The URL can be used to link to this page

CEB Minutes 08/25/2011 R 161 ' 2A6 ' August 25, 2011 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida August 25, 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: Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle CHAIRMAN: Kenneth Kelly C Colette Larry Mieszcak Ron Doino Chris Hudson (Alternate) Misc.cam: Robert Kaufman Date: `2-k`b■‘, James Lavinski Item t Gerald Lefebvre (Excused) cz:*s to: Lionel L'Esperance Tony Marino ALSO PRESENT: RECEIVED Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board SEP 2 6 2011 Jen Baker, Code Enforcement Specialist Board of County Commissioner* Colleen Crawley, Administrative Secretary Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA AGENDA Date: August 25, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. Location: 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL 34104 NOTICE: THE RESPONDENT MAY BE LIMITED TO TWENTY (20) MINUTES FOR CASE PRESENTATION UNLESS ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE BOARD. PERSONS WISmNG TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. ALL PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN THE PUBLIC HEARING ARE ASKED TO OBSERVE ROBERTS RULES OF ORDER AND SPEAK ONE AT A TIME SO THAT THE COURT REPORTER CAN RECORD ALL STATEMENTS BEING MADE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF TmS 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, WmCH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1. ROLL CALL Kenneth Kelly, Chair Robert Kaufman, Vice Chair Gerald Lefebvre James Lavinski Larry Mieszcak Lionel L' Esperance Tony Marino Ronald Doino, Alternate 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - A. July 28, 2011 Hearing 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. MOTIONS Motion for Extension of Time 1. Mr. 99 Cents, Inc. 2. Maria L. Ramirez 3. Maria L. Ramirez 4. Maria L. Ramirez 2007050898 CESD20090000975 CESD20090000972 CEROW2009000973 B. STIPULATIONS C. HEARINGS 1. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: CESD20100006046 JUAN BARNHART & VERONICA BARNHART INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 1O.02.06(B)(1)(a) A POLE BARN, GUEST HOUSE, TWO SHEDS ERECTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT, INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY/COMPLETION 65200007 3751 SR 29 N. NAPLES, FL CES20110001989 K. GUENGERICH MCKINNEY INVESTIGATOR SHERRY PATTERSON COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 5.06.11(A)(1), 5.06.06(A)(4) ROOF SIGN INSTALLED WITHOUT REQuIRED PERMIT 52503080009 298 CAPRI BLVD. NAPLES, FL CESD20110006971 HENRY & JAN E. HOLZKAMPER INVESTIGATOR AZURE BOTTS COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(e) DRYWALL HAS BEEN REMOVED AND REPLACED IN THE EAST BUILDING'S BOTTOM EAST UNIT (A) AND THE STAIRS ON THE FRONT OF THE EAST BUILDING HAVE BEEN REPAIRED TO INCLUDE BUT NOT LIMITED TO: HANDRAILS, STEPS, AND SUPPORTS WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING ALL REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS 52600440005 3230 THOMASSON DR. NAPLES, FL 4. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 7. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 8. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: CESD20100007623 NORMA RAMIREZ INVESTIGATOR WELDON WALKER COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 1O.02.06(B)(1)(a) SHEDS AND GARAGE CONVERSION WITHOUT PERMITS 63913680004 809 JEFFERSON A VB. W. IMMOKALEE, FL CESD20100022396 BRUCE LAMCHICK TR. INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) AN INCOMPLETE SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH EXPIRED PERMIT # 2005092527 38726920009 4320 62ND AVE. NE NAPLES, FL CESD20090015117 RUDY ORANTES INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) AND SECTION 1O.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i) SHED BUILT ON THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS 53263000069 995 20TH ST. SE. NAPLES, FL CESD20100021462 GEORGE D. MARTIN & DEBRA MARTIN INVESTIGATOR HEINZ BOX COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(I)(a) AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(e) UNPERMITTED OFFICE AREA 27155000501 4774 EXCHANGE AVE. NAPLES, FL CESD20110006100 HARRY E. MONTZ INVESTIGATOR AZURE BOTTS COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 1O.02.06(B)(I)(a) EXTENSION OF ROOF OVER CARPORT AND FRONT DOOR AREA 81730640005 2547 BARRETT AVE. NAPLES, FL 9. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 10. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 11. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 12. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: CESD20090010604 EDGAR PEREZ INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 1O.02.06(B)(1)(a) CONCRETE STRUCTURE WITH EXPIRED PERMIT NUMBER 2008020996 38664320004 3445 56TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL CESD20090010573 EDGAR PEREZ INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) OBSERVED IN THE BEDROOM AREAS OF THE HOME THAT IT WAS CONVERTED FROM THE ORIGINAL USE TO A GROW ROOM. ELECTRIC AND PLUMBING MODIFICATIONS DONE WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT. HOME HAD BEEN CONVERTED INTO A GROW ROOM THAT CONTAINED ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMERS, HIGH INTENSITY LIGHTS, MYLAR, BUCKETS, AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND AN ADDITIONAL COOLING UNIT. THERE WAS ALSO A SEP ARA TE BREAKER PANEL THAT CONTROLLED THE ELECTRICITY. 38664320004 3445 56TH AVE. NE NAPLES, FL CESD20090002873 WASTE SERVICES OF FLORIDA, INC. INVESTIGATOR HEINZ BOX COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) UNPERMITTED ELEVATOR CONVEYOR BELT TYPE STRUCTURE WITH A ROOF 275280008 3715 PROGRESS AVE. NAPLES, FL CESD20100006719 LESZEK & HENRYKA KLIM INVESTIGATOR THERESE ROUSSEAU COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i) ADDITION BUILT ONTO THE REAR OF THE HOME WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING ALL REQUIRED BUILDING PERMITS. 54670003124 370 LEA WOOD CIRCLE NAPLES, FL 13. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 14. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 15. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 16. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: CESD20110001015 FAKAHATCHEE TRACE LLC. INVESTIGATOR JAMES SEABASTY BUILDING AND LAND AL TERA TION PERMITS, COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 1O.02.06(B)(1)(a) OBSERVED RENOVATION OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO: REPLACING WINDOW AND DOORS WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS 00982880005 20201 SR 29 NAPLES, FL CES20100019879 PLANNING DEVELOPMENT, INC. INVESTIGATOR MICHAELLE CROWLEY SECTION 5.06.06(B)( AND SECTION 5.06.1O(D) AND (E), COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED 2 CONCRETE MONUMENT/ GROUND SIGNS FOR BA YSHORE CLUB APARTMENTS REMAINING AFTER ALL BUILDINGS HA VB BEEN REMOVED PURSUANT TO DEMOLITION PERMITS 61836480008 4580 BA YSHORE DRIVE NAPLES, FL CESD20090000661 JENNIFER CAROLYN SAMUELS INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 1O.02.06(B)(1 )(a) CANCELLED PERMIT # 2008040049 FOR SINGLE F AMIL Y HOME WITH CARPORT/ SHUTTERS AND PERMIT # 2008040055 FOR GUESTHOUSE 39602680006 4320 14TH ST. NE. NAPLES, FL CESD2010003739 COLLIER REALTY CORP INVESTIGATOR WELDON WALKER COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 1O.02.06(B)(1)(a) COOLER/STORAGE CONSTRUCTED/ ATTACHED TO BUILDING PRIOR TO OBTAINING COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS 63863840004 101 NEW MARKET RD. E. IMMOKALEE, FL 17. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 18. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 19. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 20. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: CESD2011 0007333 ERINELDO MOSQUERA & EDDY LUNAR INVESTIGATOR JOE MUCHA COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 1O.02.06(B)(1)(a) AND FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1, SECTION 105.1 PERMITS 2004080292 (FENCE), 2004112551(SHED), 2006023718 (GARAGE CONVERSION), AND 2006023732 (ENCLOSED PORCH) THAT ALL HAVE EXPIRED WITHOUT COMPLETING ALL INSPECTIONS AND RECEIVING CERTIFICATES OF COMPLETION/OCCUPANCY 35766920004 4191 18TH PLACE SW NAPLES, FL CENA20110000844 ROBERT D. CAMPBELL JR. & NINA M. CAMPBELL INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 54, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54-181 LITTER CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED; TIRES, REFUSE, BROKEN HOUSEHOLD ITEMS, ETC. 39393640009 2331 8TH AVE SE NAPLES, FL CEV20110000842 ROBERT D. CAMPBELL JR. & NINA M. CAMPBELL INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, ARTICLE III, CHAPTER 130, SECTION 130-95 UNLICENSED VEHICLES ON THE ESTATES ZONED PROPERTY 39393640009 2331 8TH AVE SE NAPLES, FL CESD20100009135 OPERA NAPLES, INC. INVESTIGATOR AZURE BOTTS COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE II, SECTION 22- 26(b)(104.5.1.4.4), FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1, SECTION 105.1, COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) ALTERATIONS OF BUILDING CONSISTING OF BUT NOT LIMITED TO; ELECTRICAL, ADDING AND REMOVING OF INTERIOR WALLS, ADDING AND WIDENING OF DOORS/DOOR JAMS WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS 61631160002 2408 LINWOOD AVE. NAPLES, FL 5. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: CESD20100008859 JAMES A. & JULIA M. ASKEY INVESTIGATOR TONY ASARO COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 1O.02.06(B)(1)(a) MOBLE HOME ON THE PROPERTY WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS 101040008 7920 FRIENDSHIP LANE NAPLES, FL CESD20090005007 ROXANA SOROKOTY TR., WALTER G. SOROKOTY JR. EST. INVESTIGATOR AZURE BOTTS COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE II, SECTION 22- 26(b)(104.1.3.5), FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2004 EDITION, CHAPTER 1, SECTION 105.1 AND 111.1 & ORDINANCE 04-41, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AS AMENDED, SECTION 1O.02.06(B)(1)(a) AND 1O.02.06(B)(1)(e) MEZZANINE AND STAIRS IN BAYS 9 & 10 ERECTED AND ELECTRICAL WORK DONE IN BAY 8 WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING COLLIER COUNTY APPROVAL, REQUIRED INSPECTIONS, AND CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION 387040000 2435 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST. UNIT 9 NAPLES, FL CESD20090000870 RICHARD MERCER, JEFFREY & AMY MERCER INVESTIGATOR JOE MUCHA COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) STORAGE BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY WAS EXPANDED WITHOUT PERMITS 45912400009 1260 17TH ST. SW NAPLES, F; 4. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2002081009 CLOSE- UP CREATURES INC. D/B/A NGALA INVESTIGATOR ANDREW KELLY COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 91-102, AS AMENDED, CODIFIED AS THE COLLIER LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTIONS 3.8.3(3).3.11.3.1, 3.11.635, AND 3.9.3 PARCEL TEN (10) ACRES OR MORE CLEARED WITHOUTH VEGETATION PERMITS AND IMPROVED WITH A STORAGE BARN, EXOTIC ANIMAL BARN AND PEN, PERMANENT TENT AND TOILET FACILITIES WITHOUT AN ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) BEING SUBMITTED AND APPROVED OR THE AREA SURVEYED FOR POSSIBLE PRESENCE OF ENDANGERED SPECIES 0335000005 2755 INEZ RD. SW NAPLES, FL CESD2011 0003690 J & C FRANCOIS FAMILY L TD PARTNERSHIP INVESTIGATOR CARMELO GOMEZ COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02. 13(F) ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT HAS NOT BEEN TURNED IN 36319960009 5349 GOLDEN GATE P ARKW A Y NAPLES, FL CESD20100005061 JUAN SANCHEZ OLVERA & PAMELA JEAN SANCHEZ INVESTIGATOR WELDON WALKER COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04-41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) THREE MOBILE HOMES INSTALLED WITHOUT FIRST ACQUIRING COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS 73181120001 603 CLIFTON ST. UNIT 1IMMOKALEE, FL B. Motion for Reduction of Fines/Lien 6. NEW BUSINESS 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens B. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. 8. REPORTS 9. COMMENTS 10. NEXT MEETING DATE - September 22, 2011 11. ADJOURN 16Ik2A6 August 25, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning, everyone. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board meeting to order. Notice: The respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation, unless additional time is granted by the Board. Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes, unless the time is adjusted by the Chair. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Robert's Rules of Order and speak one at a time so the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. May I have roll call, please. MS. BAKER: Mr. Ken Kelly? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Robert Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKI: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Tony Marino? MR. MARINO: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Larry Miesczek? MR. MIESZCAK: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Ronald J. Doino, Jr.? MR. DOINO: Here. MS. BAKER: And Mr. Chris Hudson? Page 2 16112A61 August 25, 2011 MR. HUDSON: Here. CHAIRMAN KELLY: For the record -- MS. BAKER: And Mr. Gerald Lefebvre is absent, excused absence today. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Because of our absence by Gerald, our senior alternate, Ron Doino, will be voting. And of course both alternates will always have opportunity to participate in discussions. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, would you ask if we can check -- (sound interference) -- I was going to say the PA system. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is yours not working? MR. L'ESPERANCE: I don't hear it very well. You can hear us? MS. BAKER: Make sure that your mics are close to you as well. CHAIRMAN KELLY: It's the speakers too. The speakers are off. MR. L'ESPERANCE: The speakers are not functioning. MR. KAUFMAN: Yeah, I'm not getting any music at all. MR. L'ESPERANCE: The muzak isn't working? We'll be okay, we'll figure it out. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We'll get it at the break. If it becomes an issue, we'll let you know. Moving on to the approval of agenda. We have some changes? MS. BAKER: We do. Under number four, Public Hearings/Motions, letter A, Motions, Motion for Extension of Time, we have three additions. Number five will be Juan Sanchez Olvera and Pamela Jean Sanchez, Case CESD20100005061. Number six, James and Julia Askey, Case CESD20100008859. Number seven, Roxana Sorokoty Trust, Walter J. Sorokoty, Jr. Estate, Case CESD20090005007. Under -- we'll be adding Motion for Continuance, and we will have two additions under Motion for Continuance. The first will be Fakahatchee Trace, Case CESD20110001015. Page 3 1611 LA6 August 25, 2011 Number two will be Bruce Lamchick, Case CESD20100022396. Under letter B, Stipulations, we have six stipulations. The first will be George and Deborah Martin, Case CESD20100021462. Number two will be Norma Ramirez, Case CESD20100007623. Number three is Waste Services of Florida, Inc., Case CESD20090002873. Number four is Harry E. Montz, Case CESD20110006100. Number five is Juan Barnhart and Veronica Barnhart, Case CESD20100006046. Number six is Collier Realty Corp., Case CESD20100003739. Under letter C, Hearings, number nine, Case CESD20090010604, Edgar Perez, has been withdrawn. Number 10, Case CESD20090010573, Edgar Perez, has been withdrawn. And that is all the changes I have. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Entertain a motion for acceptance of the agenda. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) Page 4 161 2 A6 August 25, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. Moving on to the approval of the minutes from July 28th hearing, 2011. Do we have any changes or suggestions? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And motion carries. Public Hearings/Motions, letter A, extension of time. First case is Mr. 99 Cents, Incorporated. You have a letter in your packet referencing the parties -- MR. MAST: Christopher Mast, representing Mr. 99 Cents. And we are requesting an extension of time up to six months. And part of the problem that we ran into, if I may offer the mutual release of all claims, the contractor walked off the job. Currently I understand from my client as well as from code enforcement that the offending building is no longer in use, it's been emptied out. We just simply need to tear it down now. We've made one effort with one contractor, we're looking for another one at this point. I can offer what's been released from the Page 5 1612A6 August 25, 2011 other contractor. MS. BAKER: You have it in your packet. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I believe we have a copy of that release, thank you. Are there any -- MR. MAST: So basically we're just asking for six months to finish this job at this point. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Are there any objections from the county? INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: No objections. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions? Sorry, go ahead. For the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. KAUFMAN: I have. Why does it take six months to knock down a building? MR. MAST: Well, first of all, we've had a lot of problems finding contractors. A lot of the contractors are going out of business these days. The contractor we had before basically went out of business after keeping the deposit. We got $39 back. My clients are having some financial problems as well. It's just very difficult. And a lot of contractors, even the ones in Naples, won't work out in Immokalee. We just have a lot of problems with this. The other problem was raised by Maria, at least when I spoke to her earlier, there's a question as to whether the concrete has to be removed as well at this point. The original contractor was not set to remove the concrete slab. Now the county is saying that maybe the slab has to be removed as well. So at this point we can't even really enter into a contract, because we don't currently know what has to be removed at this point. We know the building, obviously, but the concrete slab has to be removed as well, so it's going to cause the cost to go up again. Page 6 16I2A6 August 25, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: It seems to me when I look at this case a six months -- wasn't an extension granted in the past? MR. MAST: Yes, there have been two extensions granted, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: Well, what's to stop it from a third one coming out? It seems like they sit back and request extension after extension. This is getting to where it's the third extension, or more. MR. MAST: That's correct, it would be the third extension, sir. INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: It would have been demo'd and finished this last extension that he got. But because the contractor left and pretty much left him with the ordeal over the concrete, he hasn't gotten a definite answer as of does he need to remove it or not. Building and permitting at this point is researching to see if he is able to leave it, or he would have demo'd it if they said go ahead and demo it. But he really wants to leave it. So it's going to take probably six months by the time they research it, and if it needs to be permit by affidavit, then he's going to need to permit by affidavit. So I figured six months is enough time, sufficient time for him to C.O. the permit. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Is that your recommendation, to grant the six months? INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: Yes. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make the motion that we grant six months. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 7 161 2 A6 August 25, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. MARINO: I have to abstain from the vote. CHAIRMAN KELLY: One abstention. MR. MAST: Mr. Marino is a client of mine. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Tony, what we'll need to do is get you to fill out just a little quick piece of paper saying that you're recusing yourself from this case. And the motion does carry, even with the abstention. MR. MAST: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So thanks very much, appreciate your time. Next case is going to be Maria Ramirez. There are three of them, all for the same respondent. And I believe you have a letter of request. Lionel, could you move your cell phone for me, please? MR. L'ESPERANCE: It's off. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oh, it is? It's the cell phones too close to the speakers then. MR. L'ESPERANCE: It's completely off. Powered down. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. The letter -- the request is for all three cases, although we will need a vote on all three of them individually. The respondent's not here? Are there any questions from the Board about the request? Any discussion? MR. KAUFMAN: This one was -- in May it was given a 90-day extension of time and now we're here again for another extension? MR. MIESZCAK: And the person's not here. MR. KAUFMAN: And the person's not here. I have a problem with granting extension after extension, unless somebody can show me why. MS. BAKER: Mr. Chair, I believe she's out in the hallway. Page 8 16t 2 Ab August 25, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Let's give her a second to come on in. We can finish reading the letter. (Investigator Asaro and Maria Ramirez were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, good morning. Does the county have any objection to the extensions? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: No. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Mrs. Ramirez, Mr. Kaufman was just talking about the request for extension. We'll go ahead and repeat it since you were outside. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay, an extension was granted for 120 days in November of 2010. And at that time there was a stipulation that everything would be done. My first question regarding the extension is, was the $80 paid? MS. RAMIREZ: Everything was paid, yeah. CHAIRMAN KELLY: The op. costs, were they paid? MS. BAKER: Yes, they were paid. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. What has changed from November of '10, which was the extension given at that time, 120 days to finish the project. What changed from then to now? MS. RAMIREZ: At this time -- first of all, at that time I had the house in foreclosure and the bank modified until this year, February. That's when I came back again and I asked for more time. We haven't been able to afford the materials. It's a big project that I need to do. I close two case, I just need two more. I don't know, do you close the other one, or -- INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Her demolition for the shed and other structures on the property, that's been completed. The next step is the right-of-way permit. MS. RAMIREZ: And the fence. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: And the fence. The other two for the interior modeling has been closed. So she's just got two permits for the right-of-way, for the driveway and the concrete wall. Page 9 161 fa. A6 August 25, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: Since there's been progress made, I make a recommendation that we grant -- how much time do you think you need? MS. RAMIREZ: I don't know. MR. MIESZCAK: We need to know. MS. RAMIREZ: We want to close this, but -- MR. KAUFMAN: Do you think three months would be sufficient time? MS. RAMIREZ: It's going to be for December? It's really bad month to get jobs and -- MR. KAUFMAN: Well, it's hard to do an extension unless we have some idea of when you think you'll be done. We don't want to drag you back and forth. MS. RAMIREZ: Yeah, I just want to come back when I finish the project. Could be for January. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Then that's what I'll put forward as a motion, that we give you an extension of time until January 20 -- what's today's date, the 25th? MS. RAWSON: It would be the 22nd. MR. KAUFMAN: January 22nd is our meeting? Till January 22nd? MS. RAWSON: No, that's 150 days. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay, 150 days? Okay. MS. RAWSON: Our meeting would be after that, I bet. MR. KAUFMAN: Then that works out fine, 150 days, which will bring us into January. So if you can't get it done, our meeting comes after your deadline to get it done, I would suggest that you come back here ahead of time before it expires. MS. RAMIREZ: I hope. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. That's my motion. MR. MIESZCAK: What is your motion, 150 days? Page 10 161 2 August 25, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: 150 days. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: The motion carries. Okay, thank you. Good luck. MS. RAMIREZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That is on the first case. Since the cases are similar, we'll go ahead and vote on the second one. Which is the one that's being withdrawn because it's already been taken care of? Or was that not even in our package? We have three of them in our packet. MS. CRAWLEY: There's three cases. MR. KELLY: There is three. And they all still are active. MS. CRAWLEY: Correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So the second case, then, I'll just read it into the record, is Case No. CESD20090000972. MR. KAUFMAN: On that one, the cost was $79.72. Was that paid also? MS. CRAWLEY: Yes, it was. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't we extend this exactly the Page 11 161it2 August 25, same as the previous one? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, we have a motion for a 150-day extension. Do we have a second? MR. DOINO: I'll second. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I think Ron beat you to it, Tony. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. And the last case is the right-of-way issue. It is CEROW-20090000973. MR. KAUFMAN: And the $80 on this one, has that been paid as well? MS. CRAWLEY: Yes, it has. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Then I'd make a motion that we grant the same, 150 days on this one. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. DOINO: I'll second it. MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded this time by Tony. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. Page 12 1 p 2A6 A gu 25 gust , 011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. Okay, thank you. The next request for an extension of time is Sanchez. You have a letter that accompanies this one. Let me read the full respondents' names. Juan Sanchez Olvera and Pamela Jean Sanchez. (Investigator Weldon Walker and Earnest Freeman were duly sworn) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning, Mr. Freeman. MR. FREEMAN: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We got your letter here; talks about the Sanchez residence. Just want to quickly give us a synopsis as to what's going on? MR. FREEMAN: Okay. Prior to this meeting here, I came in and got taken care of one of the permits for Mr. Sanchez. And I wasn't aware that he had another case, so I got the permits for the other one. We have permits to get the demo done. And we're just requesting a 90-day extension. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, requesting 90 days. Weldon, good morning. If you want to just -- INVESTIGATOR WALKER: Yes, for the record, Weldon Walker, Collier County Code Enforcement Board. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any objection from the county? INVESTIGATOR WALKER: None whatsoever, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the Board? Page 13 1 61 2A6 August 25, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: I have one on the $80.86. Do you know whether or not that's been paid? MS. CRAWLEY: They have not been paid. MR. FREEMAN: I got a receipt for $81.15. I just don't know if that's the -- MS. CRAWLEY: This is for $80.86. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That may have been for the last case. MR. FREEMAN: Okay. No, that wasn't paid. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, does that change your recommendation at all? MR. KAUFMAN: Since it's an extension, no. We can extend this one. Ordinarily when they come before us for the imposition, which this case is, and that hasn't been paid, we generally don't grant any special things. But on this one, I make a motion that we extend it -- how long do you need on this one? MR. FREEMAN: Ninety days, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: Ninety days, okay. Extension of 90 days on this one. MR. FREEMAN: And we'll get the fee taken care of today. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay, great. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. So we have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Lavinski. Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 14 161 2 6 t August 25, 2 11 MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Thanks very much. Looks like you'll be busy out there in Immokalee. INVESTIGATOR WALKER: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Weldon. The last motion for extension of time is Askey. Is the respondent here? (Investigator Asaro and Trisha Paskanik were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Trisha, could you pull that microphone right down -- sorry. There you go. It's weird, because the speakers are back there. Just for the record, would you mind stating that you have the authority -- MS. PASKANIK: I am representing James and Julia Askey in this matter, yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And you have the authority to speak on their behalf? MS. PASKANIK: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. We have the letter, we read the letter. As just a brief synopsis, do you want to give us a little history as to what's going on, for the record? MS. PASKANIK: Well, last time I came in here I stood with you and you had maybe possibly recommended going to different organizations to try to get some type of assistance. And right now everybody is overloaded. I couldn't even find anybody that even does Page 15 161 Z A 6 August 25, 2011 that. But I mean, people -- I got the same story everywhere, that, I mean, they're trying to feed people and to try to help people do something like this is very out of their range. I'm trying to do everything I can. I mean, like I said, I have a new baby and I'm very fortunate that every month I still survive, you know, I mean, I'm keeping things going. But -- oh, we are trying to do like a little organic farm type thing there to try to make the property somewhat profitable. And the house, the structure, I mean, it's a mobile home, which is now being used for storage, you know, could be beneficial then. And it's an additional extension to have it removed anyway, so I'm trying to possibly permit it as a shed instead of a house, thinking that it might possibly help me, you know, like with the money part of it, it would be less expensive, less permits. But that's -- you know, that's where I am right now. Unfortunately I just don't have the money, so -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Investigator, do you want to state your name for the record? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Yeah, Tony Asaro, Collier County Code Enforcement Department. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any objections from the county? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: No, none at all. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Questions from the Board? MR. KAUFMAN: Is there electric and water in that trailer? MS. PASKANIK: There was, but it's not being used now. I mean, because it was originally -- like the letter says, I was going to have my mother living in there. But it's not being used at this time. There's no water or electric running, the breaker's turned offer. It was -- there was an existing home there. I mean, I tried to switch them to improve -- the other home was like dilapidated and I was trying to -- we're trying to get together so that we can all, you know, help each other out. And unfortunately it ended up being a lot Page 16 16IEA6 August 25, 2011 more problems than I was expecting, so -- MR. KAUFMAN: Is there any time frame that you think you would need to get this thing resolved? MS. PASKANIK: It's just a money thing is my problem. And like I said, I mean, I try to keep my electric paid and insurance on my car and diapers on my baby, so it's -- and I'm out of work, so it's -- whenever God decides to help me out here. I mean, I would ask for the maximum that you could grant me. And like I said, we're trying to do the organic farm thing. We're trying to get something going with that. But that's obviously a time thing. I mean, stuff has to grow. So, you know, that's -- I don't -- I mean, if, you know, I won the lottery tomorrow, I would take care of it the day after tomorrow. But right now I don't see when. I can't predict the future, unfortunately. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I have a question for the county. Any chance of converting a mobile home into a shed and permitting it as such? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: I think we would have to check with the building department to find out how that -- how we could do that. I don't have the answer for that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Maybe -- MS. PASKANIK: And that's what I'm researching. I mean, because, I mean, if you look at like a Ted's Shed, it's basically the -- you know, it's the same thing, you know what I mean, it's just a little different shape. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sure. MS. PASKANIK: I'm hoping -- I mean, without the electric and water -- I mean, basically that's what it is. It's a storage. I mean, there's storage all over the county, so, you know. And obviously -- I mean, I have five acres out there for equipment and stuff like that. I mean, I would need the storage available anyway. So to hopefully, you know, try to make something out of this. Page 17 161 2 i A 6 August 25, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions from the Board? MR. KAUFMAN: This is a mobile home, it doesn't have tires or anything on it; is that correct? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: You know, I can't -- you have some MS. PASKANIK: No, it's on blocks and everything. I mean, it's not moveable or -- MR. KAUFMAN: My last question is, the $80.29, do you know whether or not that's been paid? MS. CRAWLEY: They have not. MS. PASKANIK: It has not been paid. MR. KAUFMAN: I don't have any further questions. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Would somebody like to make a motion? MR. KAUFMAN: I think it's hard to make a motion on this one unless we know or have some reasonable idea of how much time would be required. Although I think that it's difficult to put a time frame on it. I mean, I haven't gotten any letters from God lately to let me know, but -- MS. PASKANIK: I hear you. I mean, and I don't want to say okay, give me 90 days, because, I mean, I've been here, I heard you don't want me to come back in 90 days, you know what I mean? And I can't guarantee that in 90 days -- I mean, I am -- you know, I'm doing everything that I can, exhausting all efforts to keep everything going, food on the table, you know what I mean? And I couldn't honestly tell you I'll have it done in 90 days, because we'll be back here possibly in 90 days and you'll be mad at me because I said I'd get it done in 90 days. MR. KAUFMAN: We don't get mad at you. MS. PASKANIK: Well, you know, not mad, but, you know, frustrated. MR. KAUFMAN: Anything that we can do to help, we certainly Page 18 16I 2 A 6 August 25, 2011 would -- certainly want to do that. How much time do you think that you would need to find out from the county whether they can be converted to a shed? MS. PASKANIK: Well, I know from the research that I've done, like I'm almost positive I'll need like an architectural thing. Like even the Ted's Sheds come with like a little diagram of everything in it. And I'm working with someone who's a friend of a friend who works with an architect and does architectural design and all that, and he said that he would be able to do it for me but they're busy right now. So it's kind of like as soon as he gets a chance. And that's an important part of it. Whether or not they'll actually let me do it as a shed, I don't see why they wouldn't, but, that -- I don't know. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Would 180 days be a possible starting point for you? MS. PASKANIK: That would be a wonderful starting point. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is that your motion? MR. L'ESPERANCE: That's my motion. MR. MARINO: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Tony. And discussion? MR. MIESZCAK: You know, I think I'd like just to state, we'd like to see progress. I mean, it's this ongoing -- MS. PASKANIK: There has been a lot of progress out there. MR. MIESZCAK: And that's what we're looking at. And I'm sure that's why they recommend 180 days. So I'll go along with that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other discussion? (No response.) MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 19 16 I aA 6 August 25, 2011 MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: 180 days. MS. PASKANIK: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good luck. And I think it sounds pretty favorable about transferring that over to a shed use. MS. PASKANIK: Yeah, I'm hoping. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right, good luck. Thank you. There is one last extension of time. My bad. That's going to be -- let's see if I can pronounce this correctly. I'm sorry if I don't. Sorokoty; is that correct? MR. MINER: My name is Bruce Miner, M-I-N-E-R. I'm with Cameron Real Estate Services. I'm here on behalf of Roxana Sorokoty, and I have authorization to speak on her behalf. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sorry. The Board wasn't exactly paying attention. We're trying to get our packets straight. I'm sorry. Sir, could you repeat that again, please. MR. MINER: Yes. My name is Bruce Miner, I'm with Cameron Real Estate Services. And I'm here on behalf of Roxana Sorokoty, the owner of the subject property. And I have authorization from Roxana to speak on her behalf. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great. Thank you, sir. (Investigator Botts and Bruce Miner were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you would, we do have the letter, but if you would just briefly give us an idea of what's going on and the time frame requested. MR. MINER: Yes, sir. In January I was at this Board regarding the same situation, and was granted a six-month extension based on the fact that the unit is Page 20 161 2 A6 + August 25, 2011 currently vacant and there's no prospects for tenants, and the electric is shut off, so it really doesn't pose a safety issue at this time. The idea was to allow us to give a prospective tenant the option to in fact reinforce the existing mezzanine to expand his space and the utilization of the space, because we had already done some -- we had already done architectural drawings and found out what it would take to do that. However, due to the economic situation and the fact that the tenant that was originally in there moved out of the space, I was granted the six-month extension. Now, I put that on my calendar to review in June, the six months being July. And I called on June 8th to -- or e-mailed and asked for an extension, and they said that it would have to come in front of the Board and I'd have to appear. However, when I received the order to appear, it was on June -- I believe June 26th or 27th, which was during my vacation period, and I wasn't available to represent the owner. So consequently, I called just before the meeting and asked -- well, I had called to find out why it wasn't in July, because that was really the end of my six months. And I was told that because the meeting occurred after my cut-off date for the six months that it had to occur in June. And as I mentioned, I was on vacation so I wasn't able to attend. Prior to going on vacation, because of this I contacted John Varsames from Construction Managers, Incorporated, a licensed commercial GC, and he faxed a letter over to the county, indicating that he was going to apply for a permit. Now, that permit has been applied for and is currently in review with the county. And as soon as we get that -- and here again, Mr. Varsames has indicated that that would probably be in the next five days we ought to have that permit. And we're prepared to move forward and have the mezzanine removed so we can be done with this. And by the way, the property does remain vacant and the electricity is shut off, so it's of no more a safety issue now than it was Page 21 161 2A6 August 25, 2011 four months ago. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Azure, do you want to state your name for the record? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: For the record, Azure Botts, Investigator with Collier County Code Enforcement. I would just confirm that yes, they have submitted for a demolition permit on the 8th of August. It is going through the review process. A couple of rejections were issued, so some revisions need to be sent in, which I am sure the contractor is in the middle of taking care of that. And according to Mr. Miner, during our conversation yesterday evening, he felt very comfortable that this would be taken care of quickly after that demo permit has been issued. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the Board? MR. MIESZCAK: I have one question. What mezzanines there, bay nine and 10 and eight. I'm a little confused there. I mean, are they removing everything or just one of them? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: I believe the units nine and 10 are actually together. There's not a dividing wall. This is a case that I had brought from somebody else, so I myself have not been in this building. I just reviewed the pictures. From my understanding, it's together, and the stairs and the mezzanine are on both units. MR. MIESZCAK: But see, I'm reading like bay eight is one for the permitting and nine and 10 weren't. All I'm saying is what are they tearing down here? What are we tearing down, eight, nine and 10 or just nine and 10? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: I do have some photographs here, if that would help visually. I don't know if you want to get into that. MR. MIESZCAK: No, I don't need to see photos, I'm just asking the question. MR. MINER: If I may, sir? Page 22 161 2A6 ugust 25, 2011 MR. MIESZCAK: Please. MR. MINER: Units nine and 10 are contiguous and there is no demising wall between the two. It was utilized by an automobile repair shop. And the mezzanine is only in those units, specific to those units. And that's what's going to be removed. MR. MIESZCAK: Okay, thank you. I understand now. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions? MR. KAUFMAN: I remember this case from I think it was a month or two months ago where we had gotten a letter saying that it was your understanding, or whoever wrote the letter, I'm not sure who wrote the letter, that time was being granted until the unit was rented. That's -- MR. MINER: That's correct. MR. KAUFMAN: -- not what the stipulation stated. And to clarify it, a certain time was given to resolve the situation, not rent it. Whether it gets rented or not is another issue between you and whoever rents it. So that's why your request for an extension the last time was denied. MR. MINER: Well, that -- I apologize, because my understanding was it was because of the vacancy and the possibility to have that reinforced to allow a new tenant to use it. And when I had asked at that meeting after six months if it's not rented what shall I do, and I was informed that I could just return to the Board and request a further extension at that point. So if that's the case, what you're stating, I misunderstood it and -- MR. KAUFMAN: I just wanted to clear that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's a good point. It's actually the contrary. We would prefer that the code violations were taken care of prior to a new tenant, because we don't know what kind of safety issues are resulting from that mezzanine being there. If a tenant was to move in not having this approved by code and loaded it up with a bunch of weight and there was another person underneath and it Page 23 161 2A6 /August 25, 2011 collapsed, that would be a health and safety issue. MR. MINER: I understand. I believe there was an addition or an addendum of some sort that indicated that I would in fact come back to the Board prior to a new tenant going in there, which gave me the assumption that it had to do with the tenancy of the property. Because it wasn't a safety hazard. CHAIRMAN KELLY: No, the actual issue there was we wouldn't want a tenant to move in unless these were taken care of. Had we been notified that a tenant was planning to move in soon, it would have kind of lit a fire to get those taken care of prior to the move. MR. MINER: Thank you. MR. KAUFMAN: How much time do you think you need to get this resolved now? MR. MINER: I'm hopeful that this will be resolved by your next meeting. You know, as soon as we get the permit issued, we're going to -- according to Mr. Varsames, it's probably going to be a two to three-day time period to get this thing removed. MR. KAUFMAN: So if we did a 60-day extension, that should give you plenty of time to have this resolved? MR. MINER: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: That's my motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sixty days. Do we have a second? MR. DOINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Ron. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 24 161 2A6 August 25, 2011 MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sixty days is granted. INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Now that concludes the extension of time. We're moving on to motions for continuance. First case is going to be Fakahatchee Trace, LLC. MR. KAUFMAN: Number 13. MR. WEIDENMILLER: Good morning. Casey Weidenmiller, on behalf of the Respondent Fakahatchee Trace, LLC. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We'll have the others sworn in. (Chief Alan McGlaughlin and Investigator Seabasty were duly sworn.) CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: For the record, Alan McLaughlin, Fire Chief, Ochopee Fire Control District, Acting Fire Marshall, 633. INVESTIGATOR SEABASTY: And for the record James Seabasty, Collier County Code Enforcement. THE COURT REPORTER: Would you spell your name for the record, please. INVESTIGATOR SEABASTY: S-E-A-B-A-S-T-Y. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. MR. WEIDENMILLER: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I guess from the letter it says that there's been limited notice or something along those lines? MR. WEIDENMILLER: Certainly. Let me explain and answer any questions you have. I think sort of factually this is probably a little bit of a unique case. My client is the entity that owns the property. And the property is the formerly operated prison in Copeland, Florida. Page 25 161 2A6 August 25, 2011 My clients did not do -- or authorize or contract to do any of the work and have not occupied the property. The entity that did has filed for bankruptcy. And we are still in the process of attempting to get access to the property because of the various locks and fences that are out there. There have been various legal proceedings surrounding that. I received -- I've spoken to both the gentlemen to my right. My clients want to cooperate and work very hard to take care of any issues that are there. At this point what I have to the extent of what's going on today is just a copy of the notice. I'm not sure, other than I know from speaking to these gentlemen that there are obviously concerns about the work that was done. All my clients are looking to do is get secure access to the property, determine what needs to be corrected, work with the county and the fire department to make sure that everything is corrected and hopefully avoid this becoming a long dragged-out case for you all to have to deal with. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, let's go back just real quick. MR. WEIDENMILLER: Certainly. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So your clients own the property -- MR. WEIDENMILLER: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- but yet somebody else was working on it. MR. WEIDENMILLER: Yes, somebody was working on it, presumably a contractor. That contractor, though, was not hired by my clients, they were hired by someone who contended at one point that they had the right to occupy the prison. But we contest that they potentially didn't. And that entity is now declared bankruptcy, and we're sort of now dealing with the difficulties of once someone declares bankruptcy, you can't necessarily pursue them legally. But the reality that to get out there and look at it we have to be able to physically open the doors and move the fences. Page 26 x, 61 2A6 . 4 August 25, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So obviously there is a statement of violation. So if you would, let's explain the violation and see where we are. INVESTIGATOR SEABASTY: Thank you. This is in reference to Case CESD20110001015 -- MS. BAKER: Just reason. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah, in general. We're not hearing this yet. We're just wondering if we should get the extension. INVESTIGATOR SEABASTY: Okay. I was originally sent out to investigate a complaint of a roof repair without a permit. At that time I was not able to access the property with the property owner. But the tenant was there at that particular time -- I'm sorry, he was not there, one of his foremen was there. I could not determine whether there was a violation at that time. I tried to arrange a meeting with our building department and with the tenant so we could be on the property and see whether there were any violations. During this time period the property was cleaned up as far as there was graffiti on the building, there was some broken windows. As time progressed, I was able to see from the street, not from being on the property, that renovations were being done. There were new windows put in, there were new doors put in, you could see roof trusses. Chief McLaughlin will also testify that he actually was on the property and he had a chance to inspect it. But as this date, there are no permits for renovations. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Good morning, Chief. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Good morning. On June 15th I happened to stop by the property. We've been driving by it, noticing that there's a lot of site work that we saw the construction starting on the building. I saw no permit boards, but attempted to make access with no success several times. The gates Page 27 161 2A6 ugust 25, 2011 were locked. On June 15th, they were open. I then contacted Mr. Jones who was on the property who testified that he had the authority to do the construction there. I did a walk through and I asked him for where his permit boards and his permits were. I was shown two permits: One was a permit to replace an electrical panel, and the other one was to replace electrical wiring. What I found was this abandoned prison facility had been retrofitted into a dormitory educational facility with no permits. I found no plans, no plan review from building, from fire code. I found multiple violations in building construction under the Florida fire codes. No engineered drawings for the fire alarm. And I also noticed that somebody was apparently living in the building at the time and occupying it with no occupancy. As I walked through the building, these were just the ones I noted without even -- there was no -- he could not tell me what the ceiling penetration ratings were. There had been no inspections behind any of the drywall work, the door ratings, the closures, the certifications on the windows. And this kind of went on and on without even getting into the details of depth inspections. These were walk-through. At that time I came back on June 20th and I red-tagged the project for being in violation of no permits and an illegal construction project. I then turned it over to code enforcement and advised them of what was going on. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Chief. Investigator, what is your recommendation here as far as the extension? Do you see a health and safety issue? INVESTIGATOR SEABASTY: I do believe there is a health and safety issue because of the work that has been done. We're not sure what has been done, given the fact that electricity has been put Page 28 101 A6 August 25, 2011 into that building. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: And I agree, there's a health and safety issue. Because we do not know anything behind what was put in there. And some of the work actually looks very substandard to today's standard, what would be required for a, quote, dormitory educational facility to occupy it in any way, shape or form, and it would be a health and safety violation to put someone in at this time. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Sir, do you have any rebuttal that you want to discuss? MR. WEIDENMILLER: Certainly. At this point the purpose of seeking a continuance is simply because we have no idea what has been done there, because we neither did it nor authorized it to be done. Nor have we even had the ability to access it. It's not as if we've had a key and we just haven't opened the door for 30 days. What we're very much wanting to do, and we have been in touch with various locksmiths, but unfortunately this is a slightly more complicated access issue than just changing the lock on the front of a house, we very much want to get out there in the next week or two and try to determine what specifically was done, because we don't know what it is. I guess related to that for the sort of procedural protections of the hearing, at this point I have no idea other than -- and I don't dispute anything these gentlemen are saying, it's just for the purposes of offering a defense or being able to determine what has happened. My clients, at least what they've seen, are not aware of what the violations are, other than -- I mean, we don't I guess dispute what they're saying, it's just very simply we haven't even had the opportunity to take a contractor out there and have the contractor come in and offer what specifically could be done. So I'm not sure what if any defense we could offer at this point. CHAIRMAN KELLY: There was a statement made that there Page 29 1 6 1 2 A 6 August 25, 201 may have been people living on the property. Do you know if your clients have authorized anyone to take up residence there? MR. WEIDENMILLER: Certainly. The answer to that question unfortunately is complicated. My client's position is there was never a lease and there was never a contract. There have been legal disputes in both state and federal court by the group led by Mr. Jones, who was the principal for this group, which I believe ATC Tactical was the name of the entity that purported to go out and take occupancy, and I believe Mr. Jones owned and managed that company. He essentially, very frankly, moved onto the property, stopped communicating I believe with both the county and my clients, and unbeknownst to us, we got a call saying oh, hey, there's a bunch of people out there doing work. He had a lawyer. The lawyer no longer represents him. And we are in a position of only taking at the word what the county is telling us what's been done, but not actually having the opportunity for various reasons to go out to the prison and see what it is has been done. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Let's turn it over to the Board and see if there's questions. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a que -- so it seems that your client leased or was trying to lease this property to somebody to use as a school dormitory; is that correct? MR. WEIDENMILLER: Partially. There were discussions. And what we believed happened was before the discussions were completed and there was a lease signed or a contract, the gentleman simply moved on, changed the locks and hired contractors, unbeknownst to us. MR. KAUFMAN: So he's trespassing. MR. WEIDENMILLER: In our opinion, yes. MR. KAUFMAN: Has this been reported to the sheriff? MR. WEIDENMILLER: We have filed a lawsuit. As soon as we Page 30 161 2 A6 August 25, 2011 filed the lawsuit, the entity declared bankruptcy, did not list us as a creditor in the bankruptcy and presumably has left the property. MR. KAUFMAN: Has the sheriff had access to the property? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Not that we're aware of. But from talking to Mr. Jones and having conversation with him, I will have to verify what the gentleman's saying is true, that there have been multiple problems out there. Mr. Jones approached us recently with a set of plans that are supposed to go to permit from Pelican Engineering now that weren't in existence prior to that. And I'd asked about the ownership, and it was very convoluted and obviously was skirting the issue. So I'm going to have to say that what the gentleman is saying is true, that the owners probably had no idea what was going on out there and that there was like several third parties involved in this. MR. KAUFMAN: So they have no lease? MR. WEIDENMILLER: No. MR. KAUFMAN: Then they're trespassing. MR. WEIDENMILLER: Correct. But since they -- MR. KAUFMAN: And that's a thing that would go to the sheriff. MR. WEIDENMILLER: We filed a lawsuit. His contention was that he had the right to be there. And our experience is that the sheriff does not want to get too involved with two people arguing over: You said I could lease the property; no you didn't; here's an e-mail. They typically say please go to the civil courts and have the judge make a decision. And once you have one, we will happily enforce that order or judgment. MR. KAUFMAN: But we have in the file the deed. We know who owns it. MR. WEIDENMILLER: That would be my client -- I don't have a copy of what you have. MR. KAUFMAN: So we know who owns it. And if the sheriff goes out there and says you don't own it, you can't show me a lease, Page 31 161 2A6 August 25, 2011 you're out of here. I don't understand why this gets stuck in the courts. INVESTIGATOR SEABASTY: If I may, the property is vacant at this time. I ride by quite a bit. And I can't get access to the property of course without the owner's permission. There is a chain with a lock on the front gate. So it does not appear that anybody has been accessing the property. When I posted for the hearing, I actually posted the property, it happened to be raining, we put it in a Baggie, we put it on the front gate. I went back and it was gone. Later I found out this morning that Mr. Jones had taken it because he thought it was his. MR. WEIDENMILLER: Which would explain why we didn't hear about this until I got a fax two days ago. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Not to speak for the Board, but in my own mind I just wanted to make sure that if there is someone living here that there aren't any safety issues. So I would personally -- I would err on the side of caution and would rather get an order in place today rather than extending it. And we could maybe be a little lenient on the order, knowing that there's a lot yet to settle or figure out. But that's just my opinion. I think the Board wants to make sure that we're not causing any harm. MR. WEIDENMILLER: And I don't think that we would necessarily have a problem with that, very frankly. What I'd like to avoid is a long time here and having some very long drawn-out hearing when I know someone's saying that there's a deed -- I mean, literally I have no file, I have no real ability to move forward and I want to just protect my client's procedural rights to defend themselves, since I don't think anybody here disputes that we are not the -- we didn't take that off the gate, we didn't put the lock on the gate. And so I very much would simply like to either continue this or enter into some sort of order on behalf of my clients that allowed for some leniency so we could work towards getting access, which we're very much in the process of doing and correcting this over the next 60 Page 32 161 2* 6 August 25, 2011 days. MR. KAUFMAN: Typically at the end of our orders it says something -- I won't give you the exact quote -- that if we need the assistance of the sheriffs office, it would be provided. So I think that a determination from the Board, we can hear this, come up with a motion that will certainly include the sheriffs office and in essence turn the property back to its owners. Any comments on that? CHAIRMAN KELLY: What I'd like to do is just talk about procedures real quick. MR. WEIDENMILLER: Certainly. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Normally what happens is we create an order. If we don't give you the extension, this would be heard today and we would create an order if a violation was found. Given the testimony between both of you, it doesn't sound like there's anyone saying that there's not a violation. So the likelihood, there would be a violation and then we would give a certain time frame to correct the issues. If those issues were not corrected within that time frame, there would be a fine associated with every day thereafter that the violations remained. What Mr. Kaufman is speaking to is the bottom of our order it does say that if it is not corrected, we can -- we'll have the issue corrected for you and we'll use the Collier County Sheriffs Office to help in any way necessary to gain access or to ensure the safety of workers at that time. That's kind of the procedure. MR. WEIDENMILLER: And I'm familiar with that, and I very much appreciate that. I think one of my biggest concerns and the reason I approach this as a continuance as opposed to trying to stipulate to some sort of order is because of the limited amount of materials. Essentially I don't have a copy of the packet. I'm not certain to what extent and what amount any fines were being requested, and so I simply didn't want to end up with my client Page 33 161 ' 2A6 August 25, 2011 incurring a very quick $1,000 or more a day fine while we try to sort this out over the next 60 to 90 days. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Right, I can appreciate that. And we're all public servants. I mean, we're, you know, just part of the community, so we understand that that's the way it is. MR. WILLIAMS: Good morning, Mr. Kelly. Steve Williams from the County Attorney's Office. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Morning. MR. WILLIAMS: And I'm as new to this one as anyone here hearing it for the first time. But there's words that always scare me and those words are federal matters. And if we've got a federal bankruptcy matter, I understand it is only two and I can't necessarily use the word tenant correctly, but we'll call it the other party. And that could affect us in a myriad of ways. I understand that the bankruptcy is not Mr. Weidenmiller's client. However, even if the bankruptcy action were just as to the person we're calling the tenant, they would have certain bankruptcy protections that we would be powerless as a county to do anything to or against. And imagine the position we're going to put everyone in if we'd issue a code order that we haven't seen and we don't in violation of the bankruptcy order say we're ordering them to get out or do certain other actions and the bankruptcy judge says no action's going to be taken against them whatsoever. We'd be ordering the landowner to do something that they would be powerless to enforce under a bankruptcy stay against an alleged tenant, for lack for a better pharse. So that's the only part of this that really causes me hesitation is anything that we would do if we were to impose a condition on the landowner, or in this case we'll call it the innocent landowner, and then they would be powerless to enforce it. So I understand from a health, welfare and safety need we've got to make sure no one's living in there that shouldn't be living in there. Page 34 161 2 A6 • August 25, 201 But if they're under a bankruptcy protection, there's not much we're going to be able to do. MR. MIESZCAK: Let me ask you a question, sir: Wouldn't they have to have a lease to be on the property to begin with? MR. WILLIAMS: No. MR. MIESZCAK: So in other words, I can just be -- camp out there and I wouldn't have to -- that doesn't make sense to me. Something's wrong with this picture. MR. WILLIAMS: You can have oral leases. They're valid. MR. MIESZCAK: Well, let me ask you -- oral lease? MR. WILLIAMS: Perfectly valid. And enforceable. I mean, over a certain period of time -- MR. MIESZCAK: Doesn't mean -- MR. WILLIAMS: -- you would want it in writing and it should be in writing, but -- MR. MIESZCAK: But you're telling me it doesn't have to be in writing to be a lease. MR. WILLIAMS: Leases do not have to be in writing. You can have an oral agreement to stay with your brother-in-law while going through your divorce, and that's fine. You can have all kinds of oral leases. Now, in a perfect business world we put them in writing, and beyond a certain period of time to be enforceable they have to be in writing, certain dollar amounts have to be in writing to satisfy the statute of fraud. But you can have an oral lease. MR. MIESZCAK: So the owner can say he didn't have an oral lease. MR. WILLIAMS: I don't know what's going on civilly, but it could be asserted. And that's the only thing I would know about. But one party could have a part of the document and the other party not have it. MR. MIESZCAK: I just don't understand it in our system. I Page 35 161 2 A6 4641 August 25 2011 ug , mean, if you want to rent a property you sign a lease. If you don't have a signed lease, you don't have nothing. MR. WILLIAMS: People still do business. You can have a handshake agreement. The law is never -- we have a statute of frauds that say certain things have to be in writing to be enforceable, but if you want to walk up to somebody and say I'll give you 2,000 a month in cash to rent out your house and they accept the 2,000 in cash, you're allowed to stay there that month. MR. MIESZCAK: Then when they deny it later, you have no grounds -- MR. WILLIAMS: Well, that's just bad business. MR. MIESZCAK: -- either way. That doesn't make sense to me. MR. WILLIAMS: Doesn't have to make sense to be legal. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We're in a position right now where we're hearing whether or not we should grant an extension -- MR. 'WILLIAMS: Right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- from hearing this today. If it's your contention that maybe the order would not be enforceable to begin with, maybe the county would want to withdraw this case or change its position and recommend the extension. MR. WILLIAMS: I am concerned as to the health, welfare and safety issues. And what we can do there, and especially if Mr. Weidenmiller's client is agreeable to having that as to the person living there, certainly, we need to get them out. As we can put it in, I just want the Board to be aware that this is one we may want to look at next month to see what the status is, not put it off very long whatsoever and maybe continue the agenda item except -- everything except as to the health, welfare and safety issue that we've got present. Because if we just don't know -- and that would also give the county time to obtain the bankruptcy records, we can pull those off of the Federal PACER System, see what's going on with the tenants, see Page 36 e A 61_ 1 1 b August 25, 011 what orders are in place and see what needs to be done. I'm sure Mr. Weidenmiller can get ahold of those as well. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, that's all -- but some of that might be beyond what we're capable of hearing or doing. MR. WILLIAMS: Which is why I don't want you to hear it. MR. KAUFMAN: Can we come up with an order that grants an extension of, let's say, 60 days, 90 days, whatever the time is, and at the same -- as part of the order require that the Sheriffs Department, if needed, make sure that nobody's living in that facility? MR. WEIDENMILLER: That would be fantastic. MR. WILLIAMS: If the sheriffs willing to follow your order. You know you have no authority over the constitutional officer that -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: I think that's beyond -- MR. MIESZCAK: We're aware of that, yes. MS. RAWSON: This is only a motion for continuance. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah. And even if we had an order, I don't think we can write an order to tell someone they can or can't live in a dwelling. I think that's beyond the scope of our powers of-- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to proffer a motion to continue this to the next hearing. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next hearing. SUPERVISOR SNOW: For the record -- do you want to swear me in, please? (Supervisor Snow was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR SNOW: For the record, Kitchell Snow, Collier County Code Enforcement. Gentlemen, just to make you aware, we have two entities from the county here telling you this is a health and safety issue. That's why we're here. We would not like an extension. We don't know if anybody's living there, we don't know what the circumstances are. We would not like a continuance. However, we would agree with whatever the Board would like to do. Page 37 161 2 A6 it August 25, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'm with you, Kitchell, I don't want to see this extended. I would rather write the order and, you know, contest it later than to have this go on very much further and risk someone's life. It's just an opinion, not speaking for the Board. But -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is there a possibility for us to commingle a continuance with the enforcement of health, safety and welfare? MR. KAUFMAN: That's what I suggested. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes, but if we're going to hear this case, we're going to hear it with all its merits. I don't think we can pick and choose which part of what we're being presented. We can turn up or turn down. If we find a violation, therefore we have to write the order specifically addressing the violation or violations, plural, that are addressed in that. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is the county attorney recommending we don't hear the case at this time? MR. WILLIAMS: I'm not going that far, I mean, to the degree that I fear what occurs when you involve matters with the greater authority than the county possess. However, I don't know what's going on in the bankruptcy proceeding. It gives me pause and hesitation. However, if we've got human lives at risk for wiring that's going in there that's never been permitted, if there truly is a risk to someone's life, from the County Attorney's Office, we don't want that either by any stretch of the imagination. My fear is we give an order that is not enforceable. Or far worse, we give an order out of this court that violates the bankruptcy stay. Now you're violating federal laws as a county and we want absolutely no part of that. However, I haven't seen the order, haven't been provided a copy of the order. I don't know to what party, if that pertains to the entity, if it's the individual filing the bankruptcy, if it's the business, if it's a Page 38 161 2A6 oa August 25, 2011 partner. We don't possess sufficient information to be able to act. So I don't think the federal court could say we deliberately violated their order, but they really don't care about the word deliberately very much. They see very black-and-white, well, I've got a federal bankruptcy stay or I don't. I don't know that, I only know what I've heard while watching upstairs and being present here, I'm not sure if any party in the room knows what the federal bankruptcy situation is. MR. KAUFMAN: How do we know that there's a bankruptcy that's been filed? MR. WILLIAMS: I believe I heard that presented from Mr. Weidenmiller. MR. KAUFMAN: Do you know for a fact that it's been filed? MR. WEIDENMILLER: ATC Tactical has filed for the protection of the Middle District of Florida bankruptcy courts. That is the entity that occupied the property. MR. DOINO: We should find out. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just a reminder to everybody, our orders go against the property, in this case your client, not the entity that's filed bankruptcy. So we're not engaging in any legal action against them at all, we're actually going directly to the owner of the property. MR. WILLIAMS: And what you may be doing is forcing him via your order to be in an impossible situation to fulfill. Either violate your order to get that person out or violate the bankruptcy stays order that says you can't do anything to this person because they're in bankruptcy, including whatever tenancies they may possess. So he may have an order from bankruptcy court saying don't touch this guy, he's got an order from you saying get that guy out of there, and what position have you put him in other than to come to court and try to overturn our order and name us as the defendant and now we found ourselves in court. So that's my fear. And without greater knowledge, I wish -- this is one of the few Page 39 16I2A64 August 25, 2011 times you wish the Board met more often so we didn't have to wait all the way until next month. If we met every two weeks, we could address it again in two weeks and maybe have sufficient. I don't want to put health, welfare and safety aside on any contingency whatsoever. Listening to this hearing, it sounds as if the owner of the property would appreciate our assistance and would like us to order these people out of here. So from what perspective, I'm fine. Going any further than that, is -- I would caution us against going any further than at least getting the person living in there out of there. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. One more caveat that I failed to mention in that procedural process. If an order was -- if we did write an order and the time frame was exceeded, let's say they weren't able to gain access quickly enough, they didn't get the improvements done fast enough and fines were to accrue against the property, after a few months those fines that start building up, come back in front of us where we actually impose them. Until that point they're kind of in a state of purgatory. Once we put them against the property, then they're an actual lien. But if during that period the violations are taken care of, they no longer exist. It has been kind of a history with this Board that if things were acted upon in a regular consistent manner and there was definite progress being made, we will either reduce or maybe even abate them completely, even though it took longer than what we originally allowed. Okay, so there is that avenue to where your clients financially may not be hurt. MR. WEIDENMILLER: And I appreciate that. And I think we're understanding of that. Our concern again, I'm not going to say it for the fifth time, is -- maybe I will -- is that we simply haven't seen the specifics, it's just a practical issue. My clients, the Urbanics, who are the individuals that Page 40 1 it2 A6 August 25, 2011 actually own the entity that owns the property are not able to be here today. They just found out about this a couple days ago. Very frankly, I'm not certain what testimony they would have since they haven't occupied the property. We would simply hope -- I think the concept of a very short continuance -- I assure you that we're going to be going out there as soon as we possibly can, and I don't think that we would be adverse to an order that required that we immediately address simply the health and safety concerns. And very frankly, I think that that might put the impetus on whatever this entity is in bankruptcy, if they think they have a right to take, they could take that. But I would agree with Mr. Williams that I think it may require a lot more work by the county and by your offices if we're put in this position of all of a sudden having lawsuits and litigation over whose orders and whose jurisdiction trumps. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sure. I can appreciate that too. Lionel, your motion for an extension to the next meeting was never seconded. But in all fairness, I think it's because we listened to Supervisor Snow's testimony right in between. If you'd like to make it again, you're more than welcome. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is there a way to have a motion continuance with the addition of a health, safety and welfare inspection by some entity of the county? MS. RAWSON: I don't think you can really put that in an order. I think that this is public record, everybody has heard the concerns, and I think that Mr. Weidenmiller, as well as, you know, the Sheriffs Department and the Fire Department are going to go out there and check on it and see what's happening. You either have to hear the case or continue the case. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Chief? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Just as a point, the health, welfare and safety falls under the fire side for building safety and occupant safety. Page 41 16 I . 2 Afi 4,4 August 257 0 Under 633A.J, the fire marshal or the fire chief has a right to shut down any facility -- privately owned, not state owned -- that there may be a problem with. Now, that given -- it applies to the -- not to the tenant so much as the owner of that structure. So that authority for health and safety, we've already done that inspection. And what we've determined is that you have a building in which illegal construction is taking place and has been occupied. Not to current state statute for code. So you've got to make a determination on that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Can I ask you, Chief, is there a separate entity board venue that you have to actually execute your own order to shut that building down? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: The next step for me would be go to the State Attorney's Office. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, thank you. Lionel, I don't think we have that opportunity, or Mr. Kaufman. I think we either have to continue this to next month or whenever or we have to hear the case today. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is the county recommending continuance? INVESTIGATOR SEABASTY: No, sir. MR. L'ESPERANCE: What are you recommending? INVESTIGATOR SEABASTY: The county would recommend that the respondent is to obtain Collier County building permit -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Hang on. Right now it's just whether to extend or to hear the case today. INVESTIGATOR SEABASTY: We would like to hear the case today, sir. MR. L'ESPERANCE: The County Attorney's opinion is contrary. MR. WILLIAMS: I can't say I'd go so far as contrary. I've made you aware of the dangers of going forward. That's all I wanted to do here this morning is we have risks by going forward, you've been Page 42 16h2A6 August 25, 2011 made aware of the risks, and if we have to deal with it on the back end, we'll have to deal with it on the back end. There are unique facts and circumstances. I can't say I've ever heard anything like this one before. If you go forward, you've been advised and we'll go forward. I support Mr. Seabasty's opinion, Mr. Snow's opinion, certainly Chief McLaughlin's. If they feel this is pressing enough to go forward, we should go forward. MR. KAUFMAN: Chief, you have the ability to shut that down based on if we hear that case today and we find that that is a safety and health issue? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: I have currently shut that down by red-tagging the project as a stop work order. MR. KAUFMAN: So the place is shut down now? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Correct. MR. KAUFMAN: Does that include anybody living there? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: No one should be in the facility at this time. There is no Certificate of Occupancy for that building at this time. No one should be living in the building. The stop work order was placed under a code violation from the county that it was work done under no permitting, basically. Illegal construction. MR. MARINO: I have a question. Isn't there a way that you could check with the electric company and water companies whether that building has been occupied or any of the utilities have been used? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Well, the electric was turned on to the building. They have been running power in there because they've had lights on. The water's on its own private water system. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Your stop work order, your red tag doesn't stop people from living in there, it just stops work from being completed, correct? Page 43 16 I A .. 2* 1 CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Correct. However, there is no Certificate of Occupancy for that building. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah, that's a good question. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: It was a vacant building that someone just took over the property and started construction and moved in. CHAIRMAN KELLY: But there was initially a CO because it was operated as a prison, so -- CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Seven or eight years ago. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Right. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: It's been vacant. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So once these changes occurred, now you need a new C.O. -- CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- and nobody can occupy that. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Well, they've changed occupancies also. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: It's completely changed occupancy. This would fall under new construction at this point. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Who enforces that statute -- or that ordinance to where nobody can live inside a dwelling that does not have aC.O.? INVESTIGATOR SEABASTY: That is the county. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. But do you need an order from us in order to enforce that? SUPERVISOR SNOW: If I may, no, we wouldn't need an order, because it doesn't have a C.O. Our main concern -- for the record, Kitchell Snow again. Our main concern is, and we understand the trepidation the Board has about should this be heard or not heard, but it's a health and safety issue now. I think if you were to continue it on the basis that we be allowed in conjunction with the property owner to go in and do Page 44 2 A6; 161 August 25, 2011 an inspection as soon as they got access to make sure it wasn't occupied, I don't think that would be an issue. But that's the main concern, that there was somebody living there. The tenant was here this morning. We advised him that he didn't have any vested rights. And there's a -- that's where the contention is. There's a contention between the property owner, who is responsible, and the tenant who believes he is totally in control, which is not -- that's where your issue is. So you guys are kind of caught between a rock and a hard place, because this is a health and safety issue. There was somebody living there, we have verified that by the Chief. Is he currently living there? We don't know that. That's the health and safety issue we're talking about. If nobody is there, does that still constitute the probability of something happening? Yes, but probably not a health and safety to an individual. That's the issue at hand. CHAIRMAN KELLY: When the so-called tenant was here earlier, did he say that he was living there? SUPERVISOR SNOW: I wasn't aware until conversing with the Chief and said, yeah, I recognize that guy, he's the guy that was living there. So we didn't really realize that until after he had departed. But if we were -- if you were going to continue it on the basis of doing an inspection, Counsel, would that be -- MR. WEIDENMILLER: Fantastic, yes. SUPERVISOR SNOW: I'm talking about -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: We can't put that into -- MS. RAWSON: Well, you can't really put that in a motion to continue. Maybe -- how about this? Maybe Mr. Weidenmiller and the county attorney can go out in the hall and do some kind of a stipulated agreement about how it's going to be heard next week and about what's going to happen until then, and then maybe you can just Page 45 0-4 16I2A6 August 25, 2011 approve their stipulation. How about that? SUPERVISOR SNOW: I think that's reasonable. MR. WEIDENMILLER: Just -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sir? MR. WEIDENMILLER: That would be acceptable to us. I don't know if for the record it might be simpler to grant potentially a continuance based on an acceptable stipulation so if we agree on one in 30 minutes we don't have to circle all the way back around. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Your stipulations need to be approved by us anyway. MR. WEIDENMILLER: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So the best thing to do is probably just go ahead and table this as a motion to continue. MR. WEIDENMILLER: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: See if something's worked out. This way we don't have to hear the whole case and create separate orders on all the different violations. INVESTIGATOR SEABASTY: If I may, just -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes. INVESTIGATOR SEABASTY: -- one further thing? There was a permit pulled for electrical work. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. INVESTIGATOR SEABASTY: The electrician who did the work went beyond the scope of the actual permit. The problem is now that yes, you do have a fence around that property in the front, but it can be accessed from the back from the preserve. And many of the people down there who are the locals, that was their hunting ground. So is the building charged right now with electricity? I don't know. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. All right, gentlemen, we'll go ahead and table this then. If you do work an agreement out, great. If Page 46 161 2A6 k August 25, 2011 not, we'll go ahead and rehear the motion for continuance and decide whether or not we're going to hear the actual case today or continue it to next month. MR. WEIDENMILLER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right, good luck. We might have to take a medical break? MR. KAUFMAN: Yeah, we should take a break. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Can we take a 10-minute break? We have a request from a board member for medical reasons. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, thank you. Sorry about the delay. We're going to call the Code Enforcement Board meeting back to order. We do have a quick change in the agenda. If you'd like to -- MS. BAKER: We have two additions under stipulations. The first will be number seven, Leszek and Henryka Klim, Case CESD20100006719, and number eight will be Opera Naples, Inc., Case CESD20100009135. And under hearings, number 17, Case CESD20110007333, Erineldo Mosquera and Eddy Lunar has been withdrawn. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. With that, I'll entertain a motion to accept the -- MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the changes to the agenda. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Page 47 i6IiM2A6 August 25, 2011 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries. MS. BAKER: And can I just make a reminder to the Board members, please speak into your microphones when you are speaking. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any word on getting these things turned on? MR. KAUFMAN: There's a volume control on it. MR. L'ESPERANCE: My speaker system was unplugged in the back, the power cord. The power cord was unplugged. Mine's working now. CHAIRMAN KELLY: It helps if we can hear ourselves and we know we're adequately speaking on the mics. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Perhaps your power cord is turned off. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, the next one is going to be Lamchick. It's a motion for continuance. Is the respondent here, or representative? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: What about the investigator? Bruce Lamchick. (Investigator Asaro was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, since the respondent's not here, just a recap on the letter that you received for the motion of continuance. It looks like they're trying to sell the home and they don't have the money to take care of the problems. Is that a good synopsis? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Yes. Last time I talked to Mr. Page 48 16I2A6 August 25, 2011 Lamchick, he's -- they don't have the money to complete the process, the permitting process, and basically everything is on hold. He's trying to find a buyer for the property. And per our last conversation he was still looking for a buyer, but the property has not been sold. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, I wouldn't want to be the one to buy a property with a code problem on it. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: No, I wouldn't either. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That wouldn't be fun. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: No. MR. KAUFMAN: Have the operational costs been paid? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: I don't believe so. Have they been paid? MS. BAKER: This case hasn't been heard yet. MR. KAUFMAN: What do I see in the back here? CHAIRMAN KELLY: It's a continuance. They don't want us to hear this case this month. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Are there any health, safety and welfare issues? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Well, the property is not secured. There's a broken front window. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is the property vacant? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: It is vacant, yeah. It's an incomplete structure. I can't verify if the back windows are broken, because I can't enter onto the property without consent from the property owner. And I can't see from the neighboring properties the -- I don't have the vantage point. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have any questions from the Board? Any comments? MR. KAUFMAN: I have a problem. If there's an outstanding case -- I mean, that was one of the things that was sent out by the Board of Realtors, the NABOR board, to have an inspection done. If Page 49 101 2 A6 August 25, 2011 someone did an inspection on this, this one wouldn't obviously pass. And that was the whole point of doing it, that we don't find the new owner of the property back here with violations. So I have a problem with granting this. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I concur. Any motions? Or any comment, further comments? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to deny. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Lavinski. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: The motion for continuance has been denied. We'll go ahead and hear the hearing in its regular spot on the agenda. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Okay. For the record -- MS. BAKER: No, not now. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah, we'll come back in its normal spot. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: I jumped the gun. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Now, that is the last motion for continuance that we have. We're moving on now to B, stipulations. Page 50 161 2 A6 August 25, 2011 First stipulation is Martin. That is Case No. CESD20100021462. (Shalonda Washington and Debra Martin were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, good morning. MS. WASHINGTON: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you would, we're just going to go ahead and have the investigator read the stipulation into the record. And if you're agreed with that, we'll just have you say yes, I agree. INVESTIGATOR BOX: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Heinz Box, Code Enforcement, Collier County. This is regarding Case No. CESD20100021462. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay all operational costs -- I'm sorry, pay operational costs in the amount of$81.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate all violations by: Obtaining any and all Collier County permits through inspections to certificate of occupancy and completion, or alternatively obtain a demolition permit through inspections to the certificate of completion within 120 days or pay a fine in the amount of$200 a day for each day the violation remains. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of the abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform site inspection to confirm compliance. That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of the abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. That's signed by Mr. Martin on the 15th of August, 2011. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Could you state your name for the record, please? MS. WASHINGTON: I'm Shalonda Washington, with Reliable Permitting. I'm here today representing the Martins. And we have proceeded forward, met with Gary Harrison at the building department to look at all of our options. We have now just Page 51 161 A b August , 20 newly found out that there were two options on the table. We went to the county to look at the microfilm to see what the existing structure was, whether we could keep it, whether we needed to demo it. We just found out from the previous architect engineer that the type of construction is not a type five under today's code so we will have to resort to a demolition of the existing second floor. And we are prepared to move forward with that. And the Martins have already hired and contracted myself and the demolition company, as we will be moving forward. So all research is done and we're ready to proceed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mrs. Martin, I'm sorry to hear that you're going to have to go through this, but is 120 days agreeable time to get this all done? MRS. MARTIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the Board? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. So thank you very much. MS. WASHINGTON: Thank you. Page 52 161 2 A6 lat August 25, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you run into any issues, please let us know ahead of time before it expires. MS. WASHINGTON: Yes, I will. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Try to avoid any fines or anything like that. MS. WASHINGTON: Yes, we will. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Thank you, Heinz. Next case is going to be Norma Ramirez, Case CESD20100007623. (Investigator Walker and Norma Ramirez were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just like the last one, we'll have the investigator read in the stipulation. INVESTIGATOR WALKER: For the record, Weldon Walker, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is reference to Case No. CESD20100007623. The Respondent Norma Ramirez agrees to pay operational costs in the amount of$80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate all violations by: Obtaining a Collier County building or demolition permit and request required inspections to be performed and passed through a certificate of completion of occupancy within 90 days of this hearing, or a fine of$250 a day will be imposed. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation, request that the investigator perform site inspection to confirm compliance. That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation, using any method to bring the violation into compliance, and may use the assistance of Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provision of this agreement. And all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. The respondent signed it 8/18/2011. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. You understand and agree to Page 53 161 a A6 1 .1 August 25, 2011 everything that was just read? MS. RAMIREZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Are there any questions from the Board? MR. KAUFMAN: Is this conversion occupied? INVESTIGATOR WALKER: No, it isn't. MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion to approve as written. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Thanks very much. If you run into any problems, please let us know before it expires. MS. RAMIREZ: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, the next stipulated agreement is going to be Waste Services of Florida, Incorporated. CESD20090002873. (Investigator Box, Chris Hagan and David Smith were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just have the investigator read in the stipulated. INVESTIGATOR BOX: For the record again, once again, Investigator Heinz Box, Collier County Code Enforcement. Case number in this matter CESD20090002873. Page 54 161 2 A 25, 11 Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of$82.86 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 and occupancy within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of$200 a day will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of the abatement of the violation or request the inspection (sic) perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and the cost of the abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sir, do you agree and understand everything? MR. HAGAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have any questions from the Board? (No response.) MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to approve as written. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 55 161 2A6 ki August 25, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good. Good luck, gentlemen. If you have any issues, please let us know ahead of time. Thank you. Thank you, Heinz. Next case is going to be Montz. MR. MIESZCAK: Do you want to do that? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Jen, are we just going to put this after the other stips, or should we do it now? MS. BAKER: It's up to you, Chair. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We'll probably be through these in like eight, 10 minutes, okay? (Investigator Botts and Mr. Montz were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Azure, would you like to read it in, slowly? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: For the record, Azure Botts, Investigator with Collier County Code Enforcement. It is agreed between the two parties that the respondent shall pay the operational costs in the amount of$80.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate all violations. Respondent must obtain all required building permits or demolition permit, the required inspections, a certificate of occupancy/completion within 60 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 the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sir -- did you already get the name and Page 56 161 2 A6 August 25, 2011 everything? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Sir, do you understand and agree to everything that was just written? MR. MONTZ: I understand everything. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And do you think 60 days is going to be enough time for you? MR. MONTZ: I'm going to put priority one on this. If there is an issue or somewhat problem, I'll get back with Azure way in advance. I'm going to push on this full steam ahead. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Excellent. Any questions from the Board? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to approve as written. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Tony. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any disapprove? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: The motion carries. Thanks again, sir, appreciate it. INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Azure. The next case is going to be Juan Barnhart and Veronica Page 57 161 2 , August 25, 2011 Barnhart, CESD200100006046. Is the investigator available? Okay. (Investigator Rodriguez and Mr. Earnest Freeman were duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20100006046. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of$80.57 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 inspections to be performed and passed through a certificate of completion/occupancy within 60 days of this hearing or a fine of$200 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated. 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 using any methods to bring the violation into compliance 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: We've already had the signatures by the respondents, the Barnharts themselves, but Mr. Freeman, if you'd just let them know if there's any issues, you know, let us know ahead of time and see if we can't get an extension before fines start to accrue. MR. FREEMAN: Okay. So it is a 90-day extension is being granted at this time? CHAIRMAN KELLY: They have it as 60 days. MR. FREEMAN: Sixty days. Sixty days would be fine, because we do have the permits in place. Page 58 161 2A6 August 25, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, good. Any other questions from the Board? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept as written. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. MR. FREEMAN: Do you need authorization document from them? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, they signed this one directly, so no, not on this one. Thanks, Mr. Freeman. Okay, the next case is going to be Collier Realty Corp., CESD20100003739. (Investigator Walker and Mr. Earnest Freeman were duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR WALKER: For the record, Weldon Walker, Jr., Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD201000003739 (sic). The respondent, Collier County Realty Corp., agrees to pay operational costs in the amount of$81.15 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of the hearing by: Obtaining Collier County building permit or demolition permit and request required inspections to be performed and passed through a certificate of Page 59 161 2A6 August 25, 2011 completion of occupancy within 90 days of this hearing or a fine of $250 a day will be imposed. 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 using any method to bring the violation into compliance 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. Respondent's signature was signed by representative Mr. Earnest Freeman. I believe he also, as well as I, have a letter stating that he can do that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Terrific. Since you're representing, everything you heard and signed is agreeable? MR. FREEMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the Board? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept as written. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Tony this time. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? Page 60 161 tab August 25, 2011 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries. Thanks again, appreciate it. Thank you, Weldon. INVESTIGATOR WALKER: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. The next case is going to be Leszek and Henryka Klim. CESD20100006719. (Investigator Botts, Leszek Klim were duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: Excuse me, if I can interrupt, I just want to make it known that they are going to be translating, so if you need them in as translation. (Interpreter Joanna Antoniak was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: We're going to let the investigator read the order and ask you if you agree to it. INVESTIGATOR ROUSSEAU: Good morning. For the record, Therese Rousseau, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD2010006719. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of$80.50 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; abate all violations. The respondent must obtain all required building permits or demo permit, the required inspections and certificate of completion and occupancy within 90 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 the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of the abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Page 61 August 25, 2 1 161 2 A 6 Do you understand and agree to everything that was just read? INTERPRETER: That is correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Entertain a motion. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. If you have any problems, please let us know before the time expires. Next case is going to be Opera Naples, Incorporated. Gerald Goldberg is the registered agent. CESD2010000913 5. (Investigator Azure Botts, Ronald Lukowiak and Thomas Smith were duly sworn.) MR. MARINO: I'm going to have to abstain from this too. They're clients of mine, so I'm going to have to say abstain from this vote also. INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: For the record, Azure Botts, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. It is agreed between the two -- excuse me. It is agreed between Page 62 lot 2 A6 August 25, 2011 the parties that the respondent shall pay the operational cost in the amount of$80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing; abate all violations. The respondent must obtain all required building permits, inspections and 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 the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. If 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: Azure, I think you said 180 days; is that right? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: That is correct, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just a little blurry, but I want to make sure for the record. INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: My apologies, handwriting is not the best. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Looks like it was changed too. MR. MIESZCAK: I can read it, it's fine. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you understand and agree to everything that was just read? MR. SMITH: Yes, we do. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And you have the names? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: By chance is one of you Goldberg? MR. SMITH: No. CHAIRMAN KELLY: For the record, do you mind stating that you have the authorization to speak on behalf of Opera Naples? MR. LUKOWIAK: For the record, I'm a board member of Opera Page 63 161 2A6 , August 25,-2011 Naples and the chairman of the building committee, and I'm authorized to speak on behalf. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great, thank you. Any questions from the Board? MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question of the county. 180 days, is there that much work that needs to be done that would require 180 days, six months? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: I'm going to try to keep this separated. I'm speaking directly of the code enforcement violations. However, there is, after the -- there is other matters that would, after this, would be taken care of that might convolute what we are trying to do. Long story short, they have done some work without permits. They acknowledge that. They are most willing and have been very cooperative in trying to obtain those permits. However, we're afraid that once these permits go through review process, there might be some rejections given and other things required of them because the building and other issues that are in the building. The fire department is also involved in this. However, we're keeping them separate. We have code enforcement and then we have the fire issues and they're addressing their issues. But the two hand-in-hand could be involved when it comes to the permitting department. MR. LUKOWIAK: Additionally, if I might add. To execute on all the work that we anticipate is going to need to take place once we will get -- submit for permit, is going to require significant funds, and we're a nonprofit, and we're in the process of raising those funds. And six months should give us adequate time to get funds in place to proceed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We're just concerned that six months is a long time when we see electrical being changed without permits or inspectors approving it. You know, was it somebody as a part of the Page 64 161 Z A 6 August 25, 2011 organization that was helping out or did you hire a contractor and just he didn't pull a permit? MR. LUKOWIAK: It was some volunteers doing some work that moved some things. Nothing was disconnected. It was a matter of a junction box was moved. No electrical work was done. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to approve the stipulation as written. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good, gentlemen. Thanks. Good luck and let us know if you run into problems. MR. LUKOWIAK: We certainly will. INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thanks, Azure. Okay, we'll go ahead and amend the agenda now. We'll bring in the stipulation for the Fakahatchee property. I'll entertain a motion. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to amend the agenda. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. Page 65 161 2A6i August 25, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good. Able to work something out? MR. WILLIAMS: We were. Again, Steve Williams, on behalf of Collier County Attorney's Office. I'd like to report to you we were able to work out a stipulation agreement. If you'd like, I can read it into the record so we have it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Perfect. MR. WILLIAMS: It is therefore agreed between the parties that the respondent, Fakahatchee Trace, LLC shall: One: Pay operational costs in the amount of$81.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Two: Abate all violations by allowing the county -- it should read any and all access to the property located at 2021 State Road 29, Naples, Florida, 34137. Three: Access shall also be granted to the Collier County Sheriffs Department and Ochopee Fire Control District. Four: Said access shall be for any and all lawful purposes. Five: Respondent shall be granted a 30-day continuation from the August 25th, 2011 Code Enforcement Board hearing in the matter and shall be placed on the September 22nd, 2011 agenda for consideration. Six: Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Page 66 161 ZA6 , t August 25, z011 Seven: That if the respondent fails to abate the violation as stated above in paragraph two, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. As signed by Counsel Casey Weidenmiller for the respondent and signed by myself, on behalf of Diane Flagg, Director for the Code Enforcement Department. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So the stipulation is really to gain access. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. We're granting it to code staff, which would be paragraph two, and then also the Sheriffs Department, if we need it and the Fire District Chief McLaughlin if he needs it, paragraph three. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Perfect. Perfect. Now you have something official. MR. WILLIAMS: And that should keep everyone -- and if the bankruptcy judge has a question with it and we've got an alleged person living in an unpermitted building and health, welfare and safety, I'll take my chances. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Perfect. Any other discussion from the Board? MR. KAUFMAN: Chief is gone? MR. WILLIAMS: Chiefs already headed out. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Motion to accept the stipulation as agreed. MR. DOINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Ron. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? Page 67 16112A6 August 25, 2011 MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Thanks again. Thank you very much for your time. Sorry it took so long, but -- MR. WEIDENMILLER: No problem. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- it was a good resolution. And that does take care of all of our stipulated agreements, correct? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's a yes coming from the Jen camp? MS. BAKER: Yes. Sorry. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Moving on to C, hearings. The first hearing case is going to be McKinney. (Investigator Patterson was duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR PATTERSON: For the record, Sherry Patterson, Collier County Code Enforcement. MS. CRAWLEY: This is in reference to Case CES20110001989. Violation of ordinance Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended, Section 5.06.11(A)(1), 5.06.06(A)(4). Description of violation: Roof sign installed without required permit. Location/address where violation exists: 298 Capris Boulevard, Naples, Florida, 34113. Tarpon Bay General Store. Folio No. 52503080009. Page 68 161 a . AA August 25, Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: K. Guengerich McKinney, 298 Capris Boulevard, Naples, Florida, 34113. Date violation first observed: March 8th, 2011. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: March 30th, 2011. Day on/by which violation to be corrected: April 24th, 2011. Date of reinspection: April 25th, 2011. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. Notice of hearing was posted at the property and courthouse August 12th, 2011 and sent certified mail on August 11th, 2011. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. We don't have a respondent so if you want to tell us about the case. INVESTIGATOR PATTERSON: Okay. Well, as stated, it's a roof sign installed without a required permit located at 298 Capris Boulevard in Naples. Service was given on March 30th, 2011. I met with the owner, provided personal service. I have a couple of photographs that I would like to present as evidence in the case. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the photos. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 69 16 2A6 August 25, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) INVESTIGATOR PATTERSON: The photos were taken on the same day, which would be March 8th, 2011. The first photo shows the unpermitted sign as a closeup and the other one was taken a little farther away. I contacted the property owner, K. Guengerich McKinney on February 23rd, 2011, and I explained that code enforcement had received a complaint that the Tarpon Bay General Store roof sign had been installed without a permit. I advised that my research and investigation had concluded the same. The owner was advised that any person who wishes to install a sign in Collier County must first obtain the required building permit prior to the installation. The county at that time respectfully requested that the owner obtain the permit, if attainable, or the sign was to be removed, including the sign supports and all elements associated with the sign. On March 30th, 2011 it was confirmed that no attempt had been made to obtain the said permit and a notice of violation was issued. As stated previously, a personal service was provided and the notice was accepted and signed by owner K. Guengerich McKinney. The compliance date on the notice was April 24th, 2011. A site reinspection performed the following day confirmed that the sign was still present and that no permit had been obtained. I did a pre-hearing site inspection yesterday, August 24th, and it concluded the same, the sign still remains without a permit. MR. MIESZCAK: Now, is that one sign there or two? I'm looking at the fish and the sign. INVESTIGATOR PATTERSON: It's just one sign. MR. MIESZCAK: Just the Tarpon Bay thing? INVESTIGATOR PATTERSON: Right. MR. MIESZCAK: And the other thing is okay? The fish. Page 70 1 61 2 A6 August 25, 2011 INVESTIGATOR PATTERSON: Yeah, it's basically one sign. The fish is actually mounted on that board there. MR. KAUFMAN: What does the owner say? INVESTIGATOR PATTERSON: Well, the property -- I tried to contact the owner just yesterday, and apparently she is living in North Carolina. Somebody else is in the store, running the store. It was a previous business that was over on Manatee Road. It's now Capri Produce. They're working out of the store and selling produce. So through my investigation, I do understand that the property is in lis pendens, so, you know, there may be an issue there with why, you know, we're not getting compliance. MR. KAUFMAN: So the property owner is not the one that did the sign, it's the person who has the business there? INVESTIGATOR PATTERSON: The property owner is the responsible party for the sign. She used to run the store as Tarpon Bay General Store and it was her sign. But from what I understand now, she has let another business move in there, Capri Produce, and they just left the sign up there. So that's where we're at today. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions? MR. MIESZCAK: There's a for sale sign there too. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there a violation? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to find them in violation. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. Page 71 161 2,. b August 25, 2 MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Does the county have a recommendation? INVESTIGATOR PATTERSON: Yes, we do. The recommendation is that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$80.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all the violations by obtaining all required permits, inspections and certificate of occupancy, if attainable, or the sign shall be removed, including the sign supports and all elements associated with the sign within "X" amount of days or "X" amount per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would somebody like to accept that recommendation? MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to fill in the blanks. Sixty days to have the violation addressed and a fine of$200 a day after that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. Page 72 161 2 5 . 6 August 25, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. INVESTIGATOR PATTERSON: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Sherry. The next case, CESD20 -- hang on, I'm reading the wrong case. CESD20110006971, Henry and Jan Holzkamper. I'm going to recuse myself due to a business conflict and let Mr. Vice Chair go. MR. HOLZKAMPER: I would request that you stay in the room, because I now have an expert witness. (Investigator Botts and Mr. Holzkamper were duly sworn.) MS. CRAWLEY: Case is in reference to CESD20110006971. Violation of Ordinance Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e). Description of violation: Drywall has been removed and replaced in the east building's bottom east unit A, and the stairs on the front of the east building have been repaired to include but not limited to handrails, steps and supports without first obtaining all required Collier County building permits. Location/address where violation exists: 3230 Thommason Drive, Naples, Florida, 34112. Folio No. 52600440005. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Henry and Jan Holzkamper, 12887 Valewood Drive, Naples, Florida, 34119. Date violation first observed: August 16th, 2010. Page 73 161 2 ' ,. F A6 August 25, 011 Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: June 2nd, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: June 24th, 2011. Date of reinspection: June 30th, 2011. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. I'd like to introduce Investigator Botts. MR. HOLZKAMPER: Excuse me. I have an objection in the request. I know your procedure is for the inspector to present her case first. I respectfully request that I make my case first, because it will put what she says in perspective. MR. KAUFMAN: You'll have a chance to do that after she goes. MR. HOLZKAMPER: So you are not accepting my -- MR. KAUFMAN: That's correct. MR. HOLZKAMPER: Thank you. INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: For the record, Azure Botts, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20110006971, pertaining to the violations of: Drywall, has been removed and replaced, and exterior stairs have been repaired to include handrails, steps and supports. Located at 3230 Thommason Drive, Naples, Florida, 34112. Folio No. 5260044005. Service was given on June 2nd, 2011. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Seven pictures dated August 16th, 2010. MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to accept. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. MR. KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen the pictures? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: Yes, he has. MR. KAUFMAN: I have a motion to accept, I have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 74 161 2 0,10A6 August 25, 2 MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) MR. KAUFMAN: Passes. INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: On August 16th, 2010, I made my initial site visit. I had observed in unit A on the east building that drywall was removed, leaving the electrical and plumbing exposed. This picture is a wall that is -- where the washer and dryer would be, they removed all the drywall around this wall. MR. L'ESPERANCE: This is a residential building? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: This is multi-family residential, correct. Rental units. This is a wall that would be -- I would consider the dining room area. It's right beside the kitchen. Standing in the front room trying to show the wall and the wall behind where all the drywall had been removed. Upon leaving the property, I had observed wood on the stairs, indicating that they had replaced several support steps and handrails. These stairs are exterior. They lead up to the second floor where there are two more units. I spoke with -- I believe the gentleman's name is Rick. He was the property maintenance person that met me on-site right that day on the 16th. I had spoken with a couple gentlemen that were there. They provided Rick's number. I called him, he met me on-site. I explained to him that there was a complaint that had been made and from what I had observed there was violations which would consisting of work without permits. I had also spoken with Mr. Holzkamper and informed him the same. That was by phone I had spoken with him. Page 75 A6 161 Aug t 25, 2011 Between October 4th and the beginning of December, the property owner, Mr. Holzkamper, had been working with the building department. He was speaking with the building official, Mr. Harrison, trying to get a -- making sure that everybody was clear on what had been done, what would need to be done to make sure everything was correct. With that being said, an inspector had been sent out by Mr. Harrison to inspect the stairs. He did go out and I was not there at the time. However, Mr. Holzkamper did inform me that he in fact inspected the wrong stairs, it was the stairs on the other building. I proceeded yesterday just to make clarification with Mr. Harrison. I took the photos that you just observed back to Mr. Harrison, and with the pictures alone Mr. Harrison has clearly indicated that permits would be needed to replace anything on those steps, as well as a permit by affidavit would be needed for the drywall replacement. Because the drywall has been put back -- new drywall has been put back in place in unit A and is being occupied. So a permit by affidavit would be required for that. Mr. Holzkamper has been very cooperative. He's a very nice gentleman. He takes very good care of his property. However, I can't determine the building code, that comes from Mr. Harrison. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Sir? MR. HOLZKAMPER: A little history is required to put all of this in perspective. I came to Naples 14 years ago. Moved north to Naples from the Virgin Islands. I was the victim of a hurricane, we lost everything and started over. And in buying little properties and being a one-man show, I was very proud of everything I did. And as a matter of fact, for every property, I took before and after pictures, including I have before pictures of this particular property. So these properties are almost like our little babies. My wife answers the phone 24/seven, and we really try to do a good job. And Page 76 161 2 6 t August 25, 20 we do, we do. So why are we here? Well, this isn't some property that's been neglected, this is eight units and in impeccable condition and really beautiful. We were very successful as property owners until 2007. In 2007, between January and November we went from normal occupancy of basically 98 percent collections to 25 percent vacant on all of our several hundred units. Not sustainable. I wrote letters to all of our mortgage holders, asking for forbearance or a change in the mortgage. And most of them did that. And because the normal expenses and the maintenance, the taxes, the insurance, you've got to pay that. The mortgage is the only place where something can give. Most of our lenders gave us some forbearance. This particular lender was Washington mutual, and they -- the P and I on this property was 3,200 a month, which we had paid for for years, it was just fine. But with two out of the eight units vacant, there was barely enough -- well, there wasn't enough to pay the mortgage. After basically, I don't know, a year of trying to get some forbearance that they wanted to foreclose, I said we're out of money. Because by that time we had lost our home. We're renting today, even though I own several hundred apartments. I mean, it's really, really bad out there. It really is. So they said they wanted to appoint a receiver, and that was April of 2009. In May the receiver took over. Now, there were two vacant apartments, beautiful, ready to go, and six other occupied apartments. By September, the property was vacant. The receiver did nothing, they didn't even do the lawn, so everybody moved out. And the apartment in question, I had rented to that tenant and they had lived there for many years. And they had kids that were destructive. But they moved out. The property was -- I said in April I turned it over to the receiver. Page 77 161 2 A6 August 25, 2011 The following spring, Washington Mutual put it on the market and sold it. And the person who bought it realized shortly he should never have bought it. I owned other property in the area and I was able to make a good deal to buy the property back. And I have two photographs. This was the property -- if you would, please? MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion to accept the photos. MR. MARINO: I'll make a motion. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, at this point should the gentleman be responding to the county's allegations? MR. KAUFMAN: Well, I see no problem in seeing the pictures. Anybody have a problem with it? MR. LAVINSKI: No. Second. MR. KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) MR. KAUFMAN: Passes. MR. HOLZKAMPER: That's the property before the receiver took it over in 2008. I'm very proud of my properties and I take pictures. When I got the property back, or bought it back in 2010, I immediately told my employees, two of them, to do whatever was necessary on the property to fix it up. And they are excellent employees, long-term with high skills, so I don't have to tell them what to do. Page 78 161 2 I b August 25, 2011 And Rubin, who was really an excellent carpenter, and a drywall person was in this one apartment which had a lot of damage because I said, this lady had lived there with her children. So there were holes in the drywall. Many people would just fix the hole here or fix the hole there. When we make repairs on the properties we own, everything is long term. We want to do it right because it's cheaper in the long term and you want a good product. Reuben took it upon himself not to fix the hole or fix the hole, he just took things down. And then the entire area of putting up large pieces of drywall is almost easier than repairing it with small pieces. If-- I did not know in my 14 years here that you had to have a permit to replace a piece of drywall. If we had to get a permit to replace a piece of drywall every time a tenant put a hole in it or something, to get an architect, to make the drawings, to get the permit, I mean, it's a three-week process and costs hundreds of dollars. I mean, it's not practical. I'll do it in the future, because now I know if you replace a piece of drywall, you have to get a permit. So anyway, Reuben took it upon himself to do the demolition, which you see, and then we replaced everything. We didn't do anything electrical, we didn't move a stud, we didn't do any carpentry, we took off drywall and we made it perfect. I have a picture here of the perfect drywall. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the picture. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. MR. KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. Page 79 161 2 A6 August 25, 2011 MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. HOLZKAMPER: Our apartments are beautiful. Then when it came to the stairway -- and you can see what the stairways looked like in 2008, I showed you that picture -- again, Reuben took it upon himself to replace I guess the two uprights, and then in the landing area replace some boards in the landing, with the proper work. And I would use the inspector's photo of the work completed, that if you look at it, it's done perfectly, it's beautiful. I did not know that if you replaced a piece of wood, and this is the law now, if you replace one tread on a stairway, you have to get a building permit, according to the law. This is crazy to some extent. But on the other hand I understand that where do you draw the line between somebody who replaces a piece of wood and then they do more wood and they do railings and they don't do it right, so I understand the reason for the law. And with what code enforcement has to do, they are not given the ability to use a rule of reason. A piece of wood is done, you need a permit, that's it. And at some point that becomes ludicrous. So the purpose of my being here today -- oh, here is a photo. This is a beautiful property. This is the stairway in question. INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: If you submit this in evidence, you're not going to get them back. MR. HOLZKAMPER: Okay. I've got them in. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. MR. MARINO: Second. MR. KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. Page 80 161 2 A 6 August , ug MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) MR. KAUFMAN: Passes. MR. HOLZKAMPER: Some weeks or months ago when the code enforcement was not satisfied with the work or the pictures or everything else, because they're not given that leeway. They say, do you have a permit? You know, one piece of wood, you get a permit. So I hired Packard Construction, Tim Packard. He builds luxury homes, he also does other remodeling things. And I said, go to the building department, get the permits, do whatever is necessary. Make this right. Even though the work was done and it was beautiful. I have a letter -- and he did go to the building department. He was very frustrated because the work had been done. Anyway, he was very frustrated. I have a letter here that I would like to submit into evidence from Packard Construction. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the letter. MR. MARINO: Second. MR. HOLZKAMPER: I'll read the letter because -- MR. KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) MR. KAUFMAN: Passes. Page 81 Just ,16 i 6 0 MR. HOLZKAMPER: The letter says -- it's very brief so I'll read it to you. Dear sir/madam. I have inspected the property at 3270 Thommason Drive, unit A and found it to be structurally sufficient and compliant with FBC. I don't know what that means. If you have any questions, please call Tim Packard Construction, et cetera. So the issue, Mr. Harrison, Harrolson -- INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: Harrison. MR. HOLZKAMPER: When I spoke to him, he said I'm not concerned about the drywall. You took down the drywall, you put it up. He said, I'll sign off on that. That's what he verbally told me. He said, but with the steps, when you replace one tread, you have to have a building permit. And you must bring it into compliance. Now, in the 25 years since these steps were put there, the law for steps has changed. And the change is that the bannister, if you will, has to be about two or three inches higher than previous. So to bring this into compliance you would have to tear down the whole top part of the stairs. And basically Tim said it would be cheaper just to tear down the whole stairs, if I had to do it, if that's what it comes to, and build all new stairs. Thousands of dollars. Which is ludicrous to take something that's perfectly usable and in great condition and -- excellent condition and have to tear it down. Now, code enforcement has no ability to alter this. They have the law and they follow the rules. And Azure has done a good job, and I applaud her for, you know, the work that she does. But she has no discretion. You men have the discretion to say let's let common sense prevail. The property is in good condition, best efforts were made, the contractor says it's good, let's just dismiss the case and let this gentleman get on with being a good landlord. MR. KAUFMAN: Can I break this into two parts? MR. HOLZKAMPER: Yes. Page 82 161 2 ' t August 25, 0 MR. KAUFMAN: The sheet rock, is that in compliance now? MR. HOLZKAMPER: Yes. INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: Incorrect. I think there's some confusion. Mr. Harrison stated he would sign off on the drywall with a permit by affidavit. Since the drywall had been ripped off and then replaced, a permit by affidavit is something that's submitted for something that's been completed and is unable to be inspected by the building inspector, so an engineer signing off saying that it meets the Florida Building Code is what would be required. And then obviously that would pass by Mr. Harrison's desk and he would sign off on it at that time. MR. KAUFMAN: So just the drywall now, is there any problem getting that done? MR. HOLZKAMPER: No, that's a piece of paper and that's just MR. KAUFMAN: So the answer to that is no there's no problem, I can get that done. MR. HOLZKAMPER: I guess Mr. Packard, Tim Packard could do that, I would assume. That's a simple procedure. It's paperwork, right? MR. KAUFMAN: Now we're to the stairs. Unfortunately, we're just the same as Code Enforcement. We don't have any authority to change any of the rules. I have no idea in the world why they changed the rules on the height of a railing, but you're telling me that they have. There's nothing that we can do to change the statutes that exist today. So that is a problem. MR. HOLZKAMPER: Can it not be grandfathered in? MR. KAUFMAN: That would be something that you'd have to go to the building department, unless I'm wrong, to have that done. We don't grandfather in front of the board. INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: That would be correct, the permitting department would be the individuals he would need to Page 83 2 16 ' August 25, 20 speak with regarding that, if it could be done, and what the process would be for that. MR. KAUFMAN: Is it possible for you to go back to the county and ask them to grandfather in -- I mean, the pictures are self-explanatory, the place looks gorgeous. And we here will either find that there is a violation that exists or there isn't. And based on that, we will come up with a remedy, if there is one that is required. So I'd look to the Board to give me an idea. MR. MIESZCAK: Well, I think a violation exists on the steps themselves. That's a safety issue. You can't replace steps. I mean, this Board, I know we're keyed and all geared up for safety issues, very important to us. And when you talk about steps, well, yeah, you can replace one or two. But if somebody tripped on that one or two, that's a bad thing. So I think I see a safety issue and it's a violation. MR. KAUFMAN: Is that a motion? MR. MIESZCAK: I don't know, we're discussing it. I didn't make a motion. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay, anybody else? MR. HOLZKAMPER: I would appreciate it if any of you gentlemen would speak up about it, so I could take this to Mr. -- whoever, about the, you know, the reasonableness of all of this. And it's something like, well, you know, if we could do this, this looks reasonable but, you know, we have to follow the law. MR. MIESZCAK: All right, I'll make a motion a violation exists. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay, do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. MR. KAUFMAN: We have a motion, we have a second. All those in favor -- any discussion? MR. MIESZCAK: That's the time to get discussion. Anybody want to discuss that? (No response.) Page 84 IoL 2 6r August 25, 2 MR. MIESZCAK: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) MR. KAUFMAN: Okay, we found you in violation. That's obvious, you violated the statute by not getting a building permit for that. Now what's the remedy? And in the remedy is the part that I think that you're interested in most. The amount of time that's given to rectify the situation and any fine above that time to get it done. So I'm open for discussion on what we can do. MR. L'ESPERANCE: What is the county recommending? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: I can read my recommendation if you'd like, but we obviously leave the days and fines for you to discuss. The county recommends 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: The respondent must obtain all required county -- 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 or "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 in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. Page 85 16 Y , August 25, 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: Okay. Anybody want to discuss this, come up with some idea of-- MR. HOLZKAMPER: I do. MR. KAUFMAN: I'm sure you do. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make a motion that within 60 days and a fine of$100 a day. Pay operational costs, $81.15. MR. HOLZKAMPER: May I speak to that? MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that motion. MR. KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. MR. HOLZKAMPER: May I speak to that? MR. KAUFMAN: Not once it's before the Board. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) MR. KAUFMAN: So you have two months, 60 days, to get the required affidavit and all permits. And the fine after that 60 days would be $100 a day. If you can't meet that time frame for whatever reason, you certainly can come back to the Board and we will can be glad to hear anything you have to say about what's going on with the situation. MR. HOLZKAMPER: I would like to ask for 90 days. And the reason is, this permitting and the nature of the thing and tearing down Page 86 fl 1 6 1 Ab August 25, 2011 the stairs and rebuilding the stairs, you just don't do that quickly. And then there's the issue of the tenants upstairs who own the upstairs. It's not a simple matter. So I'm asking for 90 days. MR. KAUFMAN: Would you like to amend your motion, Mr. Dean? MR. MIESZCAK: Well, I have no problem doing that. MR. KAUFMAN: And the second? MR. LAVINSKI: No problem. MR. MIESZCAK: You want to negate that motion that we already voted on? MR. L'ESPERANCE: No, we're just amending it. MR. KAUFMAN: We're amending it, okay. MR. MIESZCAK: All right, I'll amend my motion to 90 days. MR. LAVINSKI: And the second. MR. HOLZKAMPER: Thank you. MR. KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) MR. KAUFMAN: So you have 90 days. And probably if you put in an elevator, it would probably resolved the problems. I'm only kidding. MR. HOLZKAMPER: I had a thought. I appreciate what you gentlemen do, and I was sitting here thinking that if boredom affected longevity, you guys would all be in trouble. MR. KAUFMAN: Well, thank you. Welcome back, Chair. Page 87 161 al A6 PI August 25, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: Thank you, gentlemen. MR. MIESZCAK: Did you invite him back? You didn't give him the gavel. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'm taking it over. Okay, the next case is going to be -- is it Rudy -- number five? Oh, yeah, because we didn't -- thank you. Next case is Bruce Lamchick. (Investigator Asaro was duly sworn.) MS. CRAWLEY: This is in reference to Case CESD20100022396. Violation of the Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Description of violation: An incomplete single-family home with expired Permit No. 2005092527. Location/address where violation exists: 4320 62nd Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120. Folio No. 38726920009. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Bruce Lamchick Trust, 9200 South Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 518, Miami, Florida, 33156. Date violation first observed: December 30th, 2010. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: May 11th, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: June 9th, 2011. Date of reinspection: August 4th, 2011. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. Now I'd like to introduce Investigator Asaro. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Asaro. It's okay. For the record, Tony Asaro, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20100022396 pertaining to an incomplete single-family home with an expired permit No. 2005092527, located at 4320 62nd Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 38726920009. Page 88 x, 61 2 A 6 1 August 25, 2011 On May 11th, Notice of Violation was posted on the property. At this time I would like to now present case evidence in the following exhibit: One photo dated January 4th, 2010. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the photo. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. KAUFMAN: That's an outline. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Very nice picture. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: It didn't come out too bright. MR. MIESZCAK: Looks like Irene went over that. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: It's a house. County's recommendation: That the Code Enforcement Board order -- I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So that's it for the county? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: That's it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Entertain a motion that a violation exists. MR. KAUFMAN: One question. So this house was started way back when, 2005? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Yeah, 2005. MR. KAUFMAN: And never got a C.O. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Right. Page 89 16 ' 2 ,A 6 August 25, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: Is it occupied or not occupied? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: It's not occupied. MR. KAUFMAN: Was it ever occupied? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: No; not to my knowledge. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is it secure? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: It is not secure. Some broken windows in the front. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Golden Gate Estates area? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Golden Gate Estates area. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Pool? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: I don't -- there's no pool in the back. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is there is any pool on any part of the property? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: No. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We can tell by looking at the picture that it doesn't look like the stucco's been finished. And we'll take your testimony for word. But in these type of situations, I think I'd love to see the investigators bring a copy of the permit records from the county and enter those. I mean, that then it's definitive. Then a violation is just -- MR. KAUFMAN: Were there any inspections done over the course of-- I realize it's expired, but back in 2005? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Can you repeat that again? MR. KAUFMAN: Were there any inspections done? Slab, 101, 102? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: At this time I don't know. I'd have to go rereview the permit. I don't have a copy of the permit with me. MR. KAUFMAN: I think we have enough to make a motion that we find that in violation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? Page 90 161 2 A 6 1 August 25, 2011 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, what is your recommendation? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Recommendation that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$81.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Securing the property by obtaining a Collier County boarding certificate prior to obtaining Collier County building permits, or a Collier County demolition permit, request all required inspections and obtain a certificate of occupancy for the structure within X amount of days of this hearing or a fine of"X" per days will be imposed for each day the violation remains. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. KAUFMAN: Have you been in contact with the homeowner at all? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Yes, I have. Page 91 161 2 A6 August 25, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: And what do they say? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Well, according to Bruce, that due to the decline in -- due to the economy, they've lost value in the property, him and his investors, and they basically don't have the money right now to continue with the permitting process. He's now -- last conversation I had with him, he's in the process of selling the property. But he hasn't -- he doesn't have any buyers yet. It's going to be a hard sell, I guess. MR. KAUFMAN: That's a problem for -- one of the main problems that we had before the Board is you sell it to somebody else who gets hit with that. So we need to make sure that that does not happen. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Absolutely. MR. KAUFMAN: Well, if you want, I'll try to fill in the blanks on this one. That they get all required permits, as you stated here, within 60 days or a $200 a day fine. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? MR. KAUFMAN: I have one thing. How do we ensure that this house -- I guess it wouldn't clear title inspection if there's a lien on it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Well, that was going to be my discussion. It might help answer that question. I don't want to see 60 days. The respondent's own request for a continuance stated that he's trying to quickly sell this house and get away from this headache. Well, like you said, I don't want to see some unknowing buyer walk into what he thinks is a good deal only to inherit all these issues. I'd rather see a 30-day time frame, and this way we know it will quickly get to the point where a lien is filed against the property and there's no way that someone will close on this without knowing of the problems. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to amend my motion. I agree. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any further discussion? Page 92 x, 61 2 fi A6 1 August 25, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: We amended it to 30 days. MR. MIESZCAK: Thirty days, $200 per day. MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Anyone opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Thanks, Tony. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Thank you. MS. BAKER: Mr. Chair, just for the record as well, once this is order is recorded on the public record, if a potential buyer did a lien search, that would be reported to them as an open code case and that there's a pending order on the property. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, thank you. Next case is going to be Rudy Orantes. Probably not saying that right. Sorry. Colleen? (Investigator Baldwin was duly sworn.) MS. CRAWLEY: Case is in reference to CESD20090015117. Violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Description of violation: Shed built on the rear of the property without Collier County building permits. Page 93 161 2 I A6 August 25, 2011 Location/address where violation exists: 995 20th Street Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34117. Folio No. 53263000069. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Rudy Orantes, 995 20th Street Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34117. Date violation first observed: September 17th, 2009. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: December 31st, 2010. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: January 28th, 2011. Date of reinspection: May 19th, 2011. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. I'd now like to introduce Investigator Baldwin. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Good morning still. For the record, Patrick Baldwin Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20090015117, dealing with the violation of a shed built on the rear of the property without Collier County building permits. Located at 995 20th Street Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34117. Folio No. 53263000069. Service was given on December 31st, 2010 via posting. Now I'd like to present evidence in the following exhibit: One photo taken yesterday, August 24th, 2011. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the photo. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. Page 94 161 oxi2 A6 August 25, 2011 MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: I'd like to present case details on the following. The violation was first observed on September 17th, 2009 by Investigator Scavone. The case was transferred to the foreclosure team because of the fact there was a lis pendens filed on the property by BAC Home Loans and Countrywide Bank. After determining that the bank was not going to abate the violation, the case was transferred over to me. On January 26th, 2011 the owner's brother spoke with my supervisor, Christina Perez, and he stated of that the brother did not have the money to abate the violation, via getting a permit for it, or to remove the shed. And we're here today, the violation still exists. MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion a violation exists. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is the property occupied? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: At one time a few months ago it Page 95 16I . 2A6 August 25, 2011 was occupied. Right now currently it is vacant. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Do you have a recommendation? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Sure. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of$81.72 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: One: Applying for and obtaining or a Collier County building permit or a Collier County demolition permit. Obtain all related inspections and certificate of 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 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 rop �Y e owner. p MR. KAUFMAN: Have you been in contact with the homeowner? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: I have not had any contact. It was January 26th of this year, 2011, my supervisor had contact from the owner's brother and he stated that he was not going to abate the violation. MR. KAUFMAN: So this has been a violation for over two years? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Correct. MR. KAUFMAN: I'll take a shot at it. Thirty days, $200 a day. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Marino. We're going to accept the county's recommendation, op. cost 81.72 within 30 days, $200 per day, and they have 30 days to abate the violation. We have a second. Any discussion? Page 96 161 2 A6 August 25, 2011 (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: The motion carries. Thanks, Investigator Baldwin. Next case is Planning Development, Incorporated. (Investigator Crowley was duly sworn.) MS. CRAWLEY: Case is in reference to CES20100019879. Violation of Ordinance, Section 5.06.06(B) and Section 5.06.10(D) and (E), Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended. Description of violation: Two concrete monument ground signs for Bayshore Club Apartments remaining after all buildings have been removed, pursuant to demolition permits. Location/address where violation exists: 4580 Bayshore Drive, Naples, Florida, 34112. Folio No. 61836480008. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Planning Development, Incorporated, Theresa F. Fernandez as registered agent, 3560 Craft Road, Suite 301, Naples, Florida, 34105. Date violation first observed: October 8th, 2010. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: November 16th, 2010. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: December 10, 2010. Date of reinspection: July 22nd, 2011. Page 97 161 2F-r , 6 August 25, 011 Result of reinspection: Violation remains. Both signs still in place. And now I'd like to introduce Investigator Crowley. INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: Good morning. For the record, Michele Crowley, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This is in reference to the case number as stated dealing with a violation of twos concrete monument signs for what you used to know as the Bayshore Club Apartments located at 4580 Bayshore Road in Collier County. Personal service was given to the president of the planning development, the current owner of the property, by myself in our offices on November 16th, 2010 with a compliance date of December the 10th, 2010. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibit: Consisting of three photographs showing the two signs. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Opposed? (No response.) INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: These photos were taken by myself yesterday, August the 24th, 2011. This first sign shows that -- there are two signs. This is the larger sign that fronts Bayshore Road. This is the northern facing sign of the sign. Page 98 16 t 2 6 August 25, 011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is that the demo permit hanging? INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: No, that's the notice of hearing that I posted on the property several weeks ago. But it was still there, still in the Baggie. This is the reverse side of the sign, the south side, also on Bayshore Drive. And as you can see or know from the ordinance, it requires that the sign be removed, plus its supporting structure. So that would include the concrete foundation that's now overgrown around the sign. The third photograph is the smaller sign that fronts on Thommason Drive. Only one side is visible because of weeds and overgrown shrubbery, so this is the sign that faces Thommason Drive. County ordinance requires the removal of what's known as abandoned signs. And it includes, as I said, the entire concrete supporting structure. A conforming sign, which this is, it did have a permit years ago, the conforming sign shall be considered a conforming abandoned sign or sign structure 90 days after the business ceases operation at that location. Section 5.06.10(E), the owner or person in charge of a vacant property, no buildings, that has a sign or sign structure shall be required to remove all signs and sign structures within 30 days after notice is given. The notice has been given, more than 30 days have elapsed. The signs remain as of 1 :00 p.m. yesterday. The Bayshore Club Apartments were demolished by the county after an agreement with the previous owner of the property after significant in excess of$3 million in fines had accumulated on the property because of orders of the special magistrate. There was then reimbursement by the FDIC to the county after the buildings were demolished. So at this time there are no buildings on the 37-acre parcel, and all that really much remains is a couple of concrete slabs and weeds and these two signs. Page 99 161 2 A6 "4 August 25, 2011 I have spoken both in person, on the phone and via e-mail with Mr. Fernandez. I frankly expected him to be here today. And his position is is that he doesn't want to spend any more money on this property that he purchased at a foreclosure sale, the foreclosure sale. And so he as himself a lienholder against the previous owner, Arboretum Development, now owns the property. CHAIRMAN KELLY: When the county came in to remove all the structures, why didn't the county remove the signs? MR. MARINO: I was going to ask the same question. INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: I can answer that question. It was not done. Demolition permits were obtained by the contractor for the removal of the buildings. There is no demolition permit that's required to remove these particular signs, because there's no electric. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is there a possibility of finding out the scope of work required under that process, please? And that being said, should we continue this until next month? INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: We've already obtained bids for it. I don't know if that's what you mean by the -- MR. L'ESPERANCE: No, the scope of work for the original demolition of the property, I'm just wondering if it included the signs. MS. BAKER: Do you want to swear me in. (Jennifer Baker was duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: At the original time of these violations the buildings were considered one separate case and the sign was considered another issue because it deals with a different code. And that's the way that we do our cases. Assigned case is a completely different code that's cited than the building issue. The signs were not included in the scope of work in the original demo of the structure. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: And technically the signs themselves are not in violation until the parcel becomes vacant without buildings and/or the business ceases operation. Page 100 161 2 AD thw.i August 25, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thirty days afterwards. INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: If there were buildings on there, it would actually be 90 days, both of which have now elapsed, so it doesn't make any difference. MR. MARINO: Michele, that is definitely a concrete sign? It's not one of those faux signs? Because they were doing faux signs for a while instead of concrete. INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: No, it's been there for more than a decade. No, this is definitely concrete signs. MR. KAUFMAN: Does the county have a lien on this property now; do you know? INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: No, the liens were forgiven. Two code enforcement liens were forgiven, as well as the accumulating fines, is my understanding. MS. BAKER: Right. The FDIC reimbursed the county for the abatement costs, and then the Board of Commissioners then forgave the fines, due to payment of all the hard costs on the property. Because the FDIC was the one taking care of the issues. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would you let the current owner know that since he's a lienholder to the previous owner, I guess, he can add this to the list. Get him to go after them civilly. But unfortunately we'll have to rule the current property owner today. INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: He's aware of that. He understands that there's approximately a $35 million mortgage still on the property. MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion we find him in violation. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Lavinski. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. Page 101 161 k2 A6 August 25, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And your recommendation, please. INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: Recommendation would be 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, removing the two concrete monument ground signs for the former Bayshore Club Apartments, including both the sign copy and the entire concrete supporting structure upon which the sign copy is placed within "X" number of days of this hearing or a fine of"X" dollars will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter. As I indicated, no demolition permit is necessary since there is no electric service. Number two: That the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Take a shot at it? MR. KAUFMAN: I'll take a shot at it. I'll fill in the -- the cost will be, what was it 80 -- INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: $80.57. MR. KAUFMAN: Within 30 days. Sixty days to abate the Page 102 161 2 A6 sA August 25, 2011 removal of the signs, and $200 a day thereafter. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Thanks for your recommendation. INVESTIGATOR CROWLEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, next case is going to be Jennifer Samuels. (Investigator Asaro was duly sworn.) MS. CRAWLEY: Case is in reference to CESD20090000661, violation of the Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Description of violation: Canceled Permit No. 2008040049 for single-family home with carport shutters, and Permit No. 2008040055 for guesthouse. Location/address where violation exists: 4320 14th Street Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120. Folio No. 39602680006. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Jennifer Carolyn Samuels, 4836 Northwest 91st Terrace, Sunrise, Florida, 33351. Date violation first observed: January 7th, 2009. Page 103 161 2 Ab ovi August 25, 2011 Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: April 25th, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: May 13th, 2011. Date of reinspection: June 6th, 2011. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. I'd now like to introduce Investigator Asaro. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: For the record, Tony Asaro, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20090000 -- excuse me, 90000661, pertaining to a vacant secured single-family home located at 4320 14th Street Northeast, Folio No. 39602680006, with violations consisting of: Canceled Collier County building Permit No. 2008040049 for the main structure, the carport and shutters, and canceled Permit No. 2008040055 for a guesthouse. On April 25th, 2011 a Notice of Violation was posted on the property. At this time I would like to present case evidence: Two photos dated January 14th, 2011. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Lavinski. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) Page 104 161 2P" 6 August 25, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: After several attempts to contact the property owner by correspondence and several site visits, the violations remain with no contact from the property owner. There is no pool on the property either. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Interesting. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is that the main house or guesthouse? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: That is the guesthouse, and that's a carport. MR. MIESZCAK: Looks like a prison. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other pictures? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: No, that's it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the Board? MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion we find him in violation. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you have a recommendation? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Yes, I do. Recommendation 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: Obtaining all required Page 105 A6 2011 161 Augu 25, Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion or occupancy within "X" amount of days of this hearing or a fine of "X" amount of dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. 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: Is this in lis pendens? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: Yes, it is. MR. KAUFMAN: And the -- INVESTIGATOR ASARO: As far as I know today it's in lis pendens. MR. KAUFMAN: The cost of this is 80 dollars and? INVESTIGATOR ASARO: $81.15. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay, I'll give it a shot. Sixty days, 81.15 paid within 30 days. Sixty days violation abated or $200 a day thereafter. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Got that, Jean? MS. RAWSON: Got it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 106 161 2 A 6 ski August 25, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Carries. Thank you, Tony. INVESTIGATOR ASARO: All right, thanks. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next case is going to be -- oh, the next one's withdrawn, which would have been Lunar. Now we're moving on to Campbell, and there are two cases with the same respondent. The first case -- go ahead. MS. BAKER: We would like to present -- the testimony is the same for both cases, so he would like to present testimony for both the cases, and then if you want to do separate orders, we'll read the statement of violation off for each case. But then his testimony will be the same for both. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Perfect. Colleen, if you want to read both of them, that would be great. (Investigator Baldwin was duly sworn.) MS. CRAWLEY: This is in reference to Case CENA20110000844, violation of Ordinance Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 54, Article 6, Section 54-181. Description of violation: Litter consisting of but not limited to tires, refuse, broken household items, et cetera. Location/address where violation exists: 2331 8th Avenue Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34117. Folio No. 39393640009. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Robert D. Campbell, Jr. and Nina M. Campbell, 2331 8th Avenue Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34117. Date violation first observed: January 20th, 2011. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: April Page 107 161 2 A6 August 25, 2011 15th, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: May 10th, 2011. Date of reinspection: July 7th, 2011. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. Second case is CEV20110000842, violation of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Article 3, Chapter 130, Section 130-95. Description of violation: Unlicensed vehicles on the Estates zoned property. Location/address where violation exists: 2331 Eighth Avenue Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34117. Folio No. 39393640009. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Robert D. Campbell, Jr. and Nina M. Campbell, 2331 Eighth Avenue Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34117. Date violation first observed: January 20th, 2011. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: April 15th, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: May 11th, 2011. Date of reinspection: May 26th, 2011. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. And I'd like to introduce Investigator Baldwin. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Good afternoon now. For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to two cases: Case No. CENA20110000844, dealing with litter consisting of but not limited to tires, refuse, broken household goods, et cetera. And Case No. CEV20010000842, dealing with unlicensed vehicles on an Estates zoned property located at 2331 Eighth Ave. Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34117. Folio No. 39393640009. Service was given on April 15th, 2011. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Two photos taken July 27th, 2011, and two photos taken yesterday, Page 108 161 2 A6 M August 25, 2011 August 24th, 2011. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: I'd like to present the following case details: On January 20th, 2011 I observed several unlicensed vehicles and litter on the Estates zoned property. I met with the owner Robert Campbell on March 24th, 2011. He asked for a one-month extension. I granted him that extension. The violation still wasn't abated, so I think prepared the case for last month's CEB hearing. The owners, Nina and Robert Campbell, requested a continuance. It was granted by the Board last CEB. I met with the owners a day before the last board hearing and they stated that the violation would be abated so we would not be able to come here today to this hearing. As of yesterday the violations still were not abated. In this photo here, that photo I believe was taken yesterday. That photo yesterday, you can still see the delapidated appeared to be a mobile home or structure in the back of the property, a mobile home or campers. And that was still the unlicensed vehicle that I observed previously on January 20th, 2011. Page 109 161 2 A6 04 August 25, 2011 MR. L'ESPERANCE: The respondents live at this property? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Yes, they do. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other presentation? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: No, that's final. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Questions from the Board? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to find them in violation. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Do you have a recommendation? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: I do. The first case, for the litter, that the Code Enforcement Board order the respondent to pay operational costs in the amount of$80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: One, removing all litter to a site intended for final disposal or store desired items within a completely enclosed structure 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 inspection to confirm abatement. Page 110 161 2 A6 August 25, 2011 If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to fill in the blanks. On the litter, they pay the operational fee of-- INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: $80.86. MR. KAUFMAN: Within 30 days. $100 a day after seven days for the litter. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a second. Any discussion? Any public discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, all in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries. That, just for the record, Jean, to make sure you have it, was CENA20110000844. Now, your recommendation for the next case? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Recommendation for Case No. CEV20110000842, 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 Page 111 x61 2A6 August 25, 2011 violations by, one: Obtaining and affixing a valid license plate for each vehicle/trailer, repair defects so that the vehicles/trailers are immediately operable, or store vehicles/trailers within the confines of a completely enclosed permanent structure 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 inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Somebody want to take this one? MR. KAUFMAN: I'll give it a whirl. Eighty dollars and -- MR. MIESZCAK: Fifty-seven. MR. KAUFMAN: 80.57 within 30 days. Violation needs to be abated within three days or a $50 a day fine. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by -- was that Jim? MR. LAVINSKI: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 112 161 2 A6 August 25, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. Thank you, Investigator. Was there a problem with the seven day? MS. BAKER: No. MR. MIESZCAK: That was three. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And I think that concludes our public hearings. We're about to move to old business here. Do you need a break? THE COURT REPORTER: Five minutes? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Five minutes? No problem, we'll do a five-minute break and then come right back. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: We're going to call the Code Enforcement Board meeting back to order. We're moving on to five, old business. Motion for imposition of fines. The first one's going to be Richard and Jeffrey -- Richard Mercer, Jeffrey and Amy Mercer. MS. BAKER: The county is requesting to withdraw this case. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, it's been withdrawn. In that case we'll move to our next case, which is going to be Close-Up Creatures, Incorporated, doing business as Ngala. MR. MARINO: And I'm going to go sit. CHAIRMAN KELLY: For the record, Mr. Marino's recused himself from this case. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'm Donovan Smith, representing Ngala Wildlife Preserve. (Supervisor Letourneau and Mr. Donovan Smith were duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is a violation of Collier County Ordinance 91-102, as Page 113 161 2 A6 August 25, 2011 amended. Codified as the Collier County Land Development Code, Section 3.8.3, subsection 3, Section 3.11.3.1 and Section 3.11.3.2 and 3.93. Location of violation is 2755 Ynez Road Southwest, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 033500005. Description: It's a parcel of 10 acres or more cleared without vegetation permit, and improved with a storage barn, exotic animal barn and pen. Permanent tent and toilet facilities without an Environmental Impact Statement being submitted and approved or the area surveyed for possible presence of endangered species. Past order: On February 27th, 2003, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact and conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board, OR 3244, Page 0056 for more information. The property is in compliance with the CEB orders as of May 3rd, 2011. The fines and cost to date are described as the following: Order item number one and two, fines at the rate of$100 per day for the period between August 9th, 2009 and May 3rd, 2011, totaling 632 days for the total fine amount of$63,200. Order item number five, operational costs of$81.15 have been paved. Total amount due today, $63,200. The county recommends full abatement of fines as the violation is abated and operational costs have been paid. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion we abate the fine. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'd like to second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. Page 114 161 2 A 6 1 August 25, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. BAKER: And just for the record, I would just like to make a comment to -- there was an additional case which was Case 2002080974, or otherwise known as CEB Case 2003-008. This case has also been closed. This case was withdrawn from the hearing agenda at the same time as the case that we were just speaking of now, pending the outcome of what happened with that case. Both cases have been taken care of. We will -- that case has been closed, we will not be moving forward with that case. So I just want to get that on the record. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Sorry to make you sit around all day, but -- MR. SMITH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- thanks for taking care of it. MR. MIESZCAK: Well, for 63,000, I'd sit around. MR. SMITH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: The next case is J & C Francois family, limited partnership. (Supervisor Letourneau was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: For the record, once again, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in regards to CEB Case CESD20110003690, the violations of the Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.13, subsection F. Location of the violation is 5349 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 36319960009. Violation description is annual monitoring report has not been Page 115 161 2 A6 August 25, 2011 turned in. The past order. On May 26th, 2011 the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4690, Page 267 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the CEB orders as of August 25th, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order item number one and two, fines at the rate of$100 per day for the period between July 26th, 2011 and August 25th, 2011, for 31 days for the total fine amount of$3,100. The fines continue to accrue. Order item number five, operational costs of$81.15 have not been paid. Total amount due today: $3,181.15. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Anyone -- MR. LAVINSKI: Motion to impose the fines. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the fines will be imposed. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Thank you, gentlemen. Page 116 161 2 A6 August 25, 2011 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. That concludes all of our old business. Is there any new business? MS. BAKER: No. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Yes, I have a question. Would it be possible for the county staff to look into the feasibility, possibility of perhaps electronically presenting this to us instead of in a paper fashion? MR. KELLY: I-Pads would be nice. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I didn't say that, but that would be nice. But I didn't say that. MS. BAKER: We can look into it. The only problem is trying to e-mail a document that is that large. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Could it be presented on these screens here? I'm just wondering. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We can FTP it and then you can just show us here on these screens. MS. BAKER: We can look into it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, very good. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Just talking about possibility. Maybe, maybe not. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I think it's a good idea. I second that one. MS. RAWSON: You can get us I-Pads and load our I-Pads and bring them to us every month. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I've got an I-Pad. MR. KELLY: HP had a real big sale. I could have got them for 100 bucks apiece. I bought 10. MR. MARINO: County will get a discount. MR. KAUFMAN: I have one thing. Is it possible -- we probably don't control it -- MR. MARINO: I make a motion. Page 117 161 2 A6 1 August 25, 2011 MR. KAUFMAN: -- that the minutes could be sent out sooner? I just got the minutes yesterday afternoon at 3:00. MS. BAKER: That was an issue with the clerk's office and they apologized for that. We didn't get them till yesterday, so we sent them as soon as we could. But they did apologize for the delay on that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: There were no items being forwarded to the county attorney's office for foreclosure. Are there any reports or comments? MS. BAKER: Yes, we do. I just want to let you know that NABOR has put our Thinking of Buying a Home or Investment Property on their website. So this is now available to the real estate agents for Naples. And then for our regular weekly report, these are our total cumulative numbers through August 21st. Total abatement cost paid by lenders is $2,278,719.91. Total violations abated by lenders, 1,870. And total open foreclosure cases are 162. And the total weekly savings to the county was $11,753.50. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Excellent. Great job to the foreclosure task force. Our next meeting date is going to be September 22nd, 2011. MR. KAUFMAN: One quick item. The letter that Diane wrote to NABOR was published in their newsletter and it was excellent. We extend our thanks. CHAIRMAN KELLY: With that, I'll -- MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to adjourn. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. Page 118 161 2 A6 August 25, 2011 MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right, we'll see you next month. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:34 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD 401101111111111., KEN KELLY, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on as presented or as corrected Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 119 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS T AM -FIRST NAME-MID LE NAME NAME OF BOARD,COUNCIL,COMMISSION,AUTHORITY,OR COMMITTEE AK1415 — oA Cc 14'0604 0It0, 30,,Ao a-(Coll e4,Cre..I. MA�nING ADDRESS THE BOARD,COUNCIL,COMMISSION,AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON CITY �I �/ /R ��T COUNTY WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: ❑OTHER LOCAL AGENCY . /��/�� G NCY N e CP/!lwe it NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: DATE N WHIC OTE OCC 'RED ) MY POSITION IS: - ![T� �/ ❑ ELECTIVE �POINTIVE uS t.r� WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B +pis form is for use by any person serving at the county,city,or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board,council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal(other than a government agency)by whom he or she is retained(including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained);to the special private gain or loss of a relative;or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre,one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister,father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A"business associate"means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner,joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder(where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). . . . . . . . . . . * . . * . . ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above,you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting;and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting,who should incorporate the form in the minutes. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision,whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You must complete and file this form(before making any attempt to influence the decision)with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) CE FORM 8B-EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 1 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) • A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who must incorporate the form in the minutes.A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency,and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTERE T HA/Z/tr ,hereby disclose that on 2g- ,20 1 : (a)A measure came or will come before my agency which(check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, • inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, • inured to the special gain or loss of ,by whom I am retained;or inured to the special gain or loss of ,which is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b)The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows:eut" 9141. 41..4 Date Filed Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED$10,000. CE FORM 8B-EFF.1/2000 PAGE 2