Loading...
CEB Minutes 01/19/2012 RJanuary 19, 2012 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE- CODE CnDE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida January 19, 2012 MAR 0 5 2012 Board of County Commissioners LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having .4 conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION at Growth Management Division Conference Room 609/6105 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Kenneth Kelly Fiala Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Jen Baker, Code Enforcement Specialist Colleen Crawley, Code Enforcement Page 1 Larry Mieszcak Ron Doino (Alternate) Chris Hudson (Alternate) Robert Kaufman James Lavinski Gerald Lefebvre Lionel L'Esperance Tony Marino Misc. Comes: Date: 5-( 27-A t 2 item S: t Ls -Z 2W 3 Conies to: CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA Date: January 19, 2012 Location: 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Growth Management Division Planning & Regulation Conference Room 609/610 NOTICE: THE RESPONDENT MAY BE LIMITED TO TWENTY (20) MINUTES FOR CASE PRESENTATION UNLESS ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE BOARD. PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. ALL PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN THE PUBLIC HEARING ARE ASKED TO OBSERVE ROBERTS RULES OF ORDER AND SPEAK ONE AT A TIME SO THAT THE COURT REPORTER CAN RECORD ALL STATEMENTS BEING MADE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1. ROLL CALL Kenneth Kelly, Chair Robert Kaufman, Vice Chair Gerald Lefebvre James Lavinski Larry Mieszcak 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — A. November 18, 2011 Hearing 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MOTIONS A. MOTIONS Motion for Continuance Motion for Extension of Time Lionel L' Esperance Tony Marino Ronald Doino, Alternate Chris Hudson, Alternate 1. Rene Zafra Jr. & Maria Zafra CESD20090008252 2. BQ Concrete, LLC. CELU20100021891 3. Maderline & Edileydis Gonzalez CESD20110000679 4. Urbano Hernandez & Manuel Hernandez CESD20110001255 B. STIPULATIONS C. HEARINGS CASE NO: CESD20110008948 OWNER: PHILIPPE QUENTEL OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR AZURE BOTTS VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) AND 5.03.02(A), FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1, SECTIONS 105.1 AND 110.4 PERMIT 890002500 FOR POOL ADDITION AND EXISTING FOLIO NO: FENCE HAS BEEN CANCELLED BECAUSE A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION WASN'T VIOLATION OBTAINED. WOODEN FENCE HASN'T BEEN MAINTAINED AND IS FALLING OVER FOLIO NO: 61481040000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2979 FRANCIS AVE. NAPLES, FL CASE NO: CEAU20110000498 OWNER: MATTHEW ARSENAULT & CHRISTINA ARSENAULT OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1 WHITE FENCE SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY AND A BROWN WOODEN FENCE NEXT TO THE PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE FOLIO NO: 37226440006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1056 TH ST. S.E. NAPLES, FL 3. 4. 6. CASE NO: CESD20110000448 OWNER: MATTHEW ARSENAULT & CHRISTINA ARSENAULT OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) AND SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i) SHED CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT COLLIER BUILDING PERMITS FOLIO NO: 37226440006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1056 TH ST. S.E. NAPLES, FL CASE NO: CESD20110013221 OWNER: DEUTSCHE BK NATIONAL TRUST CO. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JONATHAN MUSSE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(e) A 26FT X 30 FT STORY ADDITION ON THE SIDE OF THE RESIDENCE AND A 18FT X 56FT SCREEN PORCH ON THE REAR OF THE RESIDENCE. BOTH ADDITIONS WERE CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT VALID COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS FOLIO NO: 6661360001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 45407 TH AVE NW NAPLES, FL CASE NO: CESD20110009942 OWNER: AURA RODULFO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOE MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) HORSE STABLE/BARN WITH UNPERMITTED ELECTRIC AND PLUMBING FOLIO NO: 337440003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2390 MARKLEY AVE. NAPLES, FL CASE NO: CESD20100002858 OWNER: ROBERT GRIFFIN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRIS AMBACH VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) NO COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS FOR THE HOUSE BUILT ON PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 37543240002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 591 10TH AVE N.W. NAPLES, FL 7 8. 10. CASE NO: CESD20110009549 OWNER: CARLOS & TERESA MORALES OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOE MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i) PERMITS FOR THE POOL (2003101452) AND POOL ENCLOSURE (2002080645) THAT DID NOT COMPLETE ALL INSPECTIONS AND OBTAIN CERTIFICATES OF COMPLETION /OCCUPANCY. THERE IS ALSO A SHED FOLIO NO: THAT WAS BUILT OVER THE WELL PUMP THAT WAS NOT PERMITTED. FOLIO NO: 37930920003 VIOLATION 2961 SANBORN AVE. NAPLES, FL ADDRESS: 12885 COLLIER BLVD. NAPLES, FL CASE NO: CENA20110011180 OWNER: RADIO ROAD DEVELOPMENT, LLC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ANDREW KELLY VIOLATIONS: DECLARATION OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, WEEDS AND EXOTICS. COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 54 ENVIRONMENT, ARTICLE VI WEEDS LITTER AND EXOTICS, SECTION 54- 185(d) THE PRESENCE OF PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, BRAZILIAN PEPPER, ON FOLIO NO: THE UNIMPROVED PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FEET OF IMPROVED PROPERTY FOLIO NO: 296440704 VIOLATION 2961 SANBORN AVE. NAPLES, FL ADDRESS: 8001 RADIO ROAD NAPLES, FL CASE NO: CESD20110002124 OWNER: CARLOS & CYNTHIA GONZALEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) A SHED WITH ELECTRIC AND PLUMBING CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT FOLIO NO: 80480006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2502 LAKE TRAFFORD RD. IMMOKALEE, FL CASE NO: CESD20110002506 OWNER: MICHAEL R. STEVENS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRIS AMBACH VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) PLUMBING AND ELECTRIC THROUGHOUT THE BUILDING TO INCLUDE A KITCHEN AND BATHROOM. NO COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS OBTAINED FOLIO NO: 209160408 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2961 SANBORN AVE. NAPLES, FL 11 12 13 14. CASE NO: CESD20110000237 OWNER: FRIENDSHIP BAPTIST CHURCH OF IMMOKALEE FLORIDA, INC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR WELDON WALKER VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.13(F) ANNUAL PUD MONITORING REPOST HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTED FOLIO NO: 00084080004 VIOLATION 37805880003 ADDRESS: 612 11TH STREET N. IMMOKALEE, FL CASE NO: CESD20110007320 OWNER: MILAGRO M & JOSE A COUTIN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JANIS POTTER VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) PERMIT NUMBER 2004102144 EXPIRED ON APRIL 23, 2005. NO FOLIO NO: CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION OBTAINED FOLIO NO: 37805880003 VIOLATION 4400 19TH PLACE SW NAPLES, FL ADDRESS: 116022 ND AVE NE NAPLES, FL CASE NO: CESD20110010697 OWNER: NORMA GOMEZ & JOSE CHOY OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOE MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) UNPERMITTED OUTDOOR KITCHEN UNDERNEATH THE LANAI FOLIO NO: 35755760000 VIOLATION ENCLOSURE. ADDRESS: 4400 19TH PLACE SW NAPLES, FL CASE NO: CESD20110012249 OWNER: KENNETH T. JENKINS & AUNDREA L. JENKINS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRIS AMBACH VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) POOL PERMIT EXPIRED WITHOUT RECEIVING A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION /OCCUPANCY AND NO PERMITS ON FILE FOR THE POOL SCREEN ENCLOSURE. FOLIO NO: 36760921008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 260 WEBER BLVD. S. NAPLES, FL 15 16. 17 18 CASE NO: CEPM20110012262 OWNER: KENNETH T. JENKINS & AUNDREA L. JENKINS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRIS AMBACH VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE I, PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(15) GREEN STAGNANT POOL FOLIO NO: 36760921008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 260 WEBER BLVD. S. NAPLES, FL CASE NO: CELU20080009976 OWNER: JOYCE HOLLAND OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DANNY CONDOMINA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 1.04.01(A) AND 2.03.01(A)(1)(a)(2)(i)(f), AND COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, SECTION 126- 111(b) HORSE STABLE OPERATION ON PROPERTY FOLIO NO: WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING COLLIER COUNTY APPROVAL THROUGH THE VIOLATION ISSUANCE OF A SITE IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND WITHOUT THE ISSUANCE OF A ADDRESS: LOCAL BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT FOLIO NO: 000412480001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5450 STABLE WAY NAPLES, FL CASE NO: CESD20100018107 OWNER: BUTTONWOOD PARTNERS, LLC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRIS AMBACH VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) NO ACTIVE PERMIT ON FILE FOR THE DEMOLITION OF THE HOME ON PROPERTY FOLIO NO: 205400007 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3500 TREE FARM RD. NAPLES, FL CASE NO: CESD20110011215 OWNER: GUERDA CENATUS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOE MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) PERMIT 2008050413 TO CONVERT EXISTING LANAI TO FAMILY ROOM WITH ELECTRIC THAT EXPIRED WITHOUT COMPLETING ALL INSPECTIONS FOLIO NO: 35757280009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 440018 TH PLACE S.W. NAPLES, FL 19. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 20. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5. OLD BUSINESS CESD20110000038 OLGA CANOVA & REBECCA M. RIOS INVESTIGATOR WELDON WALKER COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) ENCLOSED PORCH, ADDITIONS AND SHED. 63856880000 511 JEFFERSON AVENUE W. IMMOKALEE, FL CES20110006426 CARLISLE/ WILSON PLAZA, LLC. INVESTIGATOR SHERRY PATTERSON COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 5.06.1l(A)(1) AND 5.06.07(A) POLE SIGN- WILSON PLAZA, ALTERED WITHOUT REQUIRED PERMIT. WALL SIGN- FARMER JACK'S SUPERMARKET, ALTERED WITHOUT REQUIRED PERMIT 37221120305 50 WILSON BLVD. S. NAPLES, FL A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens CASE NO: CEVR20100020717 OWNER: PALM FOUNDATION II, INC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ANDREW KELLY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 4.06.05(K)(2), MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPING AND COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 91 -102, SECTION 3.5.7.2.5 LITTORAL SHELF PLANTING AREA PROPERTY IS NOT BEING MAINTAINED WITH DEAD REQUIRED PLANT MATERIAL AND OVERGROWTH AROUND LAKES. LITTORAL SHELF PLANTING AREAS ARE NOT BEING MAINTAINED AND THERE IS AN OVERGROWTH OF EXOTICS FOLIO NO: 26169500108 VIOLATION ADDRESS: NO SITE ADDRESS 4. CASE NO: CEVR20100020718 OWNER: PALM FOUNDATION II, INC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ANDREW KELLY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 4.06.05(K)(2), MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPING AND COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 91 -102, SECTION 3.5.7.2.5 LITTORAL SHELF PLANTING AREA PROPERTY IS NOT BEING MAINTAINED WITH DEAD REQUIRED PLANT MATERIAL AND OVERGROWTH AROUND LAKES. LITTORAL SHELF PLANTING AREAS ARE NOT BEING MAINTAINED AND THERE IS AN OVERGROWTH OF EXOTICS FOLIO NO: 26169500085 VIOLATION 40628400107 ADDRESS: NO SITE ADDRESS CASE NO: 2007090878 OWNER: JON R & DENISE T. C. BRIMMER OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRIS AMBACH VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06(B)(1)(e) AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i) AND THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2004 EDITION, SECTION 105.1 DETACHED GARAGE BUILT IN REAR YARD WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS FOLIO NO: 37110760009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5617 TH STREET N.W. NAPLES, FL CASE NO: CESD20100009141 OWNER: GLORIA PERDIGON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE II, FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, SECTION 22- 26(b)(104.5.1.4.4) AND CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1 AND ORDINANCE 04 -41 AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i) 3 DOG KENNELS, CARPORTS, HORSE STABLE BUILT WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS AND A GUEST HOUSE WITH EXPIRED PERMIT NUMBER 2005020427 FOLIO NO: 40628400107 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 29318 TH AVENUE N.E. NAPLES, FL CASE NO: CESD20110007295 OWNER: PINEGATE 135, LLC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOE MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i) ALTERATION OF INTERIOR OFFICE WITHOUT PERMITS FOLIO NO: 37930510002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4075 PINE RIDGE RD. NAPLES, FL 9 CASE NO: CEAU20110011945 OWNER: SERGIO & SARA GARITA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRIS AMBACH VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS SECTION 105.1 FENCE AROUND THE PROPERTY WITHOUT ALL REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY FOLIO NO: PERMITS FOLIO NO: 37011920003 VIOLATION 2547 BARRETT AVE. NAPLES, FL ADDRESS: 42015 TH STREET S.W. NAPLES, FL CASE NO: CESD20100005204 OWNER: CRESCENCIO LOPEZ GARCIA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) TWO MOBILE HOMES, UNATTACHED CARPORT WITH AN EXPIRED PERMIT, AND A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE THAT WAS ALTERED / ADDED TO WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT FOLIO NO: 124120002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 604 BOSTON AVENUE IMMOKALEE, FL CASE NO: CESD20110006100 OWNER: HARRY E. MONTZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR AZURE BOTTS VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) EXTENSION OF ROOF OVER CARPORT AND FRONT DOOR AREA FOLIO NO: 81730640005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2547 BARRETT AVE. NAPLES, FL CASE NO: CESD20100005061 OWNER: JUAN SANCHEZ OLVERA & PAMELA JEAN SANCHEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR WELDON WALKER VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) THREE MOBILE HOMES INSTALLED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS FOLIO NO: 73181120001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 603 CLIFTON ST. UNIT 1 IMMOKALEE, FL 10. 11 12 13 CASE NO: CESD20090015436 OWNER: ANNE JULES DELVA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR AZURE BOTTS VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 22, BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS ARTICLE II, FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, ADOPTION AND AMENDMENT OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, SECTION 22- 26(b)(104.5.1.4.4) PERMIT # 200805125 EXPIRED ON MAY 4, 2009 WITHOUT COMPLETING THE WORK FOLIO NO: 74411360006 VIOLATION PERMITS ADDRESS: 3404 SEMINOLE AVE. NAPLES, FL CASE NO: CESD20090005007 OWNER: ROXAN SOROKOTY TR., WALTER G. SOROKOTY JR. EST. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR AZURE BOTTS VIOLATIONS: 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 AND ORDINANCE 04 -41, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) AND 10.02.06(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 FOLIO NO: 387040000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2435 TAMIAMI TRAIL E. UNIT 9 NAPLES, FL CASE NO: CESD20100017997 OWNER: CONTINENTAL FURNISHINGS, INC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR AZURE BOTTS VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1 AND ORDINANCE 0441 AS AMENDED, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i) INTERIOR ALTERATIONS / ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE CONSISTING OF, BUT NOT LIMITED TO; STRUCTURAL, WALL HAS BEEN REMOVED AND NEW WALLS BUILT AND ELECTRICAL HAS BEEN ADDED/ ALTERED OR REMOVED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING ALL REQUIRED BUILDING PERMITS FOLIO NO: 67080200009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4400 TAMIAMI TRAIL E. NAPLES, FL CASE NO: CEPM20100020710 OWNER: IVY JEAN NEBUS, JUDY ANN BLAKE & BETTY JO ROBERTSON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JEFF LETOURNEAU VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, BUILDINGS ARTICLE VI, PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22 -240, SUBSECTIONS (1)(n), (1)(a), (1)(e), (1)(b), (1)0), AND (1)(n)(1) ALL STRUCTURES ON THIS PROPERTY ARE IN VARYING STATES OF DECAY WITH NUMEROUS SEVERE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE VIOLATIONS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ROOF DAMAGE, EXTERIOR WALL DAMAGE, FOUNDATION DAMAGE, MOLD, WINDOW AND DOOR DAMAGE, AND IN NEED OF PAINT OR EXTERIOR COATING FOLIO NO: 275560003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3994 MERCANTILE AVE. NAPLES, FL B. Motion for Reduction of Fines/Lien 6. NEW BUSINESS 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens B. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. 8. REPORTS 9. COMMENTS 10. NEXT MEETING DAM- February 23, 2012 11. ADJOURN January 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board meeting to order for January 19, 2012. Notice: Respondent may be limited to 20 minutes per 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 chairman. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Roberts Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. May I have roll call, please. MS. BAKER: Mr. Ken Kelly? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Robert Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Tony Marino? MR. MARINO: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Chris Hudson? MR. HUDSON: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Larry Mieszcak? MR. MIESZCAK: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. James Lavinski? J January 19, 2012 MR. LAVINSKI: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Tony (sic) Doino -- Ron Doino? MR. DOINO: Here. MS. BAKER: Sorry. CHAIRMAN KELLY: For the record, we do have a full board and full alternates. The alternates will participate in discussions but will not have voting rights for today's session. THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, the alternates are? CHAIRMAN KELLY: The alternates are Ron and Chris. THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have any changes to the agenda? MS. BAKER: Yes, we do. Under number 4, public hearings, motions, letter A, motions, we have three -- I'm sorry, two additions under motion for extension of time. Number five will be Collier Realtor Corp., Case CESD20100003739. Number six will be Ruth Ann Powell, Case CESD20110002234. Under B. stipulations, we have eight stipulations. Number one will be Michael Stevens, Case CESD20110002506. Number two, Carlisle /Wilson Plaza, Case CES20110006426. Number three, Carlos Gonzalez and Cynthia Gonzalez, Case CESD20110002124. Number four, Aura Rodulfo, Case CESD20110009942. Number five, Joyce Holland, Case CELU20080009976. Number six, Matthew Arsenault and Christina Arsenault, Case CEAU2011000498. Number seven, Matthew Arsenault and Christina Arsenault, Case CESD20110000448. Number eight, Olga Canova and Rebecca M. Rios, Case CESD2011000003 8. Under C. hearings, number eight, Case CENA20110011180, Radio Road Development, LLC has been withdrawn. Page 3 January 19, 2012 Number 11, Case CESD20110000237, Friendship Baptist Church of Immokalee, Florida, Inc. has been withdrawn. Number 13, Case CESD20110010697, Norma Gomez and Jose Choy has been withdrawn. Number 17, Case CESD20100018107, Buttonwood Partners, LLC has been withdrawn. And that's all the changes that we have. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to approve. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries unanimously. Moving on to the approval of minutes for last meeting, which was all the way back on November 18th, 2011. Do we have any changes, suggestions? If not, entertain a motion to approve. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to approve. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. Any discussion? (No response.) January 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. Now moving on to public hearings /motions. Letter A, motions, motion for extension of time. Number one, Rene Zafra and Maria Zafra. Are the respondents here? (No response.) INVESTIGATOR POTTER: For the record, Janis Potter, Investigator, Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. INVESTIGATOR POTTER: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would you like to read the stipulation into the record, please? MR. KAUFMAN- Extension. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'm sorry, extension. Apologize. Would you like to explain the circumstances behind the request for the extension, and does the county have any issues with the extension? INVESTIGATOR POTTER: I believe Mr. Rene Zafra has requested 120 days. He sent in a letter or e -mail to Ms. Crawley requesting an extension of 120 days. He's not able to make it here today due to work circumstances. The most recent letter from the health department has rejected -- Page 5 January 19, 2012 all of the reviews have been rejected since the inception of getting the permit in place. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Does the county have any objection to the extension? INVESTIGATOR POTTER: I don't, no. CHAIRMAN KELLY: From the Board, questions? MR. KAUFMAN: I do. This started a long time ago, and I believe that first they were asking for a 120 -day extension, then there was a 60 -day extension, another 60 -day extension, and now they're looking for another six -month extension. I think the first extension was a year. INVESTIGATOR POTTER: He signed a stipulation in February of 2011 for 120 days. MR. KAUFMAN: Right. And then in August, 60 days. And then in November, another 60 days. INVESTIGATOR POTTER: July, 60 days, and October, 60 days. MR. KAUFMAN: Was the $80.57 cost paid? INVESTIGATOR POTTER: Yes, it's been paid. MR. KAUFMAN: It seems to me that this is going on forever. I'm not for extending this for six months more. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to deny -- MR. KAUFMAN: Second. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- the extension of time. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. Any discussion? MR. MIESZCAK: Just one comment. Do you feel it's a health issue of -- what you're stating, more so than anything else? MR. KAUFMAN: This is a deal where they were going to -- they added a bedroom and they needed an additional septic system. I don't know whether they're using that or not, that facility. I guess a bathroom was added to the existing system. And that's a violation, January 19, 2012 according to the health department. I don't think it's a safety, but I wouldn't know. I'd rely on the county. INVESTIGATOR POTTER: I know that -- I don't know if it's being used or not. MR. MIESZCAK: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: If not, we'll call to a vote. All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously to deny the extension. Next case is going to be case number two, BQ Concrete, LLC. Are the respondents here? (Speakers were duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: Could you state your name, please. MR. QUARLES: Buddy Quarles. Q- U- A- R- L -E -S. MR. UESPERANCE: Sir, could you raise the microphone so it's a little closer to your mouth? Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning, sir. MR. QUARLES: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a receipt of your letter. But since you're here, if you'd like to just plainly tell what's going on and see if we can't help. MR. QUARLES: Yeah, first of all, we had the plans all done to Page 7 January 19, 2012 build the home and we had some issue with the setbacks of the canal. We had a hidden setback. And we found the setback after we had the house all planned and all built -- not built, but drawn. And then we had to go to the engineer and redo it again. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Gotcha. And you're asking for six months? MR. QUARLES: Yeah, approximately six months. I'm going through a divorce, and it's taking a little longer. And I have a letter from my lawyer right here, if you guys want to read it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you'd like, you can verbally tell us about the letter. But if you enter it into evidence, we would retain that for public record. So it's up to you. I mean, if you want to tell us what it says. If someone wants objects to it and wants to see it then we would have to enter it, but it's up to you. Right now it would just be verbal testimony. MR. QUARLES: Okay, yes, it's pretty much saying that my lawyer says stop everything until the divorce is final. Because she wants to take things. My lawyer said just kind of close it off until, you know, the divorce is final. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any projection on when that will be completed, your divorce finalized? MR. QUARLES: November, approximately. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. QUARLES: I mean, the home is all set, the pins are ready. All the plans are ready. I mean, they're all ready to go. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Joe, does the county have any objection to six months? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: No, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: There's nothing there that's built or -- INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Only thing on the property is the garage right now, so it's not a health and safety issue. MR. QUARLES: It might take longer than six months. Just to January 19, 2012 let you -- I don't want to keep on coming back here. MR. LEFEBVRE: Would the board object to a one -year extension? MR. MIESZCAK: I'd make a motion one year. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, we have a motion, we have a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there any objections with the one year? MR. QUARLES: No, I'm good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously for a one -year extension. MR. LEFEBVRE: One question. Will the violation go away once the permit is pulled, or does he have to have a C.O. for the house? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: He still has to have the house built. MR. LEFEBVRE: It has to be CO'd? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: So if the divorce is finalized in November, I mean, it would take -- he'll probably be coming back still for an extension of time? January 19, 2012 INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Possibly. MR. QUARLES: I hope no. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good luck. MR. QUARLES: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, next case, case number three, is going to be Gonzalez. Are the respondents here? (Speakers were duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your names, please? MS. GARRIDO: Maderline Garrido. THE COURT REPORTER: Would you spell your name, please. MS. GARRIDO: G- A- R- R- I -D -O. MS. GONZALEZ: Edileydis Gonzalez. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. Since you're here, I know we have a letter, but if you would like to just tell us what's going on and what you'd like from us, maybe we can help. MS. GONZALEZ: We're just -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Pull the mic down a little closer. MS. GONZALEZ: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. MS. GONZALEZ: We're just asking for a little more extension, because we already have the house already with the roof, the outside, almost -- couple things inside. And we just run out of little bit of position to keep on going with the construction. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is it a financial issue? MS. GONZALEZ: Yeah, something like that. It's more or less financial than just to finish -- we'd like to finish it as soon as possible, but we don't have the money to do it. So we already have most of the things done, the basics, and -- but not all. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Azure, any objection from the county for the extension of six months? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: No, not at all. I spoke with Mr. Page 10 January 19, 2012 Gonzalez, and they've made great progress. They have all the exterior walls, the roof is in, windows and doors are in, the interior is sealed, the framing work for the interior walls have been completed. And their last inspection was actually December 15th, and he did explain that. They've exulted (sic) their money at this point in time with just what they've done so far. They need to recoup some finances before they can continue. CHAIRMAN KELLY: From the board, any questions? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to grant the six months extension. MR. MARINO: Second. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion, we have a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: 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. GONZALEZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thanks for everything. Good luck. Case number four is going to be Hernandez. Are Mr. and Mrs. Hernandez here? (Supervisor Snow was duly sworn.) Page 11 January 19, 2012 SUPERVISOR SNOW: For the record, Kitchell Snow. I guess I'll speak for the respondent. They're very close to getting done what they need to get done. They just need more time. They have called in their final inspection, so we request that they would give them a little bit more time to take care of what they need to do. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is 60 days appropriate? That's what they're asking for. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Anything from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to extend. MR. KAUFMAN: It second it; 60 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right, yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Okay, next is going to be Collier Realty, Corp. Is there a representative for the respondent here? (Speakers were duly sworn.) Page 12 January 19, 2012 THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please. MR. FREEMAN: Ernest Freeman. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good to see you again. MR. FREEMAN: Good to see you guys as well. Haven't seen you since last year. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you want to give us just a little background to what's going on and the reason for it. MR. FREEMAN: Yes. This case here is similar to a case we had before. We have -- there was some sheds that needed to be permitted on the project. And because it's commercial, an SIP was requested by the building department, Site Improvement Plan, as well as the actual drawings for the plans for the property's improvements. Where we are now is we have the plans done but the SIP has taken a little time as well. The previous -- well, the current owner lives in New York. Getting information from him to the lessor and then to me has been sort of like pretty much a little time frame involved in getting everything together. So we're currently working on the SIP on this project. That ought to be done maybe in about another I want to say 45 days, and then from there we'll go into permitting. The permitting issue on it from there to completion to work, I'm thinking probably maybe eight months, maybe 240 days will be a good time frame to say it will take to get this project completed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Your original letter said 180 days. MR. FREEMAN: I know, I know. And then I thought about it. Because I did one of these here for Mr. Blocker, and when -- it went a little over the six months for the project. Because of the -- I guess the building phase of it is pretty easy to get through now. If code enforcement will remove the I guess violation for just with the building part of it, we can probably get that done in 60 days. But then it's going to be the SIP part of the inspections, which is a totally different department here. Page 13 January 19, 2012 So I'm dealing with actually two different departments here in this building department. And that was why I wanted to sort of change the time frame requested. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Investigator Walker, any issues with the time? INVESTIGATOR WALKER: None from my vantage point. I mean, he's been forthcoming as a contractor, and I've never had any disputes or discrepancies with regards to getting information as he got it. So as far as I'm concerned, our position is is that it's fine if he needs to get the project completed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Anything from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: You think nine months would be sufficient time to get everything done? MR. FREEMAN: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion we grant nine months. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: 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. Thanks for Page 14 January 19, 2012 coming to see us. Good luck. MR. FREEMAN: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Investigator. Next one is going to be Powell. Are the respondents here? MR. MARINO: You know, I'm going to have to abstain myself from this one. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Jean, you already took care of that? MS. RAWSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have an abstention. That means that Ron, on this one you'll have voting rights. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning, Mrs. Powell. MS. POWELL: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Since you're here, if you'd like to just briefly explain for the record what's going on, what we can do to help. MS. POWELL: Thank you. This property is my rental property, and I have had a lot of problems with this property. My husband and I have had rental properties in the past and there always are issues. This particular property, we have a neighbor that didn't like our tenants. We didn't really like them either. They weren't paying rent and we had a lot of problems. We did eventually evict one particular tenant that didn't want to leave. And it does seem that we've cleared up some of the issues with our neighbor. The tenants that I have in there now are great, they're paying me rent and taking care of my property and it seems like everything is fine now. There were several issues on this property, many of which I have resolved. However, the particular problem here is two sheds on my property. One shed is a wood frame shed that was existing when I purchased the property that did have a permit applied for. However, the paperwork never was finished up and followed up on. I did not know that when I purchased the property. Page 15 January 19, 2012 We also installed a plastic shed from Home Depot on the property, and my husband, in trying to get these permits, got very frustrated and handed off to me, and I was also frustrated trying to deal with it. So honestly, I dropped the ball. And this is why I ended up having to come in the first place. So it just took a long time. And then I did hire a contractor, KenMark Construction, and they've been working on the permitting process. And it's just taking a lot of time. We applied for the initial permit with both sheds on the initial application. Unfortunately the plastic shed is never going to meet code. So because of that, even though my permit went all the way up the line, it was denied. So now we're applying for a separate permit just for the wooden shed, and we were hoping for a quick turnaround. This is, I would say, early January that this was happening. And it -- still nothing. So we are currently waiting on the permit. I have KenMark Construction working on it. The plastic shed is going to have to be removed. That's where I'm at. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Investigator, do you have any issues with this? INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: No objections. CHAIRMAN KELLY: From the board? MR. KAUFMAN: How much time do you think that you would need to get this thing all resolved? MS. POWELL: I don't know. I work for the government and I know it always takes longer than expected. And I've heard that construction's the same way. So I'm requesting 90 days. I'm hoping it's much sooner. Frankly, I don't like this. I'd like this to go away as quickly as possible. And you will notice, I know this inspector hasn't been with me the whole time, but I have resolved the other issues on the property. So I think I've shown good faith in that. Page 16 January 19, 2012 MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion we extend 90 days. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Carries unanimously. Very good, thank you. Good luck. That concludes, unless there's anything new, all of our motions for extension of time. We're now moving on to stipulations. Stipulation number one is going to be Stevens, which for everyone on the board was your Case No. 10. Is Stevens here, by chance? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: He's not here. (Investigator Ambach was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator, would you like to read the stipulation into the record? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: I would. For the record, Investigator Chris Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Pay operational costs in the amount of $80.86 incurred in the Page 17 January 19, 2012 prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate all violations by: Obtaining Collier County building permits or a demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $150 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Unpermitted utilities to the building must be turned off within 24 hours of this hearing until the building permit or demolition permit has received a certificate of completion/occupancy or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator to 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. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. In the order or in the stipulated agreement it talks about turning off utilities within 24 hours. That's a pretty tight time frame. However, it's a stipulated agreements, so the respondent already agreed to it. Jean, any issues with the 24 -hour time frame? MS. RAWSON: Well, he knows about it. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: He does. And if it helps, I've been in contact with both -- the property manager. The property manager's already pulled the demolition permit or started the process as of the 12th. And I will be meeting his son to confirm that the utilities are shut off tomorrow. So he's on top of it and everything looks good so far. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. Thank you. Perfect. Any other questions from the board? January 19, 2012 MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to agree with the stipulation as written. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Do we have any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: The motion carries. Thank you. Next case is going to be Wilson Plaza and Carlisle. Are the respondents here? INVESTIGATOR PATTERSON: They're not here. (Investigator Patterson was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: That was Case No. 20, for everybody. Would you like to read it into the record? INVESTIGATOR PATTERSON: Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay all 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: Obtaining all required permits, inspections and certificate of occupy if attainable, or the sign shall be removed, including the sign supports and all elements associated with the signs within 30 days or $100 per day will be imposed for the each day the violation remains. Page 19 January 19, 2012 The respondent must notify the code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site visit to confirm the 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 to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: In all in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: 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. MS. PATTERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Next one is going to be Gonzalez. Are the respondents here? (Supervisor Snow was duly sworn.) Page 20 January 19, 2012 SUPERVISOR SNOW: The investigator is ill and Mr. and Mrs. Gonzalez are both working, migrants, so they could not be here. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would you like to read into the record? SUPERVISOR SNOW: I would, sir. This is concerning Carlos and Cynthia Gonzalez, Case Number CESD20110002124. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $80 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Number two: Abate all violations by: Applying for and obtaining a Collier County building permit or demolition permit and request required inspections to be performed and passed through a certificate of completion/occupancy within 30 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated. Number three: Respondents must notify the code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. And number four: That if the respondents fail 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. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator Snow -- sorry, Supervisor Snow, do you think 30 days is enough time to get a permit and get the inspections, even though there's electrical and plumbing? SUPERVISOR SNOW: They're really close. He's going to remove it. It's a demolition permit. So they're very close to coming, but they -- given the length of this case, we just wanted to make sure it gets completed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great, thanks. Anything from the board? Page 21 January 19, 2012 MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: SUPERVISOR SNOW: Any opposed? And the stipulation carries. Thank the board. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next is going to be Rudolfo. number five for everybody on the board. Is the respondent here? (No response.) (Investigator Mucha was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning, Investigator. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Good morning. Case CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would you like to read it into the record? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Yes, sir. For the record, Joe Mucha, Collier County Code Enforcement. I met with Ms. Rodulfo who was here this morning but she chose to leave. She has agreed to pay operational costs in the amount of $80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing, and to abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permits, inspections and certificates of completion/occupancy within 60 days of this hearing or Page 22 January 19, 2012 a fine of $100 per day will be imposed until the violation is 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 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. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'll entertain a motion. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Joe. Moving on to case -- stipulation number five, which is Joyce Holland. And that was Case No. 16. Could we have everyone sworn in? And I assume you're Page 23 January 19, 2012 representation? MR. BASS: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, you don't need to be sworn in then. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: Mr. Chair, we do have someone, a public speaker request on this case as well. I'm not sure how you would like to handle that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Before we go to vote we'll here the public opinion. First let's go ahead and read the stipulation into the record, please. INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: For the record, Investigator Danny Condomina, Collier County Code Enforcement. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $79.72 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate all violations by: Obtaining an approved Site Improvement Plan, any related inspections, if necessary, and a local business tax receipt /occupational license -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: You've got to slow down. INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: Oh, sorry. Abate all violations by obtaining an approved Site Improvement Plan, any related inspections, if necessary, and a local business tax receipt /occupational license from the Collier County Tax Collector, or cease and desist business operation within 60 days of this hearing or a fine of $250 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Three: Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of this violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Four: That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to bring the Page 24 January 19, 2012 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: Investigator, I have a quick question for you. The location -- if they go to a Site Improvement Plan, is the location zoning appropriate for the type of business they're wishing to operate? INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Good morning. MS. HOLLAND: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you understand and agree to everything -- MS. HOLLAND: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- that was just read? Great. And if you don't mind, we'll ask some questions to see if the board has anything to ask as well. Anything from the board? (No response.) MR. BASS: I would just say that compliance is eminent. It basically has to do with an amendment to an SIP. And the engineer is working on it presently. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. MR. LEFEBVRE: Let me just ask: Is it an administrative change that has to be made? What kind of change has to be made to the SIP? As 60 days may not be enough to -- MS. HOLLAND: The change is simply to change some of the wording on the site plan concerning the ingress and egress of coming and going on the property. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. But you already have an SIP on the property? MS. HOLLAND: SIP has been going on for quite a while. But Page 25 January 19, 2012 unfortunately our SIP was started during the time of the economy breaking down and Collier County was forced to lay off a lot of their people, so they had not enough work and too many people. Now they have too much work and not enough people. And several different people have come and gone working on our site plan, and so that's what has delayed it over the time. MR. LEFEBVRE: The reason I ask that is 60 days seems like a very short time for an SIP. Typically it does take longer than that. MS. HOLLAND: Yes. And we've been going with this SIP for some time now. We are working on the final phase right now. I'm hoping that 60 days will take care of it. MR. LEFEBVRE: So it's submitted to the county -- MS. HOLLAND: Oh, it's been in process -- MR. LEFEBVRE: -- the county's asked for some changes -- MS. HOLLAND: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- administrative changes, wording changes. MS. HOLLAND: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: And you're -- so basically it was rejected as it stands when it was submitted and now it's gone through a -- MS. HOLLAND: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- making the changes needed. MS. HOLLAND: Correct. We're in reviews. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I don't want to put words in my esteemed colleague's mouth but what I think he's saying is you should probably ask for more now if you think you're going to need it. MS. HOLLAND: Yes. And I appreciate that. So I would like to have more, just in case. Because it has been going on for so long because of so many different people in the county coming and going on it. I would like to make sure. I was afraid that maybe it would not get done in two months. So if I could get more than two months. I would like to have it done tomorrow, if possible. But if I need more Page 26 January 19, 2012 than two months, I would appreciate it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Before I -- that's what I was getting at, but I wanted to hear the public, a comment from the public. So I wanted to hear it before I made a decision on the time frame. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions for the respondent or the investigator? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: With that, we'll hear public comment. You don't need to be sworn in, since it's public comment, but if you would, state your name, please. MS. DIVINE: My name is Valaria Divine, and I'm the contiguous property owner. At the time that Ms. Holland applied for this SIP, she failed to disclose that there was an easement granted to my property. And that easement goes along the perimeter of the property. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You can't show us that unless you plan on providing it for full public record. MS. DIVINE: I'm more than happy to provide it for full public record. This SIP has been going on for over three years, okay? There have been three years of constant, constant extensions. The county had approved the plan with her having an egress, including putting up one -way signs, exit signs, stop signs on my driveway. The driveway -- the easement was created for me to be able to ingress and egress my property. That easement is not wide enough for commercial vehicular traffic or even two standard cars to pass each other because of telephone poles, her fence, you know, and other -- and assorted sundry things. Every time I'm going in and out of my driveway I'm coming head on onto horse trailers pulling big trucks, horses being ridden. And there's a sharp turn in the easement. I cannot abide this going on another 60 days, 90 days or Page 27 January 19, 2012 whatever. I need those signs, the one -way exit. The county has now rescinded that requirement since they discovered that it was an easement that she had failed to disclose in her land plan. I need those signs down immediately. I need the commercial traffic off. I do intend to file a lawsuit for the civil matters of her overburdening the easement. She's in violation of all kinds of Florida statutes on the use of the easement. But what I need is the county to enforce their end of the land planning thing, refuse to allow this to continue. It doesn't take 60 days or 90 days to get those signs down. We're coming in and out of there at night, she's running church traffic at night, day camps, all kinds of other activity that's unlicensed. We have another issue of these barns are 40 feet off of the driveway easement. If this barn -- if there's a wind, it blows over. I have no way at all to egress my property. I am trapped. In case of an emergency evacuation, I cannot get out. She has removed my private gate, she's removed my house numbers, she has removed the private drive sign. She is treating it as though it's a highway. She is -- I have been -- we're just having all kinds of problems. And this has already been going on three years. So to say well, gee, she needs more time, more time. I want my driveway gates back up, I want my sign back up. Because I'm in code violation for not having house numbers. They took them down, and I think because code enforcement did something about it they stuck a paper sign up 15, 20 feet high on a telephone pole with house numbers and a pointing arrow. If there's a fire, if there's an emergency, nobody can find my house. Right now it looks -- because she's got a stop sign at the end of my driveway it looks like a public road. So we're getting all kinds of people coming back there. We've had two very, very unfortunate instances, somebody walking into my house. Just they thought -- you know, they just walked into my house. Baby and myself in the living room. Man disoriented walked in. He thought it was a road. A girl January 19, 2012 high on some kind of drugs that the police had to arrest came walking down the driveway. This never happened before when my private drive, my gates and my house number were up. But because Ms. Holland wants to make it appear as though it's a public highway so that she can run this commercial traffic in and out. I almost had a head -on with a truck delivering hay. There's no way. Somebody's got to back up. A school bus filled with children for a church they're running. Somebody must back up. There's a 90- degree turn in this driveway. There are no lights. There's no way to see somebody coming around the curve. Her fence comes right up almost to the edge. So you're totally blocked. A head -on crash -- I've said to the county, how many dead bodies do we need before you really enforce? I don't want 60 more days, I want these signs down now. I want her in compliance now before somebody's hurt or somebody's killed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Ma'am, we limit usually this to about three to five minutes. So I appreciate all of your comments. We've all heard them and we'll take them into consideration. It will be entered, if you will, as public record testimony towards the case. So it has been heard. However, I think some of the issues that you have brought up are outside our jurisdiction. That would lay more I believe with the county department that handles the approval of the Site Improvement Plan. And if you want to follow that process and make sure you also let them know about your objections at that time, that would be appropriate as well. MS. DIVINE: I have been in touch with them. We're talking. They were not aware of the easement as Mr. Holland was disingenuous in her original site plan. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And we also want to hold, you know, the personal attacks and lead it more towards just facts. If you could just say -- Page 29 January 19, 2012 MS. DIVINE: Those are the facts. It was not disclosed on the land plan. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That was a fact. However, saying that a person is disingenuous is an opinion or a feeling, and we don't really want those type of slanders being thrown across the room. So we appreciate the facts -- MS. DIVINE: She failed to disclose it. Call it -- she knew it was there. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good. Thank you very much for your comments. Now, for the board, is there any discussion amongst the board? MR. MARINO: She need to turn in that site plan. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We never admitted the site plan into evidence so it's not part of the record. (Cell phone ringing.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: It's a good reminder for everyone to please silence their cell phones. MR. KAUFMAN: I take that as a -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other comments about the case? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: If not, if someone would like to lead a motion to either accept, change or withdraw the -- or reject the stipulated agreement. MR. KAUFMAN: I have one question before we do that. This has gone to the county, I'm assuming. We obviously couldn't see the picture of the road or we know none of the circumstances. I have no idea what the public speaker was referring to, signs on the property. So is this scheduled anyplace before the county? INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: It has been heard by the engineering and whatnot. The County Attorney has been involved with the easement portion of the Site Development Plan. Page 30 January 19, 2012 Some of those signs were required by the county and that's why they were up at the time. Since the easement issue has been brought up, that's why the Site Development Plan is taking longer, because those changes are being added. She has made some -- her engineer has made some of the changes, but there's some things that they need to tweak on the plans. And that's why we couldn't -- it just hasn't been approved today because of the easement issue. MR. LEFEBVRE: If we wanted to, is there any way to pull this from being stipulated to actually hearing the case? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes, we can. If we as a board reject the stipulated agreement, it would go on to our normal case load as its original position would have been. MR. MIESZCAK: Let me ask a question. If we do it in 60 days, I mean, it's on record now. I don't know how long it took before, but here it's 60 days, two months, and it's going to come to a head. So I kind of like the stipulation myself. I mean, that's what we're here to decide, just this issue, not that issue. Because we haven't heard that. That's not privy for us to hear that. MR. UESPERANCE: I would agree with you. MR. MIESZCAK: So I make a motion we accept 60 days as a stipulation. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second. Any further comments? Gerald? MR. LEFEBVRE: Nothing. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor with accepting the stipulated agreement as written at 60 days, signify by saying aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 31 January 19, 2012 MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: 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 unanimously. So you've been given 60 days to get it rectified. If you have any problems, please let us know ahead of time. Moving on to the next case, we have two of them for the same respondent. Last name of Arsenault. Is the respondent here? We can talk about them together, but we need to vote separately and we'll have to swear you in separately. (Christina Arsenault and Investigator Baldwin were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: For the board, this was case number two. And then it will be case number three right after that. Investigator, would you like to read the stipulated agreement into the record? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Sure. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Pay operational costs in the amount of $80.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate all violations by: Obtaining required Collier County building permit or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within 60 days of this hearing or a fine of $100 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of Page 32 January 19, 2012 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. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Ma'am, for the record, would you state your name, please. MS. ARSENAULT: Christina Arsenault. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you understand and agree to everything that was just read? MS. ARSENAULT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board? MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the stipulation agreement. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries. Now, for the record, did you read the case number into the record? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: I did not, sir. Page 33 January 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Let's -- just so you have it, Cherie', let's read that case number, please. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Case number CEAU20110000498. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, do we need to re -swear in for this case? MS. RAWSON: (Nods head affirmatively.) (Christina Arsenault and Investigator Baldwin were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And for the board, this will now be case number three. And Investigator, could you start with the case number? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: This is in regards to case number CESD20110000448. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Pay operational costs in the amount of $80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County building permit or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $150 per day will be imposed until the violation is 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 violations 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. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mrs. Arsenault, do you understand and agree to everything that was just read? MS. ARSENAULT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Anything from the board? Page 34 January 19, 2012 MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Ma'am, if you run into any issues, please try to come to us beforehand and maybe request an extension with the circumstances and see if we can't give you some time as needed. But what will happen is if it runs out, you will start to be fined. MS. ARSENAULT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, cool. Thank you. MS. ARSENAULT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. One last stipulated agreement is going to be for Rios. MR. L'ESPERANCE: What number was that? CHAIRMAN KELLY: That was number 19. MR. UESPERANCE: Thank you. (Vanessa Canova, Rebecca Rios and Investigator Walker were duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please? MS. CANOVA: Vanessa Canova. I'm her sister; she's hard of Page 35 January 19, 2012 hearing. INVESTIGATOR WALKER: Weldon Walker, Code Enforcement. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator Walker, would you like to read the stipulated agreement into the record? INVESTIGATOR WALKER: Yes, I will. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Pay operational costs in the amount of $80.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing, and abate all violations by: Obtaining a required Collier County building permit or demolition permit, inspections and certificates of occupancy within 90 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator to perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. And 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 the abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Investigator. Good morning. MS. CANOVA: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you understand and agree to everything that was just read? MS. CANOVA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you feel as though 90 days will be enough time to complete everything? MS. CANOVA: We'll find out. We're trying to work on it. If not, you know, I understood that we have to submit a letter if we need an extension. Page 36 January 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's correct. Any questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator Walker, could you read the case number, please? INVESTIGATOR WALKER: Yes. It's CESD201100000 -- I think that's five -- 38. MR. MARINO: Did you say 538? INVESTIGATOR WALKER: No, it's five zeros, 38. Sorry for the confusion. MS. BAKER: Mr. Chair, could we just make a clarification on the stipulation that Rebecca Rios is signing on behalf of Olga Canova as well? MS. CANOVA: That's our mom. MS. BAKER: And she's aware that -- MS. CANOVA: Yes. MS. BAKER: -- you're signing on her behalf? If we could change the stipulation to reflect that, we'll just add a comment on the bottom. CHAIRMAN KELLY: When they add the comment, if you can just initial it, that would be great. MS. CANOVA: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Page 37 January 19, 2012 MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Good luck, and let us know if you need anything further from us. Thank you. Colleen, are there any more stips? MS. BAKER: Yeah, there's one more stip. It will be number nine under stipulations, but it's number six from hearings. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Griffin? MS. BAKER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, we're going to move Griffin up to stipulations. Can I get an amendment to the agenda, please? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to amend the agenda. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. So what we're going to do now is we're going to hear the case for January 19, 2012 Mr. and Mrs. Griffin. Are the respondents here? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: He is not here. He was here earlier. He's gone home; he's not feeling well. (Investigator Ambach was duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: For the record, Chris Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to case number CESD20100002858. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Pay operational costs in the amount of $80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within 365 days of the date of this hearing or a fine of $250 a day will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation by 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. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: I do. This thing originally was date of violation observed March 2nd, 2010. It's for a whole house? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: It is for a house, correct. MR. KAUFMAN: There were no permits pulled at all? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: The way it started was the original permit was pulled in 2002. It was not satisfied and it was observed by a former investigator in 2010. So it was reapplied for. In 2011 when I received the case it had gone -- expired again. Page 39 January 19, 2012 Some of the -- approximately half of the inspections were performed on the property. But there's at least 16 inspections left on it at this point. It's closed up, there's no utilities, all the windows and doors are locked shut. MR. KAUFMAN: My question then is why 365 days to get this done since the house is built but just waiting inspections? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: That's what he said he felt comfortable with, he would be able to get everything done within that 365 -day period of time. MR. MIESZCAK: The home is built and done, right? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: It's -- yes, it's -- it's a shell of a house. MR. MIESZCAK: The time frame just seems long to me. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there a lienholder or a mortgage on the property? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's okay, I don't mean to interrupt. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: If I may clarify. It's -- the shell of the house is there. All the interior, everything that has to do with electric, so on and so forth, has not been permitted, so all of that needs to get done. Footing inspections that need to be done, some roofing I guess inspections that are still pending on this. So like I said, about 16 to 18 inspections still need to be performed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you know if there's a lien or a mortgage on the home? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: No, there is no lien on the house. MR. LEFEBVRE: Did you gain access to the property? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Just from the outside. MR. LEFEBVRE: So you can't tell what's been completed on the inside? January 19, 2012 INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: No, I can't. MR. MIESZCAK: Is it like boarded up? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: No, it's intact. It has, you know, doors, windows. They're all locked and enclosed with glass. MR. KAUFMAN: So the permits have been pulled? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: The permits are pulled right now. They are active right now. A notice of commencement has been issued. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: And he was -- MR. KAUFMAN: Notice of commencement is generally good for one year, I believe. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Correct. But the permits will only be good for about six months, correct? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Well, as long as he continues -- well, if he passed, you know, every inspection he would get an extension, you know, another six -month extension. But he definitely is very strong that he will have this done in a 365 -day period of time. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Anything else from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Entertain a motion. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make a motion to accept. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion to accept. Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: If I may add, I was just told that there was a lis pendens that was filed the 13th of this month. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Cristina Perez. Page 41 January 19, 2012 INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Five days ago. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So we have a motion and a second, unless someone is withdrawing them. MR. KAUFMAN: Let me -- can we talk on it now? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes, we can comment, sure. MR. KAUFMAN: Since there's a lis pendens on it, that throws another light on the situation. I'm -- MR. MIESZCAK: I'll withdraw my motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: You withdraw -- MR. MARINO: And I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So we have both the motion and the second withdrawn. Back to a clean slate. If somebody would like to comment -- MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion to deny the stipulation. MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second. Comments? MR. LEFEBVRE: That's all we can do is deny it, and then it would go to a hearing? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes, sir. Okay, any other -- MR. KAUFMAN: Do we have to go -- could we have this go to a hearing maybe at our next meeting and find out what the intent of the owner of the property is? He may be in a position where he's going to take care of the lis pendens or he may be in a position where he's just going to stop. So I think we probably have to hear from him. MS. RAWSON: In an abundance of fairness, since he was here and he signed the stipulation and then he thought it was settled and he left, we really shouldn't hear this until the next time, because it would deny his due process. MR. KAUFMAN: That's what I was saying, we'd move it to the Page 42 January 19, 2012 next meeting or the meeting after that. MR. LEFEBVRE: I don't want to make this a precedent. The respondent came here and, correct me if I'm wrong, you tell them strongly to stay, just in case we do not agree to this. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: I did. MR. LEFEBVRE: I do not want to make this a precedent where they can get a 30 -day extension. If they agree to something and we then decide not to accept the stipulation, they got a 30 -day extension. So due process I understand, but they had due process, they were told that they should stay here just in case this wasn't approved. So I like to be careful on telling them they can have a free ride for 30 days. Just my comment. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I -- to also comment, I agree with Gerald completely. I don't like the idea. The rules are if it doesn't -- if we don't accept it, it goes back to our normal case position. However, Jean's the expert, and I'm going to default to -- MS. RAWSON: No, I understand exactly what Gerald's saying and I agree with him. I do notice that this morning we have a number of cases where the respondent appeared, signed a stipulation and went to work. And so we have a number of them where they didn't appear but entered into a stipulation. This is just one more. They all run the risk, if you're not approving it. And so maybe we need to make that a little stronger at the beginning of the hearing or something saying you entered into a stipulation, if I were you, I'd stick around. MR. LEFEBVRE: The stipulations are heard typically at the beginning. It's not like we're having them stay till the end. So I think that it should be strongly recommended that they do stay. I just don't want to see this be a precedent and them know that they can come back possibly next month. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We should talk about this maybe at our rules and regs meeting. But maybe we can add language at the top of Page 43 January 19, 2012 the stips saying this may be rejected by the board, you're encouraged to stay, or something along those lines. On this one, Jean, worst case scenario, could the respondent come back and say that he was denied due process, given the fact that this is our standard process part of our rules and he was asked to stay? MS. RAWSON: He probably would not win on that legal argument. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. All right, does the board feel comfortable moving forward then? MR. KAUFMAN: Well, we have a motion, we have a second. Let's see where that goes and then we can discuss it when it comes back. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Cristina wants to bring more information to this. Now it sounds like we're hearing the case. (Supervisor Cristina Perez was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR PEREZ: For the record, Cristina Perez, Collier County Code Enforcement. In looking at the information, we found that it was a different tract number. It's another parcel that is also in the same area. Same unit, different tract number that is in the foreclosure process. There are four documents of record for this property, and none are for a lis pendens or a foreclosure proceeding. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, now I feel like a pendulum. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay, troublemaker. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Comments? How does that change the situation? MR. KAUFMAN: I'll withdraw my motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we withdraw the second? MR. MARINO: I second it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, so now we're back to a clean slate. Do you want to go back to your original motion or do you still want to hear the case? January 19, 2012 MR. UESPERANCE: I move that we accept the stipulation as presented. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Larry seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Are we sure about this? Are we really, really sure? All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right, it carries. We've accepted the stipulated agreement, 365 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: We just make sure that we review the rules and make sure it's strongly encouraged that the respondent stay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We'll do that. And we actually have a couple of rule suggestions today, so -- MR. MIESZCAK: I like the discussion we had. That was good. You've got to bring it out. Thanks for the backup. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That is the end of our stipulated agreements. Cherie', do you need a 10- minute break? THE COURT REPORTER: That would be great. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Let's come back at 10:15. (Recess.) Page 45 January 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, still good morning. I'd like to call this back to order. We're moving on to hearings, which is section C. Case one is going to be Philippe Quentel. Is the respondent here? (No response.) MS. CRAWLEY: This is in reference to violation of Ordinance Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and 5.03.02(A), Florida Building Code, 2007 Edition, Chapter 1, Sections 105.1 and 110.4. Description of violation: Permit 890002500 for pool addition and existing fence has been canceled because a certificate of completion wasn't obtained. Wooden fence hasn't been maintained and is falling over. Location/address where violation exists: 2979 Francis Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34112. Folio No. 61481040000. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Philippe Quentel, 2979 Francis Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34112. Date violation first observed: June 10, 2011. Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: July 1st, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: July 30th, 2011. Date of reinspection: October 14th, 2011. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. Investigator Botts. INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: Good morning. For the record, Azure Botts, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20110008948 pertaining to the violations of expired permit for pool edition and existing fence located at 2979 Francis Avenue, Naples, Florida, 34112. Folio No. 61481040000. January 19, 2012 Service was given on July 1 st, 2011. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Four photos dated June 10th, 2011 taken by myself, and a packet that is the permits that are in question. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the photos in question. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. HUDSON: 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.) INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: On June 10th, 2011, while addressing another violation I observed a swimming pool. After conducting research, I discovered that Permit 89 -2500 for addition to pool and existing fence had expired without obtaining a certificate of completion. I pulled the original permit off of microfilm, which you do have a copy of. The permitted was issued 7/14 of '89. And this was to enlarge the existing pool and permit and existing fence. No inspections had been conducted; therefore, the permit expired. It expired on the 14th of January, 1990. This obviously was done by a prior property owner. Mr. Quentel purchased the property and has been notified of the violation. On July 1 st, 2011, I posted the notice of violation on the property and that afternoon Mr. Quentel had contacted me and I explained the Page 47 January 19, 2012 violation to him and what needed to be done. On July 25th, 20111 received a letter from Mr. Quentel stating that he's invoking the Sunset law. I spoke with Steve Williams in the County Attorney's Office who is unaware of a Sunset law in the State of Florida. We've asked Mr. Quentel to provide the documentation, which he has not done. Mr. Claw, a friend who is assisting Mr. Quentel who is in France and is unable to get back to the United States, had contacted me. I explained to Mr. Claw just the same, what was the violation and what needed to be done. As of yesterday, the violation still remains. The pool has been expanded. I have taken measurements. The new -- the addition to the pool was to go to a size of 28 by 16. I measured the pool, it is 27 and a half by 16. So the addition had definitely been done without having inspections or a certificate of completion. If you look through the pictures, picture one is just showing you the pool. Picture two would be -- the wooden fence is what's in question here, not the chain link fence. The wooden fence that surrounds the back half of the property, which is also indicated on the blueprints for the '89 permit. Obviously the fence is in disrepair, and he is aware that he either needs to permit and repair the fence to meet Florida Building Code or he needs to remove the fence. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So real quickly to address the letter that was given to all the board members when we first came in, invoking the Sunset law, there's no Sunset on any of our ordinance provisions requiring permits and inspections. INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So now we just need to sort through the issue of all these different permits and which ones still exist and which ones don't and whether or not any of them actually finalized or CO'd the addition and so forth, correct? January 19, 2012 INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And to your knowledge, you have not found anything that CO's that addition? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: That is correct. If you look in the packet for the permit on Page 3, in the late 1980's we used a software program called WHIPS. We still have access for that program to at least review permits that were submitted in that software program. And on Page 3 that's the screen shot showing at the very bottom left -hand corner certificate of occupancy date. There is no date filled in there. So if there's any questions about information being lost in the conversion from WHIPS to CDPlus, which is another program that we had used, that would not be the case, because WHIPS shows no date for certificate of occupancy. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And that permit's not for the original construction of the home, that's for the addition? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: That's correct. That is for the addition of the pool and the existing fence. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: I wanted to read one thing here. I'm not sure I understand it. It says, I do wish to understand how much the county of Naples -- probably means Collier -- would like to program manage my home improvement and honey -do list. And I was just wondering, have you had contact with him? I don't understand his intentions here. INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: I can't say that I do either. I have spoken with Mr. Quentel at the beginning of this case. I have not actually spoken with him directly, since it's been by letters that he sent to the department. MR. KAUFMAN: And then the last portion of the letter it says, I request you to dismiss the case number so- and -so. I am proactively improving the property at 2979 Francis Avenue to be a nice living space, et cetera. January 19, 2012 Did he take this property over -- I think he said in 2010; is that it? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: That is correct, yes. MR. KAUFMAN: So he assumed the problems on the property when he took over the property in 2010. INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: That is correct. When the complaint came in and I made the site visit, the property was at the time vacant, and it was in some pretty bad conditions. He did take care of all the property maintenance issues, and obviously that case has been closed as corrected. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any more questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there a violation? MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion a violation exists. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? And the motion passes. Do you have a recommendation? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: I do. The county recommends the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $81.72 Page 50 January 19, 2012 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by -- fast? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Every month. MR. LEFEBVRE: It's been a couple months since you've been in front of us so you probably forgot. INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: I'm sorry, gentlemen, and ma'am. Abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within "X" amount of days of this hearing or a fine of "X" amount 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 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 order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. LEFEBVRE: And you did say the property is vacant, correct? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: started it was vacant, correct. Now it's occupied. When it first CHAIRMAN KELLY: Vacant by the respondent or renter? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: It's occupied by a renter. Property owner lives in France. MR. KAUFMAN: Does the property owner live in France or -- INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: I believe he does half and half. I believe he's over there part of the time and he -- on the property appraiser for this property he shows an address in Michigan. However, at this time I do know he is in France. MR. KAUFMAN: Basically we're looking for two things: How Page 51 January 19, 2012 much time to pull the permits and what the fine would be after that time frame is completed. I'd like to throw some numbers in and see what happens. I would say 120 days should be more than sufficient to get it completed. And a fine of $150 a day thereafter. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Second. We're accepting the county recommendation with 120 days on the time frame or a fine of $150 per day. Is there any discussion? MR. KAUFMAN: The 81.72 paid within 30 days as well. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? It carries unanimously. Thank you, Azure. INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: Gentlemen, thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, moving on to the next case. Deutsche Bank would be the next one? Okay, Deutsche Bank National Trust. Is there representation? (Investigator Musse was duly sworn.) MS. CRAWLEY: Violation of Collier County Land Page 52 Is it January 19, 2012 Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e). Description of violation: A 26 -foot by 30 -foot two -story addition on the side of the residence and an 18 -foot by 56 -foot screen porch on the rear of the residence. Both additions were constructed without valid Collier County permits. Location/address where violation exists: 4540 Seventh Avenue Northwest, Naples, Florida, 34119. Folio number 6661360001. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, care of Carrington Mortgage Services, 10500 Kincaid Drive, Suite 400, Fissures, Indiana, 46037. Date violation first observed: September 27th, 2011. Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: October 11th, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: November 3rd, 2011. Date of reinspection: November 28th, 2011. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. I'd now like to introduce Investigator Musse. INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Jonathan Musse, Code Enforcement. This is in reference to case number CESD20110013221, dealing with the violations of a 26 by 30 -foot two -story addition on the site of the residence and an 18 by 56 screen porch at the rear of the residence, both additions constructed without valid Collier County permits. Located at 4540 Seventh Avenue Northwest, Naples, Florida, 34119. Folio number 36661360001. Service was given on October 11th of 2011. I would now like to present the case evidence in the following exhibits: Two photos taken on September 27th, 2011. Screen shot of an aerial view of the property and the property card. Page 53 January 19, 2012 MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibits. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Carries. INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: An initial inspection was made on September 22nd, 2011. Observed an unoccupied dwelling, conducted some research, checked the aerials and found two additions constructed between 1985 and 2002. A 26 by 30 -foot two -story addition and a an 18 by 56 screen porch addition. No valid Collier County permits were never obtained. As you can see by this photo right here, this is a two -story addition in question. And the unpermitted screen porch you can see from the aerial views. The property was owned by Deutsche Bank. At that time I transferred the case over to the foreclosure team. They did not receive any response from the bank. Case was then returned and I prepared it for hearing. As of right now the violation remains, no permits have been issued. MR. KAUFMAN: This looks like it was a garage area that they closed in and then went up; is that correct? Page 54 January 19, 2012 INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: According to the aerials, that's a whole new addition. Nothing was there before. MR. KAUFMAN: Nothing was there before? INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: No. CHAIRMAN KELLY: The comment was how did they get away with that. Cherie' was struggling to hear that one. MR. KAUFMAN: It appears that they haven't. I'd like to make a motion we find them in violation. MR. MIESZCAK: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. Do you have a recommendation? INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: Yes. The county recommends that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $81.15 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspection, certificate of occupancy within 30 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until violation is abated. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final Page 55 January 19, 2012 inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation, using the methods to bring the violation into compliance 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: I was this close from slowing you down. You almost -- INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: Oh, sorry. Apologize. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Are there any comments or would anyone like to take a stab at it? MR. KAUFMAN: I see that you put the 30 days in, not only for the $81.15. But -- INVESTIGATOR MUSSE: My apologies. MR. KAUFMAN: No, no, no don't apologize. I -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: We ask for your recommendations too. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to take a shot at it. As we have done in the past, this is owned by the bank and the bank hasn't responded. I'd like to stick with your 30 -day recommendation and a fine of $200 a day thereafter. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, we have a motion to accept the county's recommendation. MR. MIESZCAK: And the operational costs of $81.15. MR. KAUFMAN: And the operational cost of $81.15. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. January 19, 2012 MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Thank you. Great recommendation. Next case is going to be Carlos and Teresa Morales. Respondents are not here. (Investigator Mucha was duly sworn.) MS. CRAWLEY: This is in violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Description of violation: Permits for the pool, 2003101452, and pool enclosure 2002080645 that did not complete all inspections and obtain certificates of completion/occupancy. There is also a shed that was built over the well pump that was not permitted. Location/address where violation exists: 12885 Collier Boulevard, Naples, 34116. Folio No. 37930920003. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Carlos and Teresa Morales, 2861 Fourth Street Northwest, Naples, Florida, 34120. Date violation first observed: July 8th, 2011. Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: July 13th, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: August 12th, 2011. Date of reinspection: October 18th, 2011. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. Now I'd like to introduce Investigator Mucha. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Thank you. Good morning. For Page 57 January 19, 2012 the record, Joe Mucha, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to case number CESD20110009549, dealing with violations of Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Violation location is 12885 Collier Boulevard, Naples, 34116. Folio No. is 37930920003. Service was given on July 13th, 2011. I'd like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: I have three photographs taken by myself on January 18th, 2012 I'd like to submit into evidence. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibits. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: This case initiated back in July of 2011 as a complaint in regards to the swimming pool not being maintained. Made a site visit to the property and observed that that complaint was accurate. Did observe that the property was vacated and possibly in foreclosure. So I came back to the office and did research on the property. Found that it was in foreclosure. And I also found that there was two permits, one for the pool and one for the pool enclosure, that did not complete all the inspections Page 58 January 19, 2012 and were not finalized. And there was also a warning on the system in regards to a shed that was built over the well pump that didn't receive a permit, and this was discovered when they were doing the actual inspections for the pool and the pool enclosure. At that time the case was transferred over to the foreclosure team to work with the bank. The banks actually did come out, as you see in the picture, and did cover the pool. But however, since the bank doesn't have title to the property, they can't pull permits. So that's basically where it's at today. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any comments from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Any idea how far along the foreclosure process is? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: It's in lis pendens. MR. LEFEBVRE: When was the lis pendens filed; do you know? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: To be honest with you, I don't have that information with me. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there a violation? MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion a violation exists. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) Page 59 January 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you have a recommendation? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Yes, sir. My recommendation is that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $80.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days, and to abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permits, inspections and certificates of completion/occupancy within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank 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 the final inspection to confirm abatement. 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 order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any comments or questions from the board, discussion amongst yourselves? MR. KAUFMAN: This is similar to the previous one. Is the bank diligently working to get a foreclosure on this, or is this one of the ones that's just sitting out there? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: I mean, the fact that they came out and they're maintaining the property as far as cutting the grass and they covered the pool pretty quickly, so I mean, I think they're trying to do everything that they legally can at this point. Again, when it comes to permit, until they have title there's not much they can do. MR. KAUFMAN: Let me see if I can fill in the blanks. 80.57 paid within 30 days. Since they are working on it, I would give them more time. Sixty days to resolve the situation and pull the permits, and a fine of $150 a day. Nut •1 January 19, 2012 MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries. We accepted the county's recommendation. Sixty days, $150 per day. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next case is going to be Coutin. Respondent is not here. C- O- U- T -I -N. (Investigator Potter was duly sworn.) MS. CRAWLEY: Violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.06 -- Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Description of violation: Permit No. 2004102144 expired on April 23rd, 2005. No certificate of completion obtained. Location/address where violation exists: 1160 22nd Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120. Folio No. 37805880003. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Milagro M. and Jose A. Coutin, 1160 22nd Avenue Northeast, Naples Florida, 34120. Date violation first observed: July 7th, 2011. Date owner /person in charge given notice the violation: July Page 61 January 19, 2012 I lth, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: August 10th, 2011. Date of reinspection: November 4th, 2011. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. I'd like to introduce Investigator Potter. INVESTIGATOR POTTER: Good morning. For the record, Janis Potter, Investigator, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case CESD20110007320. Violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Violation is located at 1160 22nd Avenue Northeast, Naples Florida, 34120. Folio I.D. 37805880003. Service was given on July 11th, 2011. I'd like to present a photograph of the following exhibits: One photograph of the swimming pool taken by myself on July 7th, 2011. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator Potter, I have a question. Through service you have a signature of a Gill Cirillo. Is that in -- are they in relation to the respondent or are they tenants? INVESTIGATOR POTTER: He was a gentleman that was doing -- there was a fire that had happened at the home. He was doing the renovation work on the interior, and Mr. Coutin had given him the authority to sign. He was not present that day, he was out of state. CHAIRMAN KELLY: But Mr. Coutin -- whatever, sorry if I pronounced his name wrong -- but he knows about the meeting, he just -- INVESTIGATOR POTTER: Yes, he was not able to make it today. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Do we -- MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the photo. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 62 January 19, 2012 MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. INVESTIGATOR POTTER: On July 7th, while conducting background research for another violation on the property, I noted that a permit obtained in 2004 for the swimming pool expired and did not received a certificate of completion. Notice of violation was prepared and service was obtained on July 1 lth, 2011. Property owner reapplied for a permit which was approved upon August 12th, 2011 but was not issued until yesterday, which was January 18th. Final electrical, final pool deck and final pool inspections remain. Those time inspections have been scheduled for today, January 19th, at 9:00 a.m., for an additional fee which has not yet been paid. The permit remains open without a certificate of completion. MR. KAUFMAN: So the expired permit is on the pool? INVESTIGATOR POTTER: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Have you been in contact with the respondent? INVESTIGATOR POTTER: Yes, I have. MR. KAUFMAN: Are they working diligently to resolve the situation? INVESTIGATOR POTTER: Well, they did get the permit issued back in August. There were some outstanding fees that needed Page 63 January 19, 2012 to be paid. I was in contact, left several messages. I finally got through to them the other day, and I said that, you know, you need to take care of this. So -- MR. KAUFMAN: And they said that they would? INVESTIGATOR POTTER: Yes. The permit has been issued and time inspections are set today for 9:00 a.m. MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion that we find them in violation. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: The motion carries. Recommendation? INVESTIGATOR POTTER: Our recommendation, 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: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within blank number of days of this hearing or a fine of to be determined number of dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Number two: The respondent must notify the code enforcement January 19, 2012 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 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 order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. KAUFMAN: Now, you said that the respondent had the permits? INVESTIGATOR POTTER: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: So that portion of the recommendation would get kind of scratched, since they have that? INVESTIGATOR POTTER: They obtained that yesterday. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. And we're talking about they have inspections and a CO. INVESTIGATOR POTTER: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would this be a situation where we're just going on record to say there was a violation? Because now that there's permits there's really not a violation, right? How does that work? MS. BAKER: They haven't obtained their inspections and CO yet. They're in the process. So they still technically are in violation because they don't have a completed permit. CHAIRMAN KELLY: It's an after- the -fact situation? MS. BAKER: They just need to get their inspections and CO per every other permit that's issued. CHAIRMAN KELLY: But not every other permit that's issued gets Code Enforcement Board orders against them. MS. BAKER: Correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: Part of the process, the CO, or Certificate of Completion, would be the final stage. MS. BAKER: Which is what you always include in all of your orders. So technically they're not in compliance with code Page 65 January 19, 2012 enforcement as of yet. MR. KAUFMAN: And the inspections you said are today, tomorrow? INVESTIGATOR POTTER: They are scheduled for this morning. MR. MIESZCAK: You need to read in the case number. I didn't hear the case -- did you? I'm sorry. I didn't hear the case number. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Well -- MR. KAUFMAN: I'm going to take a shot at it. $80.57 paid within 30 days. Sixty days to get the CO, and $150 a day thereafter. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries to accept county recommendations, 60 days and $150 a day. MS. BAKER: Just for clarification, it's not just the CO, it's the inspection, CO. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Everything up until. Yeah, we've just accepted the county's recommendation. MR. KAUFMAN: I guess that you can't get a CO without the '.�- •• January 19, 2012 inspections. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Pretty good guess. Thank you very much, Investigator Potter. Moving on to the next one. We have two cases for the same respondent. Are the Jenkins' here today? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have to take each one individually, so we'll start with the first one. (Investigator Ambach was duly sworn.) MS. CRAWLEY: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Description of violation: Pool permit expired without receiving a certificate of completion/occupancy, and no permits on file for the pool screen enclosure. Location/address where violation exists: 260 Weber Boulevard South, Naples, Florida, 34117. Folio No. 36760921008. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Kenneth T. Jenkins and Aundrea L. Jenkins, 620 (sic) Weber Boulevard South, Naples, Florida, 34117. Date violation first observed: September 1 st, 2011. Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: October 19th, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: November 1 st, 2011. Date of reinspection: November 2nd, 2011. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. I'd like to introduce Investigator Ambach. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: For the record, Chris Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case Number CESD20110012249, dealing with the violation of pool permit expired without receiving a certificate of completion/occupancy and no permits on file for the pool Page 67 January 19, 2012 screen enclosure. Located at 260 Weber Boulevard South, Naples, Florida, 34117. Folio No. 36760921008. Service was given on October 19th, 2011. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: One photograph dated September 1 st, 2011 taken by myself. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibit. MR. MARINO: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: After receiving a complaint on September 1 st, 2011 about the condition of the pool, I researched the permits for the property and observed the pool permit had expired without all required inspections performed and a certificate of completion/occupancy issued. I also observed no permits on file for the screen enclosure itself. Further research revealed the property was in foreclosure and this case was forwarded to our foreclosure team. Due to no response the case was prepared for today's hearing. As of January 18th, 2012, no permits have been obtained for the pool or the pool screen enclosure. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any comments from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Have you been in contact with anyone i •i January 19, 2012 regarding this? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: No, sir -- well, I'm sorry, let me correct. The owners know. From the get -go I've not received any returned phone calls. I was speaking with a realtor, actually two or three realtors about the conditions at the property. I know right now there is a preservation company working on abating the next case, the green pool. However, they still can't pull the permits for the pool and the pool screen cage. MR. KAUFMAN: Is that cage, the screen there? Because the pool in the picture looks like it's full of leaves. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: I think that's actually mold in there. Yeah. MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion that we find them in violation. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Carries. Do you have a recommendation? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: I do. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $80.57 incurred in the ��_. �� January 19, 2012 prosecution of this case within 30 days. And abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. 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 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 order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would someone like to fill in the blanks? MR. KAUFMAN: I'll give it a shot, $80.57 to be paid within 30 days, 60 days to clear up the violation, and $150 a day thereafter. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: Second it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Carries unanimously. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Thank you. Page 70 January 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Next case, the same one. MS. BAKER: Mr. Chair, the county is requesting that we withdraw this next case. We have made contact with the bank and they are -- just recently, and they are going to take care of the violations. So we would like to give them the opportunity to take care of this violation first. CHAIRMAN KELLY: It is gone. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Okay, I think the next case is all the way down to C- E- N- A- T -U -S, Cenatus. Is the respondent here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: What about the investigator? That would be Joe. (Investigator Mucha was duly sworn.) MS. CRAWLEY: Violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Description of violation: Permit 2008050413 to convert existing lanai to family room with electric that expired without completing all inspections. Location/address where violation exists: 4400 18th Place Southwest, Naples, 34116. Folio No. 35757280009. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Guerda Cenatus, 4400 18th Place Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116. Date violation first observed: August 11th, 2011. Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: August 18th, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: September 14th, 2011. Page 71 January 19, 2012 Date of reinspection: November 30th, 2011. Results of reinspection: Violation remains. I'd like to introduce Investigator Mucha. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Good morning. For the record, Joe Mucha, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case number CESD20110011215, dealing with violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Violation location is 4400 18th Place Southwest, Naples, 34116. Folio No. is 35757280009. Service was given on August 18th, 2011. I'd like to present case evidence in the following exhibit: One photograph taken by myself on August 11th, 2011. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the exhibit. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion carries. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: This case initiated back in August, 2011. There was a complaint in regards to the fence on the property. So while researching the property for the complaint received, I found that a permit, permit 2008050413 to convert existing lanai to family room with electric did not complete all its inspections and was now expired. Page 72 January 19, 2012 I've been working with the owner since then. Permit was issued in September, permit 2011090800. As of today, she's only been able to complete one inspection, but it's one that you guys will be happy about, it was electrical inspection. So the electrical has passed, there's no plumbing in the room. Basically owner has advised me that the delay in completing the permit is financial difficulties. And actually I pleaded with her to come today so she could tell her side of the story, and unfortunately she's not here. So that's basically where it's at. Permit's issued, electrical inspection has passed, but she still has about five or six other inspections she needs to complete. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there a violation? MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion a violation exists. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? Motion carries. Do you have a recommendation? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Yes, sir. Page 73 January 19, 2012 My recommendation is that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $79.72 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and to abate all violations by: Obtaining all required inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy for permit 2011090080 within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent must also notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct the final inspection to confirm abatement. 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 order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Someone want to fill in the blanks? MR. KAUFMAN: Quick question. In your discussions with the respondent, did they give you any indication of when they thought they could have this done? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: That's what I was trying to get out of her because I was, you know, wanting to maybe, you know, reach an agreement with her before the hearing, and she just really couldn't give me a time table, because I think she was out of work and she just kind got her job -- her working situation back recently. And she couldn't really tell me, she couldn't say whether it was be three months or six months. And that's why I wanted her to actually be here. And I really thought she was coming today, to be honest with you. MR. KAUFMAN: They went through the expensive portion of paying for the permit. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: And the electrical done. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Yes, sir. Page 74 January 19, 2012 MR. KAUFMAN: So the inspections that are left there shouldn't be much of a monetary. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: I'm not sure, to be honest with you. I mean, I know that she has to have impact windows and things like that, so I don't know if that's something that maybe she needs to have done. CHAIRMAN KELLY: She could do shutters in lieu of, correct? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Correct. And I know there's not shutters on there now. So that could be part of it too. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is it being occupied? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: As far as I know, yes, it is. It's part of her home. MR. KAUFMAN: Not a safety problem? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: The only safety aspect that I would think would be the electrical, and that's passed, so -- MR. MIESZCAK: I'd like to make a motion to pay all operating costs of $79.72 within 30 days, and 60 days, and a fine of $150 a day. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) Page 75 January 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Joe. That concludes our hearings today. We're moving on now to old business. A, motion for imposition of fines and liens. Case number one, Palm Foundation, Incorporated. Is there a representative here? MR. LEFEBVRE: They actually left. I'm not sure if they left, but they're outside the room. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm going to step aside and recuse myself. (Speakers were duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please. MR. ARNOW: Thomas Arnow. A- R- N -O -W. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And Thomas, if you would, could you state your affiliation with Palm Foundation II, Incorporated. MR. ARNOW: I work for the developer. I build their homes and manage their properties. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Could you state for the record that they've given you the ability to speak on their behalf today? MR. ARNOW: Yes, they have. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great, thank you. Do you want him to say it, Jean, or is that okay? MS. RAWSON: Well, he answered your question. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Fair enough. Good. Jeff, do you want to read in? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: I do. Okay, for the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. Original violations are of Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 4.06.05(x)(2), maintenance of landscaping, and Collier County Land Development Code 91 -102, Section 3.5.7.2.5, littoral shelf planting area. Violation location area is Coco Lakes, Tract L -2. Folio Number Page 76 January 19, 2012 26169500108. Description: Property was not being maintained with dead required plant material and overgrowth around lakes. Littoral shelf planting area is not being maintained and there was an overgrowth of exotics. Past order: On February 24th, 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 4656, Page 2331 for more information. The property is in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of August 30th, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order item number one and two, fines at the rate of $250 per day for the period between August 24th, 2011 through August 20th, totaling seven days, for a total fine amount of $1,750. Order Item number five, operational costs of $81.15 have been paid. The total amount due today, $1,750. The county recommends full abatement of fines, as the violation is abated and operational costs are paid. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to abate. MR. MARINO: I have a question. It said Page 2336 on our paper. You said 2331. MS. BAKER: It's the other summary. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay there's two cases. MS. BAKER: There's two of them. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Yeah, we're on 717, I believe, right? CHAIRMAN KELLY: We had them in reverse order in our -- that's okay, you've read everything on that one right so we'll just go with that. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Okay, that was on the agenda Page 77 January 19, 2012 first, right, or was I -- MS. BAKER: Yes. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: It was just backwards in our packet. So we're on the case ending in 717. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And your motion is still for this case? MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Second to abate. 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: (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: that one. Any opposed? That one is carried, so there's no fines on Now we'll re -swear you in and we'll talk about the other case, which is ending in 718. (Supervisor Letourneau and Mr. Arnow were duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Okay, once again, for the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to CEB Case No. CEVR20100020718, Board of County Commissioners versus Palm Foundation II, Incorporated. • E January 19, 2012 Violations are of the Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 4.06.05(K)(2), maintenance of landscaping, and of Collier County Land Development Code 91 -102, Section 3.5.7.2.5, littoral shelf planting area. Location of violation, Coco Lakes, Tract L -1. Folio No. 26169500085. Description of violation: Property is not being maintained with dead required plant material and overgrowth around lakes. Also, the littoral plant shelf area is not being maintained, with an overgrowth of exotics. Past order: On February 24th, 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 4656, Page 2336 for more information. The property is in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of August 30th, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order item number one and two, fines at the rate of $250 per day for the period between August 24th, 2011 and August 30th, 2011, totaling seven days, for a total amount of $1,750. Order Item number 5, operational costs of $81.15 have been paid. Total amount to date, $1,750. The county recommends full abatement of fines as the violation is abated and operational costs have been paid. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to abate. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Page 79 January 19, 2012 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 that all of us? Are we all voting? Yes, since Gerald is not here, then Ron, yes, you would be voting. And you're an aye? MR. DOINO: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, Cherie'. And thank you, sir, for taking care of everything, we appreciate it. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next case is going to be Jon and Denise Brimmer. Are the respondents here? (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator, would you like to read the imposition of fine. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Yes. This is in reference to CEB Case No. 2007090878, Board of County Commissioners versus Jon and Denise T.C. Brimmer, respondents. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06(B)(1)(e), and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i), and the Florida Building Code 2004 edition, Section 105.1. Location: 561 Seventh Street Northwest, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 37110760009. Description: Detached garage built in rear yard without first obtaining Collier County permits. January 19, 2012 Past orders: On July 28th, 2011 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 4708, Page 1563 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board's orders as of January 19th, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order number one and number two, fines at a rate of $150 per day for the period between November 26th, 2011 through January 19th, 2012, 55 days, for the total amount of $8,250. Fines continue to accrue. Order number five, operational costs of $80.86 have been paid. Total amount to date: $8,250. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. MS. BRIMMER: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would you like to speak as to the situation? MS. BRIMMER: Absolutely. After we got the information, the day in July, we immediately paid it. We came over and we thought we had everything done right, and we found out we didn't, it wasn't certified. So we went through the process. We finally got everything we thought correct on November 24th, submitted for a permit, put e -mail, business card and street address. Sent an e -mail. If you would like a copy of that, we can submit that, we have 15 copies of the e -mail we sent to Colleen. Chris responded nicely to my e -mail saying to apply for an extension. We were going to wait to see if we were really denied or if it was approved before applying. We haven't heard anything. Chris did show me today we were denied on several application parts of the permit that we would like to fix, but without that information we didn't know how to move forward. January 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: So basically you had -- you'd wanted an extension just in case, but didn't know how that was going to turn out. MS. BRIMMER: Chris suggested we file for an extension, and I did not file for that extension, because I was waiting to see what was denied and what we would have to fix to know what to approach the board for. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. I appreciate you being here, because it puts us in a weird situation if you weren't. But now we have to really look procedurally how we're going to handle this. So I assume now you're asking for an extension because you just figured out that you were denied. MS. BRIMMER: Christina just told us, and Christina was going to hand me the papers. I'm, like, please don't yet, because I can honestly say I don't have a copy of it, I haven't read it, I don't know what's in there. And she was, I'll come up and tell you that we just handed them to you. So we didn't know the permit was denied until 8:35, approximately, Chris, this morning? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: That's what you said, yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: When was the permit denied? What date? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: It was submitted on November 24th, which was be four months after the hearing date, two days before it was due. And bear with me one moment. MR. LEFEBVRE: Was it submitted by the homeowner? MS. BRIMMER: Yes, I submitted that. I have the receipt for payment on the 24th. When we first came over with all the permits, not everything was sealed, so we had to go back to get it sealed. But then we came back and the survey that they gave us, the land site was blurrily, so we went back. And then that was incorrect again. We had to contact Chase, our mortgage, to get a copy of the survey. My husband isn't employed right now, so finances are tight. January 19, 2012 So finally we got the copy, it took eight weeks to get the copy from the mortgage company. And we didn't know until about the middle of October. So we had everything; we came and submitted it. We knew that the C.O. wouldn't be done, we knew that it wasn't, but we were still trying to comply as best we could. MR. KAUFMAN: Can you take me back to the beginning? You purchased this? MS. BRIMMER: We purchased this house in 2000. When my husband transferred with Wachovia, the real estate agent said oh, here's some houses, and some of them had buildings that were illegally done. We told the realtor we did not want anything that was not done correctly. About five years after we owned the house or so, we found out the back garage was not permitted. We hired DiVosta Homes, the one contractor in there, Mark Ritchards, (phonetic) to do everything for us. We assumed everything was done because we didn't hear anything until July of this year -- last year. So then I figured if I handled it personally, it will get done. But I didn't realize how many different departments are involved in it and how many stipulations to what needs to be certified and what needs to be done here, and try to comply to the best of my ability, plus support the family. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: To answer your question, the application was reviewed on the 29th of November, five days after submittal, and denied on the 2nd of December, three days later. MR. LEFEBVRE: So in fact she's saying that she just found out today that it was denied? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: That's what she's saying, correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: Wouldn't there be a letter or something? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: There would be normally a letter that would be sent, with the exception if you provided an e -mail January 19, 2012 address. And I have a copy of that application where she provided the e -mail address. And it shows it was sent to that e -mail. She's telling me this morning that's not her e -mail address, although it is her handwriting. MS. BRIMMER: I have very sloppy handwriting. And you can't read the -- it's CoachDenises @gmail, and you can't see the last S. I also gave my business card, which is Askcoachdenise.com with that, and, you know, I assumed everything we've gotten from the county before has been snail mail, so we did not receive anything snail mail. And if I made a mistake on the e -mail -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: How long do you think it will take to complete everything? MS. BRIMMER: I have no idea. I have no idea what we need to do. I mean, we seriously don't have a clue. There's no windows, there's electric, there's two garage doors and an open door. We don't use the garage at all but it was there when we got the mortgage so we have to -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: I've kind of let this go a lot further than what it should have. MS. BRIMMER: I understand. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Here's the situation: Procedurally we can only rule to either impose the fines or not to impose them. Typically the board does not like to deny imposition if they're not in compliance. If they're not in compliance, then we usually impose them. And then there is one last step before it actually goes to the county attorney's office for foreclosure where you have the opportunity to come back and ask for abatement and that kind of process. But it puts us in a unique situation procedurally. Any suggestion from the board? MR. LEFEBVRE: Can we -- MS. BRIMMER: Could we look at what's denied to see -- maybe someone knows more about the contracting business to tell me •, January 19, 2012 how long it would take. CHAIRMAN KELLY: It would almost be like almost rehearing the case or -- MS. BRIMMER: Oh, I understand that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: -- getting an update on the case. If it was a situation where you'd asked for an extension and we had the same facts that you just gave us, we would take those into consideration, potentially give you an extension at that time, and then we can discuss how long the extension should be based on whatever was denied. MS. BRIMMER: And if I had a letter of denial, then I would have applied. But until I knew that, there was no reason for me to apply. Because there was always that hope and possibility that it was going through correctly. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Rivht. MR. KAUFMAN: So you paid for the building permit? MS. BRIMMER: Yes, we paid for that. MR. KAUFMAN: Submitted it. MS. BRIMMER: Um -hum. MR. KAUFMAN: Three days later it was turned down. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: That's correct. MR. KAUFMAN: You don't know why it was turned down because you never got it. MS. BRIMMER: Correct. The day we did it, we sent an e -mail to Chris and he suggested that we apply for an extension. He was wonderful. We just didn't apply for that because we waited to see if we were turned down. Because this would be a moot point if everything went through, everything would have been done, I assume, by now. MR. LEFEBVRE: When you got notice to come to this hearing, that should have triggered you to call the county and say well, has a permit been approved and can I go pick it up. January 19, 2012 So I'm kind of -- hold on, hold on. I'm kind of questioning the time frames on how the permit was denied and now you just found out today. So we only have two choices: Either to impose fines -- we can't grant an extension, is is that correct, Jean? MS. RAWSON: You can't grant an extension, because -- well, I guess you could, but generally speaking, what you usually do when you grant extensions is you want to know that they've complied. And you always want to know that they've paid the court costs. MR. LEFEBVRE: Court costs have been paid. MS. RAWSON: But, you know, you look at all those factors. MR. LEFEBVRE: Can we withdraw this? MR. L'ESPERANCE: We have an option to withdraw for one month. MR. LEFEBVRE: If we can withdraw this and -- it seems like you may need some professional assistance on getting this permit. That's what to me seems like the case. I'd be willing, if the county would like to withdraw this and then come back to us next month with exactly what is -- what are you doing to move forward to this corrected. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: If I may, I'd like to add one more statement, if I could. There's a final judgment of foreclosure for this property, and that was recorded on December 10th of 2008. I'm not sure if that helps you in this -- MR. LEFEBVRE: 2008? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: It doesn't look like the county wants to withdraw it. MS. BAKER: I just have a question for Jean. Procedurally, can they go ahead and grant them an extension of time? Is there anything -- MS. RAWSON: Yes, they could. January 19, 2012 MS. BAKER: -- in the rules that says that they can't? MS. RAWSON: No, no. No, they absolutely can do that. MR. LEFEBVRE: Let me ask this: This throws a wrench into the whole thing. Was there a judgment in 2008 for foreclosure? MS. BRIMMER: We were behind and they were going to and we went into a loan modification. MR. LEFEBVRE: So has that been satisfied? I mean -- MS. BRIMMER: We pay monthly. Nothing has changed. They've never foreclosed. MR. LEFEBVRE: Usually a certificate of title would follow a month or two later. And if that's not the case then it was dismissed, I guess. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: I'm not sure. I know sometimes it takes a little bit longer, but -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, longer is -- it's been three years. Was there any modification since then? Does it show any loan modification? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: There was -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Usually that would show up. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: There was something where it went over to -- it was with Wachovia and I'm not sure who the bank is now. MR. LEFEBVRE: Assignment of mortgage? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Yes. The last document that I could find in the court -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, if you told me that it was last year, December of last year, I would say, well, a title -- a certificate of title isn't far behind. But being that it's three years ago, more than likely the bank didn't file for certificate of title which they would then lose possession of property. So there probably was some kind of modification to keep them on the property. This really needs to have professional assistance to get this January 19, 2012 moving forward. I'm kind of oscillating between giving a 90 -day extension or just bringing this case back next month to see where they stand and make a decision at that point. I don't know what the board's CHAIRMAN KELLY: The board can't push it back. The county would have to withdraw it and they're not going to. MR. HUDSON: I haven't said anything all day but I feel compelled right now to say something. I think that you have a situation here where they clearly went through the process, going through the process. There's some timing decisions that might have been poor, but I think in general, I think you should probably consider going outside your box here and thinking about an extension. Because I think professional assistance is needed. They paid the operational costs. I don't see any like ill will here. So I would just strongly urge the board to think about this a little bit. MR. LEFEBVRE: On Chris's advice I'm going to move forward with a motion to grant an extension of 90 days. MR. MIESZCAK: I like it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Who wants to second it? MR. KAUFMAN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) January 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: The motion carries. So what we did is we granted a 90 -day extension from today's date. You'll get a completely -- basically it's the same order, just get a completely new set of time frames now for 90 days. But take into consideration if it does go past that 90 days, without having your COs, without having everything complete, the board weighs into consideration these events as to whether or not to grant another extension. MS. BRIMMER: Oh, absolutely. Do we pay again for today? CHAIRMAN KELLY: No, there are no court costs for today. MR. KAUFMAN: Question. On the fines, do they continue to accrue? MS. BAKER: Not with an extension of time. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. BRIMMER: Thank you, gentlemen, for your time. I hope you have a blessed day. MR. LEFEBVRE: Just to let you know, I -- if you come in front of us, I probably will not grant another extension. MS. BRIMMER: I do not want to visit you all again, if possible. Have a great day. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, next case is going to be Gloria Perdigon. And I believe we have some paperwork in reference to this case? She's asking for a permit extension for three months. The respondent's not here, right, Cristina? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: No. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Let's go ahead and get her sworn in. (Supervisor Cristina Perez was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sorry. So under oath, now, respondents aren't here, right? January 19, 2012 SUPERVISOR PEREZ: No, they're not here. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Does the county have an objection to the request for an extension? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: On the letter that they submitted for extension, they specified that it's due to the property loss and bank foreclosure. This property has already been granted 150 -day extension. Originally it was heard in June, and then they requested an extension for 150 days. Oh, I'm sorry, originally it was heard in February. June they requested an extension, and they were granted an additional 150 days. And the compliance efforts on site, there's still multiple structures on the property that need to be taken care of. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And this seems like it's last minute. It was just two days ago that the fax was received. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Right. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to deny. I don't think you can do a motion at the same time, but to impose the fines. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We're actually -- you know, back in the beginning of the hearing today this was presented to me, and due to the time frame that it was just received two days ago did not fall within our rules for proper submittal to ask for the request for extension, so it was not added to the agenda. This is just for everyone's information, she did try but did not meet those guidelines. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to impose fines then. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second. Let's if we can read into what we're voting on so we have it for the record. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: For the record, Cristina Perez, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to CEB Case No. CESD20100009141. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Article 2, January 19, 2012 Florida Building Code, 2007 edition, Section 22- 26(B), 104.5.1.4.4, and Chapter 1, Permits, Section 105. 1, and Ordinance 04 -41, the Collier County Land Development Code, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Location: 2931 Eighth Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 40628400107. Description: Three dog kennels, carports, horse stable built without Collier County permits and a guesthouse with expired Permit No. 2005020427. Past orders: On February 24, 2011 the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4656, Page 2357 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of January 19th, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as the followings: Order item number one and two, fines at the rate of $150 per day for the period between November 21, 2011 and January 19, 2012, 60 days, for the total of $9,000. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item number five, operational costs of $83.43 have been paid. Total amount to date, $9,000. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion, we have a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LTSPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. Page 91 January 19, 2012 MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: The motion carries unanimously. Thanks, Cristina. Next case is Pinegate 135, LLC. Is there a representative here? (Supervisor Letourneau was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Once again for the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in regards to CEB case number CESD20110007295, Board of County Commissioners versus Pinegate 135, LLC. The violations are of the Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06(B)(e)(i). The violation location: Is 4075 Pine Ridge Road, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 37930510002. Violation description: Alteration of interior office without permits. Past order: On September 22nd, 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 4728, Page 871 for more information. Of the property is in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of December 9th, 2011. 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 November 22nd, 2011 to December 9th, 2011, totaling 18 days, for a total amount of $1,800. Order Item number five, operational costs of $80.86 have not been paid. Total amount due to date, $1,880.86. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So they are in compliance, however they just never paid their operational costs? Page 92 January 19, 2012 SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Correct. According to Investigator Mucha, he's made several attempts to notify them of the operational costs and nobody's made any attempt to call him back or contact anybody. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: can't waive those. And a remainder to the board, we MR. KAUFMAN: You would think an $80.86 investment could possibly save $1,800. Make a motion we impose it. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second. Any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aside from my own, we could abate the 1,800 in fines and just impose the $80.86 in court costs. MR. MIESZCAK: The reason I don't see it is you can't pay the operational costs, we can't abate that, and they don't want to come in and they don't answer a call, I think we did the right thing. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Jean, what is your opinion? MS. RAWSON: Well, I can't tell you guys how to vote, although sometimes I'd like to. You can do either. But the operational costs, you can't waive those so they're going to have to do that. Now, what you want to do about the fines is up to you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So we have a motion and a second. Any further comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. Page 93 January 19, 2012 MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Opposed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: (Indicating.) Two. It carries, so it's going to be imposed. Next case is Sergio and Sara Garita. G- A- R- I -T -A. Are the respondents here? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to have to excuse myself, I have an afternoon appointment. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's right, yes. Ron, you'll become our full voting member for the rest of the time. Thank you, Lionel. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Thank you. (Investigator Ambach was duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: For the record, Chris Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violations: Florida Building Code 2007 edition, Chapter 1, permits, Section 105.1. Location: 420 15th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 37011920003. Description: Fence around property without all required Collier County permits. Past orders: On October 27th, 2011, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4734, Page 2811 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board's orders as of January 19th, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order January 19, 2012 item number one and number two, fines at a rate of $100 per date for the period between November 27th, 2011 and January 19th, 2012, 54 days, for the total amount of $5,400. Fines continue to accrue. Order number item five, operational cost of $80.57 have not been paid. Total amount due to date, $5,480.57. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a motion? MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion to impose. MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Thank you, Chris. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, next case is Crescencio Lopez Garcia. Is the respondent here? THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please. MR. BARRERA: First name is Juan. Barrera. THE COURT REPORTER: Spell it, please. MR. BARRERA: B- A- R- R- E -R -A. (Supervisor Snow and Mr. Juan Barrera were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Kitchell, before you get started. Sir, could you state your relationship to the respondent? Page 95 January 19, 2012 MR. BARRERA: Yes, I'm an associate architect, and I've been working on this project for the past months. We've been pulling permits and -- SUPERVISOR SNOW: He does have permission to represent the property owner. We do have documentation. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Perfect. That's what I needed. Thank you, Kitchell. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Sir, this is in case CESD2010005204, Crescencio Lopez Garcia. It's violations of Collier County Land Development Code, 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). And THE location is 604 Boston Avenue, Immokalee, Florida. The folio is 124120002. Description is two mobile homes, unattached carport with expired permit, a single - family house that was altered /added to without first obtaining Collier County building permits. Past orders: On January 27th, 2011 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 violations. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4651 and Page 589 for more information. An extension of time was granted on July 28th, 2011. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4708 and Page 1547 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of January 19th, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order item one and two, fines at the rate of $250 per day for the period between September 27th, 2011 and January 19th, 2012, 115 days, for a total amount of $28,750. Fines continue to accrue. Item number five, operational costs of $80.29 have been paid, and the total amount to date is $28,750. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. January 19, 2012 Sir, would you like to tell us the circumstances behind the issues? MR. BARRERA: Yes. We've been working with the owner on drawing this up, pulling permits. We pulled six permits, which was three demos, a permit by affidavit and two new construction permits. We're on the final one, which is the affidavit. We were in here last night trying to get it in the system. And it was issued, the last permit. And we're waiting for the inspection. It was scheduled for today. And that was the last of the -- of getting this closed off and finalized. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator, how -- I'm sorry, Supervisor, how close are we? SUPERVISOR SNOW: I think we're very close. This was a very extensive project. Unfortunately they didn't come ask for time like we normally do before this board. And they were in here very late last night and early this morning. And his representative and the permit is -- we thought it would be CO'd but it hasn't been, so -- and then we wouldn't be here today. But unfortunately we can't do anything about that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: The inspections have passed, it's just a matter of getting someone to CO it? SUPERVISOR SNOW: For the permit -- oh, it's a permit by affidavit so it's already been signed off on, somebody just has to review it and it's done and then they issue the CO. That's all that needs to be done. So it's clearly approaching that final step. MR. LEFEBVRE: Could we withdraw this? MS. BAKER: You could do an extension like you did in the past case, if you'd like. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Apparently the county is against pulling any cases today. So we're going to have to do the legwork, if we want to. MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion we extend it 30 days till the next meeting. Page 97 January 19, 2012 MR. MIESZCAK: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? MR. BARRERA: Could we close it here? Could we end it now? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Unfortunately we can't. I'll tell you why MR. KAUFMAN: We could end it, but then you'll be paying $28,750. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Here's the reason why. If we go ahead and abate right now and we say no, the county cannot impose fines, that means they can never impose fines, and there would be no incentive to ensure that this does in fact close out like it should. So unfortunately no. But what we're going to do is extend -- it sounds like we're going to extend it 30 days and that will give you enough time to get your CO and then there won't be any fines at all and you won't need to come back. MR. BARRERA: Sounds good. SUPERVISOR SNOW: We'll probably have to come back to abate the fines, but there won't be any. CHAIRMAN KELLY: No, if we're extending it, there's no fines. I assume we're expending from today, correct? MR. KAUFMAN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah, so there wouldn't be any if it's within 30 days. Okay, so any further comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. January 19, 2012 MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And the motion carries. MS. RAWSON: How many days? CHAIRMAN KELLY: It was 30, 30 days. SUPERVISOR SNOW: We thank the board. MR. KAUFMAN: Next meeting. MR. LEFEBVRE: But again, if you're not in compliance within those 30 days, the fines start up again. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Hold on a second. That might be a difference in numerical days. Originally the motion and the second were on 30 days, and then after the vote there was comments that it was next meeting. MR. MIESZCAK: I thought that was his motion, next meeting. MS. BAKER: Yeah, the next meeting falls -- MR. LEFEBVRE: On the 23rd. MS. BAKER: Yeah, more than 30 days. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So it would be okay? MS. BAKER: But normally what we would do is let that 30 days elapse and then we would schedule for the next available hearing after that 30 days, meaning our time frames for mailing and requirements. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, so no amendment necessary. All right, thank you very much. Next case is Harry Montz. (Investigator Azure Botts and Mr. Harry Montz were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Azure, would you like to read it into the record? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: Sure. This is in reference to violations of Collier County Land January 19, 2012 Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location: 2547 Barrett Avenue, Naples, Florida. Folio number 81730640005. Description of past orders: Extension of roof over carport and front door. Area on August 25th, 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 4718, Page 1677 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of January 19th, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order item one and two, fines at a rate of $200 per day for the period between October 25th, 2011 to January 19th, 2012, 87 days, for the total of $17,400. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item number five, operational costs of $80.29 have been paid as of this morning. Total amount to date, $17,400. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, Mr. Moritz, would you like to tell us what's going on? MR. MONTZ: Well, unfortunately I'm in the same situation as a lot of people. I did do an extension on my carport of 32 inches, and 24 inches on the front walkway. I was in the process of trying to get an engineered drawing. I did pull permits way back in May that it's in the records and that, but we just didn't go through with it because I need an engineered drawing. Went through three different engineers. Evidently it's not a money maker for them, so nobody really wants to come work with it. I did get an engineer from here this morning and I got my drawings and everything. And I would like to get extension, if I could, and follow through with the permitting and the showing the drawings Page 100 January 19, 2012 and everything. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Azure, any comments? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: The only comments I would like to make is I have not heard anything from Mr. Montz since the original order was provided. We communicated maybe twice, but I have not heard from him since. CHAIRMAN KELLY: From the board? Any comments, questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Vote one way or another? MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, originally in the original order it was a stipulated agreement, he signed the stipulated agreement for 45 days, and I see that it's crossed out and at some point he got 60 days. I think that was the case is; am will correct? And we've been very giving in granting extensions. How far off do you think you are from getting approval, getting all the permits and everything? MR. MONTZ: Well, all I've got to do is bring my drawings into planning. And the permit's already filled out, all the paperwork, and I've just got to present it to the front. Now, as far as the planning approve it, I'm hoping everything goes through real quick. I'll make an effort to follow up on this to get this on speed ahead. MR. LEFEBVRE: The other thing that's a little disconcerning (sic) is you just paid the operational cost today knowing that you're coming here today, instead of paying them when they're supposed to be paid, within 30 days of the hearing. CHAIRMAN KELLY: The process after imposition of fines is such to where the code enforcement department continues to try to work with the respondents until such time where it seems like all communication is either nonexistent or broken down. And at that time you forward it to the county attorney's office for them to start Page 101 January 19, 2012 foreclosures proceedings if they feel necessary, correct? MS. BAKER: Yes, with your permission. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes, with our permission. She said with your permission. That's right, because we have to consent to it. MS. BAKER: Correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So there's still one more opportunity for us to stop the process. What about reduction or abatement of fines after the imposition, we still have process as well, don't we? MS. BAKER: Yes, we do. And we have a resolution set in place that was approved by the Board of County Commissioners which gives us the parameters to bring that to the Board of Commissioners for their approval to either waive the fines or not. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Okay, so if we impose, it's not be- all - end -all, there's still -- MS. BAKER: Correct. MR. MONTZ: Excuse me. Since I came to the hearing, you know, the last hearing and that, I haven't really heard anything from the county. But that's no fault of you guys or code enforcement. I should be following up with it myself. You know, finances is -- everybody's strapped, and the economy is in a situation. But I'm going to make the biggest effort I can to get this followed through and do everything I need to do. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: As chairman, I try to just watch out for procedure, let the board decide which way they want to go. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we extend for 60 days. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. KAUFMAN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? Page 102 January 19, 2012 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries unanimously. Very good. So that will be 60s days from today. Keep in mind, as you heard from the last time, usually when we see these type of extensions last minute, if you come back again we're typically not as lenient. MR. MONTZ: Thank you very much. MR. LEFEBVRE: I can tell you for a fact, like I told the other respondent, that I probably will not extend it again. MR. MONTZ: I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Okay, next is going to be Juan Sanchez Olvera and Pamela Jean Sanchez. Are the respondents here? MS. BAKER: And we do have a document that was submitted to us that we would like to pass to you as well for this case. It was given to us today. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. (Supervisor Snow was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR SNOW: For the record, Kitchell Snow, Collier County Code Enforcement. Mr. Chairman, would you like me to read this into the record, or would you? CHAIRMAN KELLY: It's just this one page? SUPERVISOR SNOW: Actually, it's two pages of them giving permission, the owner giving permission and the respondent. Page 103 January 19, 2012 Since they're not here -- the contractor was here, but obviously they chose to leave. But if you would like me to read it or you want it to stand as it is, it's up to you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I think it should be read as part of this. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Okay. This is dated January 18th, 2012. It says 45 -day extension of fines, code enforcement case number -- Dear Code Enforcement Board: This letter is to inform you that Mr. Sanchez has removed two of the three mobile homes. And while trying to start the demo of the last trailer, he could not get the tenants to move out. Mr. Sanchez had to use the authorities to obtain possession of the mobile home, which was recently done. Mr. Sanchez did not realize he had surpassed the deadline of the demo and would like to request 45 days to remove the trailer and the waiver of fines, due to the special circumstances in this manner. And it's signed Earnest Freeman, Jr., President, Freeman and Freeman Construction. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And you know from your experience in this case that Freeman is in fact representing them and has been hired to handle this? SUPERVISOR SNOW: Yes, sir, I do know that for a fact. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any -- hold off on reading the imposition yet until we engage the board to see what they want to do. Any comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Supervisor Snow, am I right to say that these guys are really close, it's just a matter now that the tenants have finally moved out, it's just that one last trailer needs to be removed? SUPERVISOR SNOW: Yes, sir, they did extensive work. It was actually two separate properties and this is the second one. They had to remove the five. They had three on one very small lot and two on another. So I would say they're close. Keep in mind, this is an older case. The compliance date was in Page 104 January 19, 2012 -- you gave them one extension in August, and the compliance date was November. And we always encourage them to come forward and ask for an extension if it's necessary. I don't know if this was a contractor error, how it was -- whether they had to get the police to actually do an eviction. That's their contention. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. From the board, comments? MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to extend for 60 days. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. KAUFMAN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, so that is an extension for case number, since we never read it in, CESD20100005061. That's Juan Sanchez Olvera and Pamela Jean Sanchez. Folio No. 73181120001. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, let's take a five- minute break. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Now we'll go on to the next case, which is Anne Jules Delva. (Investigator Azure Botts and Anne Jules Delva were duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: Reference to Case No. CESD20090015436. Page 105 January 19, 2012 Violations: Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, building and building regulations, Article 2, Florida Building Code, adoption and amendment of the Florida Building Code, Section 22- 26(B).104.5.1.4.4. Location: 3404 Seminole Avenue, Naples, Florida. Folio 74411360006. Description of past orders: Permit No. 2008051265 expired on May 4th, 2009 without completing the work. On November 19th, 2009 the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4515, Page 3497 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of January 19th, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order item one and two, fines at a rate of $200 per day for the period between March 20th, 2010 through January 19th, 2012, 670 days, for the total of 1,000 -- apologies, $134,000. Fines continue to accrue. Order item number five, operational costs of $81.15 have been paid. Total amount to date, $134,000. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Good morning. MS. DELVA: Good morning. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Or good afternoon, technically. Would you like to tell us the situation behind this so we get a feel for what's going on? MS. DELVA: Okay. On 2005, the hurricane was bring the house down. I was pay one guy $20,000 to fix the house. And then he's work on the house out of the permit. He's put me on problem with code enforcement because -- and after that he work out with the money, he don't fix the house. I don't have money to fix the house. Page 106 January 19, 2012 I was going to the rehab to ask for help to get -- to help me to fix the house. And they ask me so many question. They say if the house was gutted in 2008, I say yes. They say if the insurance was pay me, I say yes. He say, what you do with the money? I explain that to her. I tell her I was paid out of and I was pay one guy 20,000 to fix the house. And the lady tell me, I don't think they going to help you to fix the house because you already find money from insurance. After one hour they call me again, ask me same question. And then she say that to me, passing in the office, come in to -- bring your divorce paper and sign the paper to get something out. And when I go over there, whose make me sign the paper, tell me, Ms. Delva, you alway say that you find money from insurance. Just sign in here, we have to put you in an order plan to fix the house. I say okay. And then month past, and after that someone call me like who's inside this case call me, Miss Delva, can you can't afford to get your house fix. I say yes. And then she's put one guy to fix the house, and the guy work on the house like two weeks, like that. And after that she call me, Miss Delva, you have -- you get problem. I say, what problem is it? She say, you never say that if you find money from insurance. I say I always said that to you. And then they send me the paper say sorry, talk to the constructor to finish the house for you. And then the constructor send me the letter say I have to pay $40,000 and 500 something, and after that looking for another constructor to finish the house. I don't have any place now because I don't have money to fix the house. If I pay $40,000 and 500, pay the guy and leave the house like that, after that looking for in order to fix the house, I say that one impossible to do that and I stop that. I have no money to fix it. I don't know what you have to say for now. Page 107 January 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right, thank you. Azure, how much activity have we seen since? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: Let me try to clarify, because I'm sure you guys are pretty confused with money and paying and not paying. Mrs. Delva -- after the case had been brought to the board, Mrs. Delva contacted Housing and Human Services. Housing and Human Services worked with her and eventually approved a grant to help repair her home. Housing and -- and work did begin. A permit was obtained, roofing and other things had began. Inspections were conducted. The last inspection was May 23rd. Unfortunately now that permit is expired as well. Housing and Human Services has -- some other grants had been under review, investigation, whatever words you'd like to put there. And during the review of her grant, the county attorney's office -- from my understanding, there's probably more in detail than what I'm going to say. What she is describing is that she received insurance money from the house being damaged from the storm. She used that money to pay the house off instead of the repairs. In the investigation -- let me rephrase that, that's a harsh word. During the review of her grant, they determined that she should not be qualified for the grant. They claimed the lien but then they released the lien on the 22nd of December. So Housing and Human Services released that lien, and there is money paid to the -- that needs to be paid to the contractor because that grant has been removed. . CHAIRMAN KELLY: Did the contractor actually perform work? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: That is correct, yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And she thought she was getting grant money but later found out she was not because they pulled it? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: That is correct. CHAIRMAN KELLY: The original 20,000 from the insurance i,•- 10 January 19, 2012 company, that was used to pay off the house. But she claims it was given to a contractor who never finished the. INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: I believe it's both. I believe that it was to pay off the house and to pay the contractor. CHAIRMAN KELLY: How close are we to finishing this work? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: Not close at all. The house is completely gutted. All we have is a concrete block shell, a roof and some interior framing for walls. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. And is it occupied? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: No, it's not. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Anymore questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Do you have any idea what the value of the house is now? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: No, sir, I have no -- MR. KAUFMAN: It's probably worth a lot less than the fines. INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: I don't want to say one way or the other. I don't know. MR. KAUFMAN: Well, if it's just a shell. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, there's no other comments? MR. HUDSON: The only comment I have is that the operational costs were paid. But this is interesting, I've only been on the board now for however many months. $134,000 seems like weird at the precipice of what is scary and what since. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah, I have -- I just think it's wrong to impose that much. But that is what it is. And I don't feel good about it. Let me ask this question: Mrs. Delva, do you have any plans to fix the house? MS. DELVA: I don't have any plans now, because I was going to the bank to get a loan to fix the house. And then one day the Page 109 January 19, 2012 Martinez say -- the constructor said I have to pay 40,000 and 500 after that, leave the house like that. I cannot live in the house and then I don't have money to fix the house. I was stopped this one, because I cannot pay 40,000 like that. And I don't know when I have to finish to paid it and stay out of this house after that looking for money to fix the house. I saw that is impossible to do that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Azure? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: I just wanted to clarify, maybe I didn't portray it correct or clear the first time. She was denied that grant because she had already received insurance money to repair that house. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I understand. INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: that that came across clearly. Okay. I just wanted to make sure CHAIRMAN KELLY: No, what I'm trying to do is determine whether or not there are plans to move forward with taking care of this abatement or is she going to just let the property go into either foreclosure if there's a loan or maybe the county take it, if that's the case. MR. MARINO: I have a question. Was this a primary residence at one time or is it a rental? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: Mrs. Delva would have to answer that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mrs. Delva, was this your home at one time? Did you live in it at one time, or is it a rental? MS. DELVA: No, I was living in it like I don't know exactly how many months. I don't know what years I was living there, but I was living there. After the hurricane passed, I was going to my sister house to live. I cannot live over there on 2006 till now. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: I make a motion to impose the fine. MR. KAUFMAN: I second it. Page 110 January 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We have a motion and a second. Any further comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Except how remorseful we are for this. Seeing none, all in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Carries unanimously. So here's what we did. We imposed the fines of $134,000, as painful as it is. It is unfortunately what we have to do, unless the building was to come into compliance, unless it was to be fixed. So next, it will be given back to code enforcement to try to work with you in some way. And if not, it may come back to us to go to the county attorney's office for potential foreclosure. I don't know. We can't control that from here on. MS. DELVA: They going to send me a letter, or what? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes, they will. So I'm very sorry, and we wish you the best of luck. MS. DELVA: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, next is Roxan Sorokoty and Walter Sorokoty Trust, or Estate. MS. BAKER: Mr. Chair, before we read the imposition of fines, we could probably let the respondent speak, because they may ask for an extension as well. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Let's get you all sworn in. Are you Page 1 I 1 January 19, 2012 representation? MR. MINOR: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So the attorney doesn't need to be sworn in. (Mr. Varsames and Investigator Botts were duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please? MR. MINOR: My name is Bruce Minor, I'm with Cameron Real Estate Services. And I'm here representing Roxan Sorokoty Trust, at her request. MR. VARSAMES: My name is John Varsames from the Construction Managers. And I've been hired to remediate the code violations on the property. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right. If you'd like, just speak to us, you know, plainly about what's going on and what we can do to help. MR. MINOR: Did you need any review of this or -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes, maybe like a two - minute catch -up, that would be all right. MR. MINOR: All right. We had asked for an extension previously because of the code violation. The property is a commercial metal building which is not occupied. We were getting -- we got a previous extension for six months in order to allow a potential tenant to decide whether he wanted to reinforce the existing mezzanine that was there. Had plans drawn, et cetera. And then the tenant moved out, leaving the landlord with the situation with the mezzanine. Came back, we had asked -- we came back after the six months and had asked for an extension because we had made the decision to take the mezzanine out, because I didn't particularly want to have to come back here every three months. We hired Construction Managers to go in and remediate the issue, and I would like to turn it over to John Varsames at this point and let him explain his bumpy road down this street. Page 112 January 19, 2012 MR. VARSAMES: John Varsames from the Construction Managers. On July 8th of 20111 submitted a letter to the county requesting a demolition permit, which should have been fairly straightforward, citing both the code violation and a straight demolition permit. We issued three things: Remove and demolish the existing violation; dispose of the debris properly in the Collier County Landfill; and repair any wall penetrations or damage to the adjoining walls. Fairly simple. To that we got a reply, and I met with Gary Harrison. Gary said, John, we understand this lady is in a hardship, just draw up a quick plan, give us some photos, submit it and we'll issue a permit. Which is what I did. The permit came back as denied. So I went down and made an appointment with Gary. Gary had the appointment with me, he couldn't make it and there was another code official there, Tom Umschied, who said the plans you drew up are no good. We need plans. And I said, well, this is what Gary your boss told us to draw. So he said, well, see what else you got. So we took the drawings that were submitted for the remediation to put it in. And we agreed with Tom that we could use those drawings because the owner is under a hardship, it's an elderly lady, let's just mark these up and submit them. Which we did. Those plans were rejected with comments, most of which the comments were answered in the initial letter that we had submitted, that it was a demolition plan. So after some discussion, we got that permit approved by the county building department. It then was sent over to fire. Fire decided that they would reject it on the basis that there was no qualified UL listing for a 30- year -old building to be remediated for the adjacent wall, when our submission was pretty clear that we were going to repair any penetrations to the wall. Page 113 January 19, 2012 So we went back again and dug through old permit records and found a UL supplement to the drawings and submitted them to fire. Those apparently were lost in the correction process. However, I brought them back to fire and fire has issued a permit yesterday to allow for this process to go forward. So today, starting at 8:00 this morning, the final permit has been in typing. Our duration for length of work on this project is about three days, two days. The total amount is $1,400, and it's six months of jumping through what one might consider to be ridiculous hoops to simply tear out something that's there in wood and fix it. But that's where we're at. So it's actually in typing now. We can pick up the permit today. And sometime next week we can bring a dumpster in and remove all the stuff in a day and then repair the walls and call for inspections. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just out of curiosity, out of a $1,400 job to remove the wooden mezzanine structure that was never supposed to be there in the first place, how much did it cost the building owner in permits and time and fees to do -- MR. VARSAMES: Well, thus far, because this lady's been in a hardship and I have a good relationship with Kim, I haven't charged her anything. It was a $75 reapplication fee and the original permit fee was like $125. I mean, it's absurd. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah. MR. VARSAMES: And by the way, the icing on the cake was they wanted to impose an impact fee, and impacts turned it down because they thought we were building a mezzanine, when everything said remove it. So today I visited with impact, and they criticized building for not making it clear on the plans, but then they approved it today. So we're going to impose an impact fee to take something out. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yeah, unfortunately this is mostly the norm for this building. And I say that while I run out of here as soon Page 114 January 19, 2012 as this meeting's over. I hope some commissioner's are watching this. Anyways, let's move on. Any further questions or comments from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: How much time do you think you would need if we were to extend this? MR. VARSAMES: Less than 30 days. MR. MIESZCAK: Next meeting. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. I make a motion that we extend this till the next meeting. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: There are no fines or anything, because we just extended it. So good luck, gentleman. MR. VARSAMES: And off the record, sir, you've got a serious code violation over here. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We do? MR. VARSAMES: Yeah. Your audio system is blocking a fire exit. It's a trip hazard. We won't report you. See you in 30 days. MR. MIESZCAK: That's awesome. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Page 115 January 19, 2012 Moving on, the next one is going to be Continental Furnishings, Incorporated. Are the respondents here? (Speakers were duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your names, please? MR. LANG: Robert Lang. MR. JIAOUTSOS: Tom Jiaoutsos. J- I- A- O- U- T- S -O -S. CHAIRMAN KELLY: For the record, could you just state your names, please? THE COURT REPORTER: They have given me their names. Do you still -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: We're good. As long as you have it, that's what I'm worried about. Azure, do you want to read in? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: Sure. Reference Case No. CESD 20100017997. I'll make it short and sweet. Violation's abated, operational costs are paid. County recommends waiving the finds. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to abate. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) Page 116 January 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, it passes. INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That was quick. Sorry for the wait. MR. LANG: It was a pleasure. CHAIRMAN KELLY: The next case, and this is the last one, Ivy Jean Nebus, Judy Ann Blake and Betty Jo Robertson. And we have paperwork placed on your desk this morning saying that this is now in compliance and that the operational costs have been paid. (Supervisor Letourneau was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: For the record once again, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement. I'm going to take the Azure route on this one. Operational costs paid, violation abated, county recommends waiving of the fines. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to abate. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. That's all the cases that we have for today. Now moving on to new business. Anything new business? I Page 117 January 19, 2012 have some new business, but I don't want to take up Cherie's time. THE COURT REPORTER: No, I'm fine. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: For our rules that are coming up here shortly, I think in March, April time frame. We had just today two maybe three ideas floating around. How do we get them to you? MS. BAKER: You can just bring them to the workshop that we have. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. All right. MS. RAWSON: When is that? MS. BAKER: We don't have that scheduled yet. CHAIRMAN KELLY: My thought was if I got them to you ahead of time -- MS. BAKER: You can just e -mail them to us as well, that's fine. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, no problem, we'll do that. MR. KAUFMAN: Maybe we don't have to bring them to either one of them. Is it possible when you have the extension of time, can you just put down on that whether the court costs, if you will, have been paid or not? MS. BAKER: On their letter? MR. KAUFMAN: No, on the case. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Like on our agenda right next to it, quotes, operational costs have been paid. MS. BAKER: Well -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Let's take this up in March. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right, we'll take it up as part of our rules. MS. BAKER: We could. A lot of times they aren't paid until right prior to the hearing, so -- MR. KAUFMAN: It's a question I ask at every hearing, so I figured we could take that. MR. MIESZCAK: It keeps you entertained. Page 118 January 19, 2012 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next is -- well, there's nothing forward to the County Attorney's Office through the consent agenda. So reports. MS. BAKER: Just a quick foreclosure update for the week ending January 15th, 2012. $2,628,000 in abatement costs have been paid by the lenders. There were 2,145 violations to date abated by the lenders. For the week of January 9th, 2012, nine violations were abated by the lenders, and saved the county $6,970 in costs. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Excellent. Excellent. Excellent job with the foreclosure task force in helping to keep our community looking beautiful and prevent blight. Good job. Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: With that -- MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make a motion to adjourn. MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next meeting. I have to publicly say when our next meeting is. It's February 23rd, 2012. MR. MIESZCAK: I make a motion to adjourn. MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. DOINO: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: We're adjourned. Thank you. Page 119 January 19, 2012 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:31 p.m. 60bc,,i �aAY ?-"v �i Le. Dva-w vyva -r, Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham Page 120 FORM 813 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME -FIRST NAME - MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE MAILING ADDRESS �IS � C" THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: ❑ CITY OUNTY ❑ OTHER LOCAL AGENCY CITY COUNTY IL-1" JJ NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED / �" r77� • Ri o t 'tT< / / ,)o MY POSITION IS: ❑ ELECTIVE POINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 813 This 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 813 - 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 INTEREST hereby disclose that on -rVLLc c'4f�T f `7' 20 f i. (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: Date Filed `'T,r T J- 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 FORM 813 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST A E- STf1IVIE- MiDD AME NAME OF COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUT�iOR�,O��" r�t� MAILIN ADD SW'\ t� �b C(%� THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION`, 4JTHORI�TY OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH i SERVE IS A UNIT OAF:/ ❑ CITY 9C6UNTY ❑ OTHER LOCAL AGENCY CITY y /` / COUNTY / P Z 4 < ![ t e /t NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: DATE ON WHICH V TE O CUR ED 1 MY POSITION IS: // ❑ ELECTIVE QAPPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 813 This 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) C;E FURM 813 - EFF. 112000 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 INTEREST �1 d hereby disclose that on f 20 (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. whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of 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: /�' (1-6 rt-t" ,lgylz Date Filed Signature by which 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 813 - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2