, from testimony, appears to be people living in there and, second of all, the owner of the property does not own the mobile homes, travel trailers, the residences themselves, so more than likely it was the actual occupants of the units that made the changes. This is very similar to the other mobile home park we had in the same area. MS. BOTTS: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: I think 30 days -- I know that there's a health and safety factor. I think 30 days may be a little bit short. MR. KAUFMAN: The reason I did 30 days is we've already had a fire where a unit burned to the ground, and I am concerned, especially with the respondent not showing up today. I want to get his attention, and I think this will do it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: To bring balance to the force, the respondent did ask for a continuance because of a prior trip or something where he was going to be out of town. So not to defend anyone, but that's one. And then, two, I agree with the 30 days. If the respondent comes back and shows, you know, it wasn't possible to get it done in 30 days, we could always, you know, consider that and possibly reduce or abate the fines that were accrued. Page 98 16I 2A6 July 28, 2011 So I kind of like the shorter time frame only because I'm really concerned about, you know, health and safety. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. DEAN: I like the shorter time for the fact that he was notified on September 1, 2010, and that's been nine months or so, and he knew the violation was there. So I think I'd have made a point to come here and defend what I had to defend. MS. BOTTS: Can I -- MR. DEAN: And in light of the fire, that makes a biggie. I would -- 30 days is a lot to me, but -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Gerald, any more? MR. LEFEBVRE: The investigator has -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Azure? MS. BOTTS: I'm sorry, gentlemen. I just -- maybe to provide some clarification. Yes, it has been quite some time. He, for lack of better terms, wanted to do his own research into what I was telling him. He did make several attempts into the county. There was a citizen liaison that had helped him do research and obviously came to the same conclusion as what we had -- I had already done, and he was informed of that. For more or less hearsay, he really showed no interest in appearing today. He showed interest in basically appealing the decision of this to the Circuit Court, because he had asked me -- that's where -- he had asked me to take it to the Circuit Court, and I told him I couldn't; it had to go to the Code Enforcement Board first. MR. LEFEBVRE: Usually I err on the side of a shorter time period, but with a short time period, I think if you feel that this case is as severe as it is, a $250 a day fine is giving -- sending mixed signals. I think if that's the case, it should be higher than $250. If there's a severe health and safety factor, we should give a higher fine. I know, different case, but the case that was on County Barn Road, we gave a higher fine. And this is definitely a health and Page 99 161 ' 2A6 July 28, 2011 safety. So I think it should be a higher fine. MR. KAUFMAN: Correct me if I am wrong. It's 250, 250, 250. That's 750. MS. BOTTS: There would be two 250s. There's one for the permits and one for the legal nonconforming uses, or illegal use at this point. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Gerald, if you took a shot at it and before MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, no. We have a motion on the table, so I mean -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: But what would -- maybe -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good? MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm good. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. All right. Any other comments then? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seeing none, all those in favor of Mr. Kaufman's motion, signify by saying aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. MS. BOTTS: Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Thank you. Good luck. I think that concludes our public hearings. Next we're going to go to old business, imposition, motion of Page 100 161 a A6 ; July 28, 2011 fines. The first case is actually Case No. 3, I think, is it, Fuller and Barbara Davis, Allen Fuller and Barbara Davis; is that correct? Okay. That is Case No. CEPM20110002247. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would you like to read the motion into the record, please? MS. McGONAGLE: For the record, Investigator Michele McGonagle, Collier County Code Enforcement. The violation is Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22-243 and Section 22-231(12)(i). Location: 267 Price Street, Naples, Florida; Folio 730160003. The description is missing and broken windows, missing and or unsecured exterior doors, holes in the walls, no operational sinks, tub, shower, or toilets. Past orders: On February 24, 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, OR4656, Page 2313, for more information. The property is in compliance with the CEB orders as of July 28, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item No. 1 and 3, fines at the rate of$500 per day for the period between March 2, 2011, and June 14, 2011, 105 days, for a total of $52,500. Order Item No. 2 and 4, fines at the rate of$500 per day for the period between March 27, 2011, July 28, 2011, 124 days, for the total of$62,000. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item No. 6, abatement costs of$1,744 have not been paid. Order Item No. 7, operational costs of$82.43 have not been paid. Total amount to date, $116,000 -- $116,325.43. Page 101 161L 2A6 July 28, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Our chairman had to go out and get a pizza, so I'll carry on. Do we have any motions on this? (No response.) MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that we impose the fine. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it's imposed. Now same respondent, different case. The case number -- if you'd like, you can read that one in, make it easy. Thank you. MS. McGONAGLE: Violation of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article 6, Section 22-231(12)(i). Location: 267 Price Street, Naples, Florida; Folio No. 730160003. Description: Mobile home with missing/broken windows and missing and/or unsecured exterior doors. Past order: On February 24, 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, OR4656, Page 2317, for more information. The property is in compliance with the CEB orders as of May 19, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Page 102 1 6 1 ° 2 A6. July 28, 2011 Item No. 1 and 2, fines at a rate of$250 per day for the period between March 7th and May 19, 2011, 74 days, for the total of $18,500. Order Item No. 5, abatement costs of$3,218 have not been paid. Order Item No. 5 (sic), operational costs of$81.43 have not been paid. Total amount to date, $21,799.43. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to impose. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Lavinski. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. MS. McGONAGLE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just curious. Where was this property again? Was this the one that a child went to school and told the teacher or something? MS. McGONAGLE: Yes, yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Thank you. MS. McGONAGLE: And the mobile home in question has been completely demolished and moved from the property. The stilt home has been completely boarded. I actually requested they board even the Page 103 161 2 A6 July 28, 2011 doors that were there, so the whole property is totally secure now. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay, great. That's the one I thought it was. Thank you. MS. McGONAGLE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Next one is Olga Moreno. Would you like to come on up? MS. BAKER: Mr. Chair, Mrs. Moreno speaks very little English but, as I understand, does understand some English. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MS. BAKER: As you'll see, and as Mr. Letourneau will read at the bottom, the county is recommending to waive the fines on this case. Ms. Perez has explained all of this to her in Spanish. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MS. BAKER: So we just want to make sure that you're under the understanding, too, of what's happening. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, we'll take it slow, and it might go well anyway. So we'll see what happens. Let's get everyone sworn in first, then we can read it in. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. PEREZ: She says she does. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Cristina, are you going to translate? MS. PEREZ: Yes, for whatever. (The interpreter was sworn to truly and correctly translate English into Spanish and Spanish into English.) (The speaker was duly sworn through the interpreter and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: You want to read in the order. MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. The original violation is of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Violation location: 4273 20th Avenue Southwest, Naples, Page 104 161 z A6 July 28, 2011 Florida; Folio No. 35756320009. Violation description is a garage converted to living space without permits. Past order: On January 27, 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, OR4656, Page 583, for more information. An extension of time was granted on April 28, 2011. See the attached order of the board, OR4681, Page 2029, for more information. The property is in compliance with the CEB order as of July 27, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order Item No. 1 and 2, fines at the rate of$200 per day for the period between June 30, 2011, to July 27, 2011, totaling 28 days, for a total amount of$5,600. Order No. 5, operational costs of$80.57 have been paid. Total amount to date, $5,600. The county recommends full abatement of the fines, as the violation is abated and operational costs are paid. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to abate. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. Page 105 161 2 A6 July 28, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. MR. LEFEBVRE: Thank you. MS. PEREZ: She says, "Thank you very much, and I appreciate that you have abated the fines." CHAIRMAN KELLY: You're welcome. Okay, thank you. MS. MORENO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You're welcome. I don't think there's anything that could cause a conflict there. MS. FLAGG: Mr. Chair, just a note. She came in -- normally we would arrange for an interpreter, but she came in late and didn't indicate that she required one. Since there was no cost to her and the recommendation was to abate, we made the decision to go ahead and move forward so she wouldn't have to take off work again. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I don't think she's going to appeal that decision. MS. FLAGG: Correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, good. MR. DEAN: Thank you. I was thinking about that. I have that concern all the time when we do an interpretation, that if it's misconstrued, it could be a problem. MS. FLAGG: Right. Whenever there's a question, we -- we always bring in an interpreter if they let us know -- we ask them to let us know if they need an interpreter, and then we will provide one for them from the court system. In this case that was not provided, but since there was no cost to the respondent -- MR. DEAN: Good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Under the consent agenda, Mark Shapiro, Attorney, Trust, Sergio, Maria Gomez and Eric and Dale Westover have all been forwarded to the County's Attorney's Office Page 106 161 2A6 I July 28, 2011 for foreclosure. That was already approved as part of our agenda approval. Moving on to reports. MS. FLAGG: Good afternoon. Since November 2008, the banks have paid $2,238,800 to abate 1,811 violations as of July 24th. For the week of July 4th through July 13th, recalling that one of that five-day week was a holiday, so really within four days 329 new code cases were opened in those four days, 872 property inspections were completed, 162 cases were closed with voluntary compliance, 163 property searches were completed, 9 of those resulted in code cases being identified to the potential buyer. And the investigators are carrying an average of 46 cases that week. The number of days from the complaint to the initial inspection average three days. At your last meeting last month you had requested some additional information in regard to the number of code cases or code issues that were identified for potential buyers. We began tracking that at your request on September 20, 2010, and within -- between September 20, 2010, to September 30, 2010, ten days, there were 13 cases identified. From the dates October 1, 2010, through June 27, 2011, 4,933 property searches were completed, again, as that -- as a result of that agreement with Naples Area Board of Realtors. And of those 4,900 cases, 321 identified code issues on the property. So that was hopefully 321 cases that you will not have to hear because property purchasers were advised that there were code issues on the property. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That is fantastic. MR. DEAN: That is wonderful. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You know, we still continue to see them, and it's unfortunate, but at least -- MS. FLAGG: Right. The cases that you're seeing are cases that occurred before the agreement was made with the Naples Area Board of Realtors primarily. These are older cases before that agreement Page 107 161 2 A 6 I July 28, 2011 was executed. MR. KAUFMAN: Can you draft a letter to NABOR -- MS. FLAGG: We'd be happy to. MR. KAUFMAN: -- so they can put it in one of their publications? CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's an impressive statistic, absolutely. We would -- MR. LEFEBVRE: We just missed the meeting -- we just missed the magazine deadline. MS. FLAGG: There's always next month. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next month? MR. LEFEBVRE: We do it quarterly, so it would be probably October. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the numbers will probably be stronger. MS. FLAGG: Right. We can update that for them. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. The magazine, the next one -- MS. FLAGG: Sure. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Everybody in general agreement? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah. MR. DEAN: Very good. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, good. Good idea. MR. LEFEBVRE: The deadline for October's magazine was, I think, today. So the next deadline would be in October. But, yeah, if you can get that over, that'd be great. MS. FLAGG: Well, if the deadline's today, we can send them something over today. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah. I mean, if it -- I'm pretty sure it's today. So -- MS. FLAGG: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: That would be great to get that out. That would just raise more awareness, because everyone gets it at their Page 108 161 2 A6 1 July 28, 2011 house. So it would be really good to have it in the magazine. MS. FLAGG: Is there a contact person you'd like it sent to? MR. KAUFMAN: Send it to Mike Richardson. MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KELLY: There you go. MR. KAUFMAN: He's the CEO. MR. LEFEBVRE: I don't know if he'll have time to spin it around and get it submitted. MR. KAUFMAN: Well, it's all good news. I think he would be glad to get it, and he would push to get it published as soon as possible. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If only you were here sooner. I mean, how many more cases, you know? How many more people would you have been able to help? MR. DEAN: I give you credit for that. You did a good job. MR. LEFEBVRE: Diane, as chair of government issues, if he has an issue, tell him that I okayed it, to put it in some space regarding government issues. MS. FLAGG: And I do have to compliment NABOR, because when we brought this issue forth, they took a very proactive approach. Once they realized the significance of the issue to our community, they really worked with us to implement this. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's great. Are there any other reports? MS. FLAGG: No, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Our next meeting date's going to be August 25, and I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. DEAN: Motion to adjourn. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 109 July 28, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. DOING: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. DEAN: That's why they keep me around. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We'll see you next month. There you go. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:07 p.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT ARD KENN LLY, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC /COURT REPORTER. Page 110