Loading...
CEB Minutes 02/23/2012 RFebruary 23, 2012 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD REEF- ED Naples, Florida APR 12 2012 February 23, 2012 Board of County Commissioners LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Fiala V Hiller Henning Coyle Coletta Ci ALSO PRESENT: Kenneth Kelly (Absent) Larry Mieszcak Ron Doino, Alternate (Absent) Chris Hudson (Absent) Robert Kaufman (Acting Chair) John L. Rauch Lionel L'Esperance Tony Marino Misc. Corres: Date: f: Item: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Copies to: Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director Jen Baker, Code Enforcement Specialist. Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA Date: February 23, 2012 Location: 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL 34104 NOTICE: THE RESPONDENT MAY BE LIMITED TO TWENTY (20) MINUTES FOR CASE PRESENTATION UNLESS ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE BOARD. PERSONS 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. January 19, 2012 Hearing 4. PUBLIC HEARINGSIMOTIONS A. MOTIONS Motion for Continuance Motion for Extension of Time 1. Waste Services of Florida, Inc. 2. Bruce A. Blocker 3. Jose F. Casarez 4. Janet Sneeden 5. Leszek & Henryka Klim Lionel L' Esperance Tony Marino Ronald Doino, Alternate Chris Hudson, Alternate CESD20090002873 CESD20100005205 CESD20110006185 CESD20110009351 CESD20100006719 B. STIPULATIONS C. HEARINGS CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS: FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: VIOLATIONS FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: CESD20100008561 JOSSE L. (AKA JOSE M. PEREZ) AND ISABEL PEREZ INVESTIGATOR CHRIS AMBACH COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) NO COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS OBTAINED OR INSPECTION AND A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION FOR THE POOL AND POOL SCREEN CAGE ENCLOSURE 37221090008 110 WILSON BLVD. S. NAPLES, FL CEVR20110002999 SEAN KING TR. INVESTIGATOR ANDREW KELLY VEGETATION REMOVAL, PROTECTION & PRESERVATION. VEGETATION REMOVAL LANDFILL REQUIRED. COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 3.05.01(B) PROPERTY WAS PARTIALLY CLEARED OF VEGETATION WITHOUT A COLLIER COUNTY PERMIT 36663400008 44415 TH AVE NW. NAPLES, FL 4. 6. CASE NO: CESD20110010712 OWNER: MANUEL OLVERA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOE MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) PERMIT 2007090908 FOR RE -ROOF THAT WAS CANCELLED WITHOUT COMPLETING ALL INSPECTIONS, AND CONVERSION OF A GARAGE TO LIVING SPACE WITHOUT PERMITS FOLIO NO: 35765240002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1823 43RD ST. SW. NAPLES, FL CASE NO: CESD20110007803 OWNER: LARRY W. FOX OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRIS AMBACH VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) STORAGE SHED IN THE REAR YARD CONVERTED INTO A LIVING SPACE WITH A SMALL KITCHEN AND BATH ACCORDING TO THE PROPERTY FOLIO NO: OWNER. STORAGE SHED OCCUPIED BY FAMILY MEMBERS FOLIO NO: 37014680007 VIOLATION 4836 LAKE TRAFFORD ROAD IMMOKALEE, FL ADDRESS: 681 11TH ST. SW. NAPLES, FL CASE NO: CESD20110006837 OWNER: JOSE D. OLVERA & ELVA OLVERA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MARIA RODRIGUEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) A CARPORT, TWO SHEDS AND AN ADDITION ATTACHED TO THE MOBILE HOME ERECTED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A COLLIER COUNTY PERMIT FOLIO NO: 54800007 VIOLATION 39393520006 ADDRESS: 4836 LAKE TRAFFORD ROAD IMMOKALEE, FL CASE NO: CEAU20110013571 OWNER: JEFF J. & JOAN R. REEDER OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i) AND FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1 MULTIPLE SHED TYPE STRUCTURE AND A FENCE CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS FOLIO NO: 39393520006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2321 1 0TH AVE SE NAPLES, FL 10. CASE NO: CESD20100019987 OWNER: PEDRO O. LARA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRIS AMBACH VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, CHAPTER 4, SECTION 424.2.17, SECTION 424.2.17.1 THROUGH 424.2.17.3 AND COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) SWIMMING POOL WITH NO VALID COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT OR PROTECTIVE POOL BARRIER. UNPERMITTED FOLIO NO: ELECTRICAL ALTERATIONS TO THE WIRING SYSTEM THROUGHOUT THE HOME VIOLATION AND ELECTRICAL PANEL FOLIO NO: 36912040009 VIOLATION 36912040009 ADDRESS: 2221 GOLDEN GATE BLVD. W. NAPLES, FL CASE NO: CEPM20100010033 OWNER: PEDRO O. LARA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRIS AMBACH VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22- 231(9); SECTION 22- 231(12)(i); SECTION 22- 231(12)(p) AND SECTION 22- 231(20) ALL INTERIOR FIXTURES HAVE BEEN REMOVED AND NOW HAVE FOLIO NO: EXPOSED WIRING IN THOSE AREAS. ALL SMOKE DETECTORS ARE MISSING VIOLATION WITH EXPOSED WIRING PRESENT. HOLES IN WALLS AND CEILING AND ADDRESS: WINDOW(S) ARE BROKEN AND GLASS IS MISSING FOLIO NO: 36912040009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2221 GOLDEN GATE BLVD. W. NAPLES, FL CASE NO: CESD20110006746 OWNER: JOSE QUEVEDO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JANIS POTTER VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) AND SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i) LIVING SPACE ADDED TO GARAGE. NO COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT OBTAINED FOLIO NO: 39656760008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4365 20T" ST NE. NAPLES, FL CASE NO: CEVR20110014528 OWNER: LEON D. & JOAN MCCASKEY OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DAVID JONES VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 54, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 54- 185(c) PRESENCE OF COLLIER COUNTY PROHIBITED EXOTIC VEGETATION INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO: BRAZILIAN PEPPER, AIR POTATO, DOWNY ROSE MYRTLE WITHIN A 200' RADIUS OF AN IMPROVED PROPERTY FOLIO NO: 75460840000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1335 CENTER LANE NAPLES, FL 11 12 13 14 CASE NO: CESD20110004532 OWNER: JUDSON G. WHITE OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRIS AMBACH VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) THE ORIGINAL POOL PERMIT WAS CANCELLED AND A NEW PERMIT WAS OBTAINED FOR THE POOL, HOWEVER THE NEW PERMIT HAS FOLIO NO: STALLED WITHOUT COMPLETING ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AND OBTAINING A VIOLATION CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION /OCCUPANCY FOLIO NO: 38055840009 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 33303 1 ST AVE. SW. NAPLES, FL CASE NO: CESD20100020576 OWNER: SHIRWIN, INC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR ANDREW KELLY VIOLATIONS: 85 -57 SECTION 5.7(c) AND 88 -33 SECTION 5.8 BUFFERS AND COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 3.05.07 H PRESERVE STANDARDS OBSERVED BUFFER FOR ENTIRE PERIMETER IS INFESTED WITH FOLIO NO: EXOTICS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO BRAZILIAN PEPPER, ACACIA TREES, VIOLATION AUSTRALIAN PINE, AIR POTATO, AND MELALEUCA FOLIO NO: 00396360001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3050 BECK BLVD. NAPLES, FL CASE NO: CESD20110014160 OWNER: MARTHA MENDEZ -CRUZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JANIS POTTER VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) PERMIT NUMBER 2009020960 EXPIRED WITH NO CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION /OCCUPANCY FOLIO NO: 39778000002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 352547 T" AVE. NE. NAPLES, FL CASE NO: CESD20110014484 OWNER: JAMES A. & BARBARA A. WHITE 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) ADDITION MADE TO THE FRONT OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS FOLIO NO: 41718160000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 315036 TH AVE SE. NAPLES, FL 15 16 17 18. CASE NO: CESD20110006404 OWNER: NIAN FINANCING CORP. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRIS AMBACH VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) PERMIT FOR THE HOME ON THE PROPERTY STALLED WITHOUT RECEIVING ALL INSPECTIONS AND A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION /OCCUPANCY FOLIO NO: 37169240004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 160 GOLDEN GATE BLVD. W. NAPLES, FL CASE NO: CESD20110000425 OWNER: ELIDIA GARCIA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JANIS POTTER VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) PERMIT 2004062889 EXPIRED ON 7/23/05. NO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ISSUED FOLIO NO: 37807200005 VIOLATION NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY ALL BUILT WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY ADDRESS: 1275 10TH AVE NE NAPLES, FL CASE NO: CESD20110005690 OWNER: LUIS ARTEAGA & RUBY OSORIO 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) OBSERVED A SHED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, A CARPORT/ SHED LIKE STRUCTURE IN CENTER OF PROPERTY AND A SHED TYPE STRUCTURE HOUSING CHICKENS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY ALL BUILT WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS FOLIO NO: 37227400003 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 7756 TH ST. SE. NAPLES, FL CASE NO: CEN20110017054 OWNER: 2059 EAST TRAIL, LLC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CHRIS AMBACH VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 54 ENVIROMENT ARTICLE IV NOISE, SECTION 54 -92 SOUND LEVELS NOISE EXCEEDING COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS, CHAPTER 54, ARTICLE IV, SECTION 54 -92 FOLIO NO: 77510080006 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2059 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST NAPLES, FL 5. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines/Liens CASE NO: CESD20110006971 OWNER: HENRY & JAN E. HOLZKAMPER OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR AZURE BOTTS VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(e) DRYWALL HAS BEEN REMOVED AND REPLACED IN THE EAST BUILDING'S BOTTOM EAST UNIT (A) AND THE STAIRS ON THE FRONT OF THE EAST BUILDING HAVE BEEN REPAIRED TO INCLUDE BUT NOT FOLIO NO: LIMITED TO: HANDRAILS, STEPS AND SUPPORTS WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING ALL VIOLATION REQUIRED COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS FOLIO NO: 52600440005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 3230 THOMASSON DRIVE NAPLES, FL CASE NO: CES20100019879 OWNER: PLANNING DEVELOPMENT, INC. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHAELLE CROWLEY VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 5.06.06(B) AND 5.06.10(D) & (E) TWO CONCRETE MONUMENT /GROUND SIGNS FOR BAYSHORE CLUB APARTMENTS REMAINING AFTER ALL BUILDINGS HAVE BEEN REMOVED PURSUANT TO DEMOLITION PERMITS FOLIO NO: 61836480008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4580 BAYSHORE DRIVE NAPLES, FL CASE NO: CESD20100007623 OWNER: NORMA RAMIREZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR WELDON WALKER VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) SHEDS AND GARAGE CONVERSION WITHOUT PERMITS FOLIO NO: 63913680004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 809 JEFFERSON AVENUE W. IMMOKALEE, FL 5. CASE NO: CESD20100021462 OWNER: GEORGE D. MARTIN & DEBRA MARTIN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR HEINZ BOX VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(e) UNPERMITTED OFFICE AREA FOLIO NO: 27155000501 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4774 EXCHANGE AVE. NAPLES, FL CASE NO: CES20110001989 OWNER: K. GUENGERICH MCKINNEY OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR SHERRY PATTERSON VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 5.06.11(A)(1) AND 5.06.06(A)(4) ROOF SIGN INSTALLED WITHOUT REQUIRED PERMIT FOLIO NO: 52503080009 VIOLATION THE UPSTAIRS DECK, BOTH WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING PROPER COLLIER ADDRESS: 298 CAPRI BLVD. NAPLES, FL CASE NO: CED20110003169 OWNER: KIMBERLY M. FRY OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR MICHELE MCGONAGLE 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) CONVERTED THE DOWNSTAIRS UTILITY ROOM INTO LIVING SPACE AND ADDED A ROOM ON THE UPSTAIRS DECK, BOTH WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING PROPER COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS FOLIO NO: 4188368004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6025 ENGLISH OAKS LANE NAPLES, FL CASE NO: CESD20110009349 OWNER: VALORI COE- FITZGERALD OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DANNY CONDOMINA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) NO COLLIER COUNTY PERMIT FOR GARAGE DOOR CONVERTED INTO EXTERIOR WALL, WHICH IS IN NEED OF REPAIR AND NO PERMIT FOR STORAGE STRUCTURE NEAR THE REAR OF DWELLING FOLIO NO: 45903640001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 10812 IST STREET S.W. NAPLES, FL 8. 10 11 CASE NO: CESD20110009230 OWNER: MAYKOL CALDERON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR DANNY CONDOMINA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) NO COLLIER COUNTY PERMITS FOR WOODEN STRUCTURE WITH ELECTRICAL IN THE FRONT OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE FOLIO NO: 37344880001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 128127 TH STREET S.W. NAPLES, FL CASE NO: CESD20110003266 OWNER: ROGER TOVAR AND OFELIA DELGADO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) & 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i) AND FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1, PERMITS, SECTION 105.1 GARAGE CONVERTED INTO LIVING SPACE, METAL CARPORT, 3 SHEDS ALL BUILT WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS FOLIO NO: 41109120002 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4760 10TH AVENUE S.E. NAPLES, FL CASE NO: CESD20090014480 OWNER: MELBA GARCIA OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i) ENCLOSED GARAGE AND ADDED A FULL BATHROOM WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS FOLIO NO: 40745440008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 42806 TH AVENUE N.E. NAPLES, FL CASE NO: CEAU20110007445 OWNER: JOSELINO & YOLANDA SANCHEZ, SANDY SANCHEZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1, PERMITS SECTION 105.1 FENCE CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS FOLIO NO: 40920360000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 25304 TH AVENUE S.E. NAPLES, FL 12. 13. 14 15 CASE NO: CESD20090011861 OWNER: STEVEN A. & KELLY A. JOHNSON OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1, PERMITS, SECTION 105.1 PERMIT NUMBER 900005651 EXPIRED WITHOUT A C.O FOLIO NO: 37224080002 VIOLATION 40988080005 ADDRESS: 111 4TH STREET S.E. NAPLES, FL CASE NO: CESD20110010017 OWNER: JEFFREY LEE SMITH JR. OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i) TWO CHICKEE HUTS WITH ELECTRICITY, SHED AND A SWIMMING POOL WITH A SPA AND EXPIRED PERMIT 2006080726 FOLIO NO: 39260240008 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2408 TH STREET N.E. NAPLES, FL CASE NO: CESD20100020287 OWNER: HILDA BEOVIDES OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 04 -41 AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a) AND 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i) ADDITION TO THE REAR OF THE PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT FOLIO NO: 40988080005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1321 EVERGLADES BLVD. NAPLES, FL CASE NO: CEAU20110005919 OWNER: FRANK PAZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR PATRICK BALDWIN VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1, PERMITS SECTION 105.1 FENCE WITHOUT COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS IN DISREPAIR FOLIO NO: 37282480000 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1252 ND STREET N.E. 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 DATE-- March 22, 2012 11. ADJOURN February 23, 2012 VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning, everybody. The code enforcement meeting is now in session. The respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentations, 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 the board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and, therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record on 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. And let's have a roll call. MS. BAKER: Good morning. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. BAKER: Mr. Robert Kaufman will be acting as Chair today. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Larry Mieszcak? MR. MIESZCAK: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. BAKER: Mr. Tony Marino? MR. MARINO: Here. MS. BAKER: And Mr. John Rauch. MR. RAUCH: Here. MS. BAKER: And Mr. Chris Hudson, Mr. Ron Doino and Mr. Ken Kelly all have excused absences for today. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So we have a cozy group Page 2 February 23, 2012 today. MS. BAKER: Yes. And welcome to the Board, Dr. John Rauch. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Welcome. Okay. Well, let's start out with the approval of the agenda. MS. BAKER: Under number four, public hearings /motions, letter A, motions, motion for extension of time, number five, Case CESD20100006719, Leszek and Henryka Klim, has been withdrawn. We have three additions, two motions for extension of time. Number six under motion for extension of time will be George D. Martin and Debra Martin, Case CESD20100021462. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Can I stop you right there a second? When you do this, can you give me the item under imposition of fines or wherever they were so I can write it down? MS. BAKER: Sure. Number six, George Martin and Debra Martin was number four from imposition of fines. The next will be number one from imposition of fines. This is Henry and Jan E. Holzkamper, Case CESD20110006971. And the last one will be number nine from imposition of fines, Roger Tovar and Ofelia Delgado, Case CESD20110003266. Under letter B, stipulations, we have three stipulations. The first will be case number 16 from the agenda. Case CESD20110000425, Elidia Garcia. The second will be number 11 from the agenda, Case CESD20110004532, Judson G. White. The third will be case number four from the agenda, Case CESD20110007803, Larry W. Fox. Under letter C, hearings, number two, Case CEVR20110002999, Sean King Trust, has been withdrawn. Number five, Case CESD20110006837, Jose D. Olvera and Elva Olvera, has been withdrawn. Number seven, Case CESD20100019987, Pedro O. Lara, has Page 3 February 23, 2012 been withdrawn. Number eight, Case CEPM20100010033, Pedro O. Lara, has been withdrawn. Number nine, Case CESD20110006746, Jose Quevedo, has been withdrawn. Number 15, Case CESD20110006404, Nian Financing Corp., has been withdrawn. Under old business, letter A, motion for imposition of fines /liens, number 13, Case CESD20110010017, Jeffrey Lee Smith, Jr., has been withdrawn. And I believe that we have one more stipulation to add. The stipulation will be number six from the agenda, Case CEAU20110013571, Jeff J. and Joan R. Reeder. And that's all the changes I have. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: That's enough. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'll take a motion to accept the agenda as modified. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make that motion. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. UESPERANCE: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. Which brings us to the minutes from the last meeting. Do we February 23, 2012 have any comments, changes, additions on the minutes? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. MR. UESPERANCE: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) MR. RAUCH: I have to abstain. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: One abstention from Dr. Rauch. Which brings us to our motions for extensions of time. The first one is Waste Services of Florida, if I'm not mistaken. MS. RAWSON: Now I can understand why our newest member can't vote on the minutes, but if anybody abstains we're in trouble, because we don't have a quorum. MS. BAKER: Four is a quorum. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, the minutes will probably have to be moved to the next meeting because he abstained because he was not present. MS. RAWSON: No, if you've got four and they were all here. Now, are all of you voting members? VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That's correct. (Mr. Chris Hagan and Investigator Box were duly sworn.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, you're on. MR. HAGAN: All right. Good morning, Board. I'm here representing Waste Services. I was in front of you all, oh, back in November to ask for an extension because we had to make some modifications to a building Page 5 February 23, 2012 permit. At that time you granted us a 60 -day extension. I made the assumption that it was 60 days on the end of the existing time frame instead of from that date, and we missed our deadline by a couple of days. But we do have our certificate of completion. And I think we missed it by just a couple of days, maybe 10 or 11 days. But we are complete. We've met the requirements of the agreement and are hoping to close out the case today. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: County have any comments? INVESTIGATOR BOX: None other than the permit itself, sir, was C.O.'d on the 10th of February, 2012, and there's nothing else. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So in all likelihood we grant the extension of time, this goes away and doesn't come out. INVESTIGATOR BOX: Yes, sir. MR. UESPERANCE: They're nowhere else on the agenda except for the request for extension? INVESTIGATOR BOX: Yes. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I'll entertain a motion for approval. MR. RAUCH: So moved. MR. MARINO: I'll make a motion for approval. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. We have a second? MR. RAUCH: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimous. MS. RAWSON: How many days? VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: MS. BAKER: Till today. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: February 23, 2012 It's already done. Okay, next case is County versus Bruce Blocker. (Mr. Bruce and Supervisor Snow were duly sworn.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. It looks like that according to the copy that I have here that you are asking for an additional six months? MR. BLOCKER: Yeah, we're in the middle of the SIP application and we received some comments, and we just need more time to complete the application. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And you're asking for an additional six months? MR. BLOCKER: Correct. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the $80.29 court costs been paid? MR. BLOCKER: Yes, today. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any comments from the county? SUPERVISOR SNOW: Kitchell Snow, Collier County Code Enforcement. No objection. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Hearing none -- MR. MIESZCAK: I had a comment, if you don't mind. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. MIESZCAK: It says you received comments from the county and that was the end of it. And I would just like to know, what kind of comments is the county giving you? MR. BLOCKER: Mainly it's just additional information regarding landscape, water management, density requirements. We have to meet current zoning standards. Some of them we cannot. The Page 7 February 23, 2012 ones we cannot, I guess the code enforcement will bring it to the Board of Collier County Commissioners and request approval that way. So we're kind of working out what we can meet and what we can't, how to improve the site to bring it to the current code. MR. MIESZCAK: Okay, thank you. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have two questions. That was one of them. My question on that, the comment, is when did you receive those? MR. BLOCKER: I think October -- SUPERVISOR SNOW: If I may clarify for the board, traditionally when they do the SIP's, if it's a nonconforming property or something is wrong with the plan that they submit or they need to make corrections, they get the corrections, they're notified of the corrections. Then a lot of times it takes time for them to research and do what they need to do as far as this property. The process has recently been redefined. So that's part of the problem is we were trying to redefine a process for these nonconforming properties. We're in the process. They know what they have to do. They have been diligent in doing what they need to do. The comments were -- again, one of the things they have to figure out is what current codes can they meet. And if they can't meet them, what they can, and that has to have approval. So they're in the process of doing that. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: My other question was it said the project was put on hold. I assume that it's off of hold now? MR. BLOCKER: Yeah. That was kind of -- we were just trying to get more information as what was required to bring this into compliance. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any other comments from the board? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Anybody want to make a February 23, 2012 motion? MR. MARINO: I'll make a motion we approve the extension. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to approve it. MR. RAUCH: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. Dr. Rauch. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. SUPERVISOR SNOW: We thank the Board. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Which brings us to the next case, which is Jose Casarez. And Maria Rodriguez is the county. SUPERVISOR SNOW: I'm not Maria but I'll be speaking for her. (Mr. Jose Casarez and Supervisor Snow were duly sworn.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. CASAREZ: Yes, I just need an extension because at the time when I started this process I got laid off from work. And now I'm going back to work, but I'm getting all the permits and everything needed so it would go in compliance with the code. SUPERVISOR SNOW: If I may offer some clarity? The initial property was viewed as a violation because it had two mobile homes. The respondent has taken his daughter in and they had moved a new trailer on the property, another double wide, so everybody could exist. One of those has to go. The old trailer was permitted, the new one was not. February 23, 2012 Because of the stipulations about wind loads and different criteria that are associated with mobile homes, because he purchased it secondhand, he didn't have all that. So he's had to track all this down this whole time to try to figure out what was the best way and if he even could permit it. He's got that, he's got a contractor, he's almost there. He's almost there. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I see 120 days was granted in October. And how much extension of time do you need to complete the process? MR. CASAREZ: Sixty days will be fine. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. UESPERANCE: Does the county feel that's an adequate amount of time? SUPERVISOR SNOW: I would prefer 90 to be sure. Because they have applied, buy I don't want him to come back again. He has to take off work, he's -- we would prefer 90. MR. MIESZCAK: I'd like to make a motion, 90 -day extension. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion, do we have -- MR. MARINO: I'll second it. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: --a second? We have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) Page 10 February 23, 2012 VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. SUPERVISOR SNOW: He has paid operational costs, by the way. MS. BAKER: Mr. Chair, if we could move the next case, Janet Sneeden, to the end of extension of time, as they went to get payment for the operational costs, and they will be back. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make a motion we move it to the end of the meeting. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Change the agenda? MR. MIESZCAK: Yes. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do we have a second? MR. RAUCH: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. Agenda's been modified. We're moving that, by the way, to the end of the -- which section? MS. BAKER: Probably to be safe we could move it to the end of the stipulations. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, fine. Which brings us to Leszek and Henryka Klim. MS. BAKER: That was withdrawn. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Page 11 February 23, 2012 MS. BAKER: It would be George and Debra Martin. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That was the imposition of fines, number four, if I'm not mistaken. (Mr. Randy Johns and Investigator Box were duly sworn.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a lot of cases, and I didn't go to page turning school. Okay. This is the ATF permit case? MR. JOHNS: Yes, sir. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. You've asked for an extension of time. Could you explain to the board. MR. JOHNS: At this time we've actually completed it and we've picked up a C.O. for that, so it is completed. We're done as far as anything we need to do. INVESTIGATOR BOX: That's correct. The certificate of completion was filed on the 21 st of February, 2012. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So if we extend the time till today, this goes away and we're all set -- INVESTIGATOR BOX: Yes. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- that's correct? Anybody want to make a motion to extend the time limit till the end of today? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make that motion. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have the motion. MR. RAUCH: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Page 12 February 23, 2012 (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. Thank you very much. MR. JOHNS: Thank you. INVESTIGATOR BOX: Thank you. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, Jen, that brings us to? MS. BAKER: The next will be number one from imposition, Henry and Jan Holzkamper. MR. HOLZKAMPER: Hip replacement. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I know how you feel. I still have my hip, it just hurts. (Mr. Holzkamper and Investigator Botts were duly sworn.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Why don't you let us know why you'd like to extend the time on this. MR. HOLZKAMPER: A year and a half ago, repurchasing a property, we did two repairs which were illegal, not to our knowledge. One, we replaced some drywall. And if every time we replaced a piece of drywall we had to get a building permit and an architect and everything, we'd go crazy. But anyway, we replaced it and we didn't have a permit. So part of the issue is that. The other thing was on an outside stairway we replaced an upright. And according to code -- when I say upright, I mean the post, there's the bannister. According to the code, if you replace one piece of wood on a stairway, you have to get a permit and bring the whole stairway up to code. Well, this is a 30- year -old stairway, which is perfectly good, but we had to do that. And when we were here in August we asked for 90 days to do this. It took over a month just to --after three rejections by the architect drawing for this new stairway, took over a month just to get the drawings before you could even do the permit. Anyway, we were done very, very close to the 90 days we had. Page 13 February 23, 2012 And I thought that was it. You know, the stairway was up, it was there for the inspector to see. But I had forgotten or didn't realize we also had to get the drywall permit. And it's called drywall by affidavit, is that it? Also, we moved. We're renting. And I didn't receive a notification in November or December that I was in jeopardy or hadn't completed everything. So I only got that a week ago. So I immediately called and said we'll take care of it. And yesterday the drywall contractor was at Horseshoe applying for the permit. So the upshot is we're asking for 60 days to get the drywall affidavit permit and drop the fines. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: Mr. Holzkamper has paid the operational costs. And he's actually asking 60 days from today. It would actually be a longer extension time, because his compliance date was the 23rd of November, 2011. I don't know how you gentlemen would like to do those arrangements. But he's actually -- and I explained that to him earlier, I wanted you guys to understand he's asking for 60 days from today. But he has already passed his compliance date. The stairs are done, the permit's been completed with a certificate of completion which was issued on January 17th, 2012. So the last remaining item is just having this permit by affidavit submitted and issued and approved -- completed for the drywall that had been replaced in the unit. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I do remember this case in August. I remember you had the pictures. It was a very attractive piece of property that you had rehabbed. Any questions from the board? MR. RAUCH: None. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you're looking for 90 days? Page 14 February 23, 2012 MR. HOLZKAMPER: It will probably be done in 30 days, but 60 is for sure. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sixty is for sure? MR. UESPERANCE: According to the county, should the extension be just the 60 or 90 days, or should it extend back to when the first one expired? INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: I'm going to say it would need to extend from when the first one expired so that way fines are not accruing. MS. BAKER: We can just grant a 60 -day or 90 -day extension from today. MR. HOLZKAMPER: That would be good. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do we have a motion? MR. MARINO: I'll make a motion we give him the 90 -day extension. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, do we have a second? MR. RAUCH: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? luck. MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. Good MR. HOLZKAMPER: You're gentlemen, but may I never see you again. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, you take care of your hip and don't trip on those steps. Page 15 February 23, 2012 INVESTIGATOR BOTTS: Thank you, gentlemen. MS. BAKER: The next will be case number nine from imposition, Roger Tovar and Ofelia Delgado, Case CESD20110003266. (Investigator Baldwin was duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. The owner has applied for a demolition permit, she has paid the operational costs, and we're just waiting on the five -day inspection to C.O. the demolition permit. The violation has been abated. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So if we extend the time till the end of today, that should take care of this case as well? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: They do not have a C.O. yet. I'm sorry, the violation has not been abated because they don't have the C.O. yet. They will have the C.O. within five days. The carport has been removed and the shed has been removed. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So 30 days would make this also go away? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Right. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Can we get a motion to extend the time an additional 30 days? MR. UESPERANCE: So moved for 30 days. MR. RAUCH: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion, we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Page 16 February 23, 2012 (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you very much. Passes unanimously. MS. BAKER: And Mr. Chair, we do have one addition to the stipulations. And it will be number 17 from hearings, Case CESD20110005690, Luis Arteaga and Ruby Osorio. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And it will be stip number five? MS. BAKER: Yes, sir. So the first stip will be number 16 from the agenda, Case CESD20110000425, Elidia Garcia. (Supervisor Perez was duly sworn.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Good morning. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Looks like we have an expired permit from 2005 is this case. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Yes, sir. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Why don't you let us know a little bit about it. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: For the record, Code Enforcement Supervisor Cristina Perez. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20110000425. I'd like to clarify some errors in the stipulation in regards to the dates. It says currently scheduled for February 22nd and that's February 23rd hearing. And the dates on the signature were also the 21st and it was actually done yesterday, the 22nd. So just, you know, for that clarification. I met with Ms. Elidia Garcia yesterday in the office and she agreed to do -- agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, Page 17 February 23, 2012 inspections and certification of occupancy /completion within 365 days of this hearing or a fine of $150 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Also number three: That 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. Number four: 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. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Has the respondent been diligent in working these issues? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: The respondent has obtained a new permit. So I explained to her that because of the extension of this time that's granted, she must maintain that permit valid, complete the project, call in the inspections and obtain the certificate of completion/occupancy. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. And the $80.86 will be paid within 30 days? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: It was explained to her as well, yes. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the board? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Seeing none, do we have a motion? MR. MIESZCAK: Make a motion to the stipulation as agreed. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. MARINO: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. 9.6' • February 23, 2012 VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. Thank you very much, Cristina. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Thank you, board members. MS. BAKER: The next stipulation will be number 11 from the agenda, Case CESD20110004532, Judson G. White. (Mr. Judson White and Investigator Ambach were duly sworn.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, if I'm not mistaken, you're on first. County goes first. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: For the record, Investigator Chris Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. A stipulation has been agreed. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs of $81.15 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 90 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 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. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. White, you have February 23, 2012 heard what the stipulation is and you have agreed to all of those clauses? MR. WHITE: Yes, I did. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any problem with the 90 days? MR. WHITE: No, sir. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the stipulation agreement. MR. RAUCH: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to accept the stipulation, second by Dr. Rauch. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Thank you very much. MR. WHITE: Thank you. MS. BAKER: The next stipulation will be number four from the agenda, Case CESD20110007803, Larry W. Fox. (Mr. Larry Fox and Investigator Ambach were duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: For the record, Chris Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. Therefore it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $80.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate all violations by: Obtaining Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and a certificate of Page 20 February 23, 2012 completion/occupancy within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $150 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Unpermitted living space must be unoccupied and utilities 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 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. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do I understand that if the -- you had two inspections done. One is 24 hours from now? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: That's correct. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And then after the permits and everything else has been completed. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Correct. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Sir? You are Mr. -- MR. FOX: Larry Fox. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: --Larry Fox. And do you have any comments on the stipulation that you agreed to? MR. FOX: No. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No? MR. MIESZCAK: One question. Is it occupied now? MR. FOX: Yes. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the people will be gone in 24 hours, or whoever the occupants are? MR. FOX: Yes. Page 21 February 23, 2012 VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. UESPERANCE: If you have any questions, just stay in touch with the county, Mr. Fox, and they'll answer your questions for you. Thank you. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is this the -- or am I looking at the wrong one? This was the sheds? MR. MIESZCAK: Yes, the shed. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. UESPERANCE: I'd like to make a motion we accept the stipulation as presented. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. RAUCH: Second. MR. MARINO: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: you very much. MR. FOX: Thank you. Opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank MS. BAKER: The next stipulation will be number six from the agenda, Case CEAU20110013571, Jeff J. and Joan R. Reeder. (Mr. and Mrs. Reeder and Supervisor Baldwin were duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Good morning. For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This is in reference to Case No. CEAU20110013571. Page 22 February 23, 2012 Therefore it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: One, pay operational costs in the amount of $80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Two: Abate all violations by obtaining a required -- obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within 90 days of this hearing or a fine of $150 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Three: 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. Four: 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. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. Mr. Reeder? MR. REEDER: Yes, sir. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have any comments on the -- MR. REEDER: No, sir, I agree fully. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Fully. And you have no problem with the 90 days getting everything done? MR. REEDER: It shouldn't be no problem. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have a motion from the board? MR. MARINO: I'll make the motion. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll second the motion. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And a second. All those in favor? Page 23 February 23, 2012 MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. Good luck. MR. REEDER: Thank you. MS. BAKER: The last stipulation will be number 17 from the agenda, Case CESD20110005690, Luis Arteaga and Ruby Osorio. (Supervisor Baldwin was duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20110005690. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall, one: Pay operational costs in the amount of $80.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Two: Abate all violations by obtaining all required Collier County building permits or demolition permit, inspection and certificate of completion/occupancy within 90 days of this hearing or a fine of $150 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Three: 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. Four: 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. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. Page 24 February 23, 2012 This is the chickens case, I guess. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Actually, all's he has left on the property is a carport, just a metal carport structure, that's it. All the chicken coops, all the structures are gone. So he came here today, he showed me pictures of everything that was left and he signed this agreement. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So 90 days should be sufficient time frame. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Plenty of time. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, do we have a -- MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the stipulation as agreed. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. RAUCH: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. Thank you very much. MS. BAKER: Okay, Mr. Chair, that brings us back to the extension for Janet Sneeden, Case CESD201100093 51. The respondent is not back yet, but we can go ahead and make the recommendation to the board at this time. THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name for the record, please? INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Investigator Eric Short, Collier County Code Enforcement. Page 25 February 23, 2012 (Investigator Short was duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR SHORT: Good morning. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: The respondent originally asked for six months. She went to get a money order to pay for the operational cost, and she's not back at this time. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Those are my questions that I had. How much time was -- which was a -- six months seemed to be a little bit on the long side, if you will. Ninety days was already granted on this. Do you see any progress on this that would -- INVESTIGATOR SHORT: No permits have been applied for and -- no. You know, they are working on it. You know, I know they are going through some, you know, financial hardships at this time. MR. MIESZCAK: But you did say no permits were applied. INVESTIGATOR SHORT: No permits or anything have been applied for. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Cristina? (Supervisor Perez was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Initially -- I've had several communications with the respondent's boyfriend in regards to the progress that they've been attempting on this case. I was getting a phone call every other week as to what they were trying to do. Ultimately the mobile home has two additions, one on -- in the front, one in the back. And from what they've expressed is they -- if they remove both of the additions, the mobile home on both sides is exposed to the elements. So not only do they have to come in and obtain a demolition permit to remove that, but then they also have to attempt to repair the mobile home to make it livable for them. So the two options that they were seeking was to demolish the entire thing completely because there's no way that they would be able to salvage what would be left of the mobile home. Page 26 February 23, 2012 They've attempted engineering and architectural to try to get blueprints to permit what's already there, but that has also been very expensive for lack of employment. So they're -- when we spoke to her this morning, it was still kind of the intent where she is gearing towards demolishing the mobile home and seeking to replace it with something else in order to have something to live in. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you feel 90 days would be sufficient time for the respondent to not only decide what they're doing but to have it done? It looks like it's just going to be demolished. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Yeah, I mean, it's a tough decision for them but, you know, ultimately -- oh, she just walked in. MR. MIESZCAK: And they're living in it. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Are they living in it? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: They are still -- you know, she is still living there. Hi. (Ms. Janet Sneeden was duly sworn.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Ms. Sneeden? MS. SNEEDEN: Yes. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Cristina's been telling us your problem that you're having out there, and she informed us that you were going to try to get a check to cover the court costs, if you will, for this case. And she also said that you were looking for some time to resolve the situation one way or another. So if you would, explain to us what you'd like to do and we'll see if we can come to some agreement. MS. SNEEDEN: I'm not good talking. I got paper. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Cristina thinks that 90 days would be sufficient time for you to have your problems resolved one way or the other. Do you think that is sufficient time for you to take care of what needs to be taken care of based on what they have explained to you? Page 27 February 23, 2012 MR. MARINO: I don't think she's understanding. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you understand what I'm saying? My wife never does, but do you understand? MS. SNEEDEN: I have paper. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Janet, I explained to them that you have the problem with the mobile home. MS. SNEEDEN: Yeah. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: And that you either need to remove the additions that were made to the mobile home -- MS. SNEEDEN: Oh, yeah, yeah. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: -- and if you remove those additions then you have to fix your mobile home or you're trying to buy a new one. So they -- and I've explained to them that, you know, it's a lack of -- you know, of unemployment and not having the sufficient amount of money to be able to do those things now. So that's why you're asking for more time. MS. SNEEDEN: Yeah. Eric left. So I'm going to try to do it. That chicken coop, do you see that last time in the window? That's chicken coop. I took it out, it looked awful. I took it out. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Dean, you had -- or Miesczak, whatever you'd like to be called today -- a comment? MR. MIESZCAK: You know, I've been on this board a while, and what really bothers me a lot is the safety issue. And you mentioned how livable the property is. And we are always concerned about if the electrical's a problem and some accident does happen. And that's why I can't approve those kind of things. And it's just if it's not livable, it's not livable. And maybe somebody has to step in and help the lady that's trying to live there. So, I mean, I'd like to know your opinion to that. You said it was not livable. -t • February 23, 2012 SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Well, if they removed the additions. If they remove the additions that were built on there without permits, then the -- the mobile home has walls that were removed. The original mobile home walls were removed to put these additions on. So if they remove that, they still have to repair those walls. And that's what -- you know, she would have to then come in to -- you know, and have to expend more funds to fix those holes that would remain then. MR. MARINO: Is it livable at this time? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: I personally have not walked into the mobile home. MR. MIESZCAK: I think in this case somebody needs to help her or go there and find out. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: I have attempted to call Habitat for Humanity, call different organizations in the area that could possibly assist either with funds or with a different structure, and unfortunately I was unable to find any assistance for them that they would be able to qualify for. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So this is not a case of 90 days or 120 days, or 60 days for that matter, to find out what's going on. Sixty days probably would be more than enough time, provided that there is no current safety if -- the property would need to be inspected by somebody. Is there electrical in the additions? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: In anything that's always built without a permit, we just don't know. You know, I mean, you always run that risk you don't know. It has been an addition that's been there since the late Nineties, you know, that's been placed on the mobile home. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any comments? MR. RAUCH: I believe -- I think we need a current inspection by somebody if this (sic) structures are safe at all at this stage before we can give this lady any direction. Page 29 February 23, 2012 MR. MIESZCAK: I mean, we certainly wouldn't feel comfortable if you gave 90 days and then, you know, behold, if, you know, something happened, a fire or whatever. And that's a common thing throughout the country, that people live in a home where the wiring is not done properly and there's a fire caused. And somebody needs to talk to this person to find out. Maybe like she said, Habitat or something. So I couldn't approve anything here. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Janet, would you allow us to enter the mobile home and look at the additions? I mean, perhaps we can work MS. SNEEDEN: Yeah. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: -- with the building department to, you know, assist us in making that determination and come back to you next month? MS. SNEEDEN: Yeah. MR. MIESZCAK: Yes. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, that would be great. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Would you be okay with us going onto your property and entering the home and taking a look at that for you? MS. SNEEDEN: Yeah, please. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What I'll -- will you accept a motion for 30 days then or until the next meeting and we'll have more information to make a better decision on. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: And we'll try to arrange that as soon as possible, so if there's anything else that we could assist with in that meantime, we will try. MR. MIESZCAK: Yeah, I'd be comfortable with that. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You want to make a motion? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make a motion 30 days, and it's going to be inspected within three. MR. RAUCH: Second. Page 30 February 23, 2012 VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion, we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any opposed? (No response.) MS. SNEEDEN: Thank you. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So you have some time. And the county is going to try to help you by bringing somebody in to take a look and see what needs to be done to make sure it's safe. Okay? MS. SNEEDEN: Thank you very much. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. MS. SNEEDEN: I'm done? VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You're all done. MS. SNEEDEN: Thank you. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You may want to touch base with Cristina out in the hall and see what arrangements need to be made. MS. BAKER: Okay, we're now on to hearings. Number one, Case CESD20100008561, Josse Perez and Isabel Perez. (Ms. Isabel Perez and Investigator Ambach were duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: This is violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Description of violation: No Collier County permits obtained or inspection and certificate of completion for the pool and pool screen cage enclosure. Location/address where violation exists: 110 Wilson Boulevard South, Naples, Florida, 34117. Folio 37221090008. Page 31 February 23, 2012 Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Josse and Isabel Perez, 110 Wilson Boulevard South, Naples, Florida, 34117. Date violation first observed: July 16th, 2010. Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: August 30th, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: September 14th, 2011. Date of reinspection: November 21 st, 2011. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: For the record, Chris Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20100008561, dealing with the violation of a pool screen enclosure built without Collier County building permits, inspections and certificate of completion, located at 110 Wilson Boulevard South, Naples, Florida, 34117. Service was given on August 30th, 2011. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: One photograph taken by myself on August 30th, 2011. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the respondent seen the photo? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: I will show her now. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make a motion to accept the photos. MR. RAUCH: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Page 32 February 23, 2012 (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: This case was initiated as a result of a complaint of code violations on the property. During my research I observed that the pool and pool screen cage enclosure permits had expired without all required inspections performed and certificates of completion issued. I met with the owner, Isabel Perez. We discussed the issues. And Ms. Perez started the process of satisfying permit requirements. In the meantime I requested Contractors Licensing look into the contractors who obtained the original permits to see if they could assist. Reggie Smith from Contractors Licensing contacted me a few days later and advised me due to the age of the permits and only one of the companies being in business currently, he was -- his department was unable to assist with the permits. Mrs. Perez was able to get the pool permit satisfied and a certificate of completion was obtained on November 3rd, 2011. Ms. Perez contacted me early last week and advised due to money constraints she has been unable to satisfy the pool screen enclosure at this time. To date the pool screen enclosure permit remains unsatisfied and this case has been prepared for today's hearing. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What is the problem with the screen that's up there, other than the permit? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: The screen cage is in place. The permit was pulled in '95 but no inspections were ever performed on it. So I couldn't tell you. Not one inspection done. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: But your observation on the screen, looks like it's intact? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Oh, it's intact. Looks good. No rips, no tears. Page 33 February 23, 2012 VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, Ms. Perez? MS. PEREZ: Good morning. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Good morning. MS. PEREZ: Chris has been very helpful through this process. When we bought this home, which is our only home, about 12 or 13 years ago, we didn't know that it was our responsibility to check and make sure that when we bought the house the permits were obtained and completed. So we inherited this. When Chris came out to the property for the first time, we took care of everything that he had on his checklist, as we want to do the right thing. We were able to complete the one for the electrical pool. We got the permit, they went out there, everything's completed. When it comes to the screen enclosure, because the company is out of business, we would have to go to an architectural law firm or place to get like an affidavit. It costs a lot of money. I've researched it. I don't have the financial means to do that. I've explained to Chris and Cristina, who have been very helpful, that our home is approved for short sale. We're going to have to vacate the premises on April 1 st. I still want to do the right thing. I've told my attorney who's been handling the short sale of the one that I completed and of the outstanding pool enclosure so that the person who is buying the home is aware. I have a folder for them. I just don't have the means to hire these architectural companies to come out and do an affidavit and pay for the permit. I do want to come here, I want to do the right thing, I want to work with Chris, I just don't have the means. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well, it's -- obviously you've worked hard to resolve the situation, and it's unfortunate that you're in a short sale situation. Does the county have any suggestion on this? Page 34 February 23, 2012 INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: I have a recommendation at this point. Again, she has been very diligent. She's done everything that she could do. I think she's gone above and beyond by letting the attorney know that there is an outstanding issue on the property so the new buyer is not in the same boat. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, the first thing we need to do is find out if a violation exists and then we can talk further about where we go. MS. PEREZ: And this is the only one outstanding, right, Chris -- INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Yes. MS. PEREZ: -- the pool? Because the electrical was done. County went out there, and I have that for the lawyer and the new owner. And I do want to resolve this. It just costs too much money in my situation now to go forward to make sure I close this for the person coming in. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand. Do we have a motion to find the respondent in violation? MR. UESPERANCE: So moved. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: I'll second it. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: second. All those in favor? We have a motion, we have a MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Page 35 February 23, 2012 (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That passes unanimously. Which just means that there's no inspections that were done, that it really is in violation. Now, the meat of the matter is how do we resolve the situation. You're going to be vacating the property on April 1 st? MS. PEREZ: That's kind of the date I've been given. And the closing is on April 13th or thereabouts. But I haven't received it in writing yet, like I told Chris. If there's anything that I could still do to resolve this matter and you have any recommendations, I'm willing to do it. I've worked with the county, I've kept in touch. I want to do the right thing. We inherited this. We didn't know that this was like this when we bought the property. And I wouldn't want to do that to the person coming in, but -- VICE- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Chris, you said you had a recommendation? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: I do. The county recommends that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $80.86 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 days of this hearing or a fine of blank per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. That the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct 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 Page 36 February 23, 2012 abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I have a question for the county, if you will. If 60 or 90 days was granted on this case, that would mean the short sale would occur and the liability for the violation will be explained to the new purchaser who would then have the ability or authority going in with their eyes wide open to know what needs to be done ahead of time. MS. FLAGG: Correct. The action that you take today, the order with the time frame that you give will be recorded at the Clerk of Courts. And then when they research, they'll see that there's an order recorded against the property. So if you were to give them three or four months as your compliance date, they can always ask for an extension if that's not enough time for them to comply. MR. UESPERANCE: Is it reasonable to expect that then the bank managing the short sale will possibly make an adjustment to the new purchaser? MS. FLAGG: Purchaser could certainly ask for that. MR. UESPERANCE: That should make you feel better. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So would someone like to fill in the blank? It's $80.86 for 30 days. I'll try it. 120 days with $150 a day fine thereafter. I'll make that as a motion. Do we have a second? MR. RAUCH: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. Page 37 February 23, 2012 MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It passes unanimously. That means that you've done as much as you can do. Now it's up to the bank and the next person who owns the property. I can understand you not having the funds to put into a property that's going to be sold. MS. PEREZ: Yeah, because I think we determined if the company was still in business it was a matter of reaching out to them and saying research, why didn't you get the C.O. or where do we go from there. But not finding them makes it a lot harder. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And hopefully because of the way this is being handled now, it won't happen to the next person that purchases the house. MS. PEREZ: Here, here. You live and learn. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, thank you very much. MS. PEREZ: Thank you for your time. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Thank you. MS. BAKER: Next case will be number three on the agenda, Case CESD20110010712, Manuel Olvera. (Investigator Mucha was duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: 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: Permit 2007090908 for reroof that was canceled without completing all inspections, and conversion of a garage to living space without permits. Location/address where violation exists: 1823 43rd Street Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116. Folio 35765240002. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Manuel Olvera, 1823 43rd Street Southwest, Naples, February 23, 2012 Florida, 34116. Date violation first observed: August 3rd, 2011. Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: August 3rd, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: September 3rd, 2011. Date of reinspection: December 21 st, 2011. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Joe? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Good morning. For the record, Joe Mucha, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20110010712, dealing with violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Violation location is 1823 43rd Street Southwest. Zip code is 34116. Folio No. is 35765240002. Service was given on August 3rd, 2011. I have two items I'd like to present into evidence. One is a photograph taken by myself on August 3rd, 2011 that will depict the garage conversion from the outside of the house, and a photograph taken from a previous code case on the property that shows what the property looked like before the garage conversion. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the photos. MR. MARINO: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion and second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? Page 39 February 23, 2012 (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. He was sworn in; is that correct? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: This is a photograph taken from a code case from approximately 10 years ago that shows that it was a garage. And I'll show the photo what it looks like today. This was taken back in August, and it shows that the garage has been converted to living space. This case actually initiated, we had received complaints about the property due to tall grass and litter was on the property. And during normal research of the property I found that there was a permit, a roof permit that hadn't been satisfied from 2007. And also on the property card it noted that -- a metal shed and a garage conversion. So I researched those items, could not locate permits for those items. Because the property is vacant and in foreclosure, the case was worked with the foreclosure team. The bank was able to go out and abate the violation such as cutting the grass and removing the litter. And they also removed the shed from the property, because it just a -- it was an old metal shed. But unfortunately they were unable to do anything as far as the roof permit or the garage conversion, and that's where it sits today. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It looks like the floor elevation is the same as the driveway, more or less, so -- INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Yes, sir. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- the first clue. The roof in this photograph, is that a bad photograph or does that look like -- INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: No, there's no issue with the roof. And in fact, in researching the permit, the roof had actually had a partial approval on the final roof inspection. The only thing was February 23, 2012 required from the owner at that time was they needed to provide an affidavit for the roof deck nailing. And unfortunately the owner's no longer around, so -- but, I mean, I think as far as the roof goes, it should be pretty much up to code. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Anybody want to make a motion that we find them in violation? MR. UESPERANCE: So moved. MR. RAUCH: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It passes unanimously. 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 $80.29 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 a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation using any method to Page 41 February 23, 2012 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. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. I have a side question. Have you been in contact, or has the foreclosure team been in contact with the bank on this? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Yes, sir. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And they have already taken care of some of the problems there? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Yes, sir. It's just when the bank doesn't have title, they can't really do anything with permit issues. But everything else that they could have taken care of as far as cutting the grass and removing litter, and like I said, they actually took the shed, it was an old metal shed, off the property. I mean, they were pretty diligent in that regard. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Anybody like to fill in the blanks on the stipulation -- on the recommendation? MR. RAUCH: Has there been any contact with the owner at all? INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: No, sir. Owner has been M.I.A. the entire time. MR. UESPERANCE: I'd like to fill in the blanks. I'd like to suggest that the cost of $80.29 be paid; that the bank be given or the owner be given 120 days to fix the violation. If not fixed, $250 per day fine. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, and the 80.29 be paid within 30 days. MR. UESPERANCE: Correct. MR. MARINO: I'll second that. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion, we have a second. I have one question of the county. I know we've had this discussion many times, Ms. Flagg. Are we better off, since this isn't a Page 42 February 23, 2012 foreclosure, to motivate the bank to foreclose on it sooner rather than later? Or it probably doesn't matter one way or the other? MS. FLAGG: Are you asking in terms of time frames? VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, obviously we want to get this done as quickly as possible. And the banks sometimes sit on property for years before they do anything. It looks like the bank in this particular case has been diligent in trying to resolve the situation. So sometimes we're better off with a short frame and sometimes a longer frame. MS. FLAGG: Shorter frames serve as motivation. VICE- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Okay, 120 days seems to be short enough, I guess. Any other discussion on this? MR. MIESZCAK: You think that's a long time, 120 days? VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, I said it's short enough. MR. MIESZCAK: You think so? Okay. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a motion and we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. Thank you. INVESTIGATOR MUCHA: Thank you. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Let's take a 10- minute break, come back at 20 after. (Recess.) Page 43 February 23, 2012 VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Code Enforcement Board is back in session. MS. BAKER: The next case is number 10 on the agenda, Case CEVR20110014528, Leon D. and Joan McCaskey. THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please? INVESTIGATOR JONES: For the record, David Jones, Collier County Code Enforcement. (Mr. McCaskey and Investigator Jones were duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Ordinance Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 54, Article 6, Section 54- 185.C. Description of violation: Presence of Collier County prohibited exotic vegetation including but not limited to Brazilian potato, air potato, Downy Rose Myrtle within a 200 -foot radius of an improved property. Location/address where violation exists: 1335 Center Lane, Naples, Florida, 34110. Folio 75460840000. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Leon D. and Joan McCaskey, 1200 Lestrada Lane, Naples, Florida, 34103. Date violation first observed: October 26th, 2011. Date owner /person in charge given notice the violation: December 5th, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: December 20th, 2011. Date of reinspection: December 21 st, 2011. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. MR. UESPERANCE: Is this a rental property? INVESTIGATOR JONES: It's an unimproved property. There's no house on it. And he owns the property. MR. UESPERANCE: Thank you. INVESTIGATOR JONES: Good morning. For the record, February 23, 2012 David Jones, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to case number CEVR20110014528 dealing with the presence of Collier County prohibited exotic vegetation that is located upon an unimproved property, and it's within a 200 -foot radius of any abutting improved property. Initial service was given on December 5th, 2011. I'd like to just present a photograph of the property; shows you the Brazilian pepper. MR. MIESZCAK: Has he seen a -- VICE- CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Has the respondent -- INVESTIGATOR JONES: Yes, I did show him earlier. When I spoke with you earlier -- MR. McCASKEY: Yes. INVESTIGATOR JONES: -- I showed you the photographs? MR. McCASKEY: Yes. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No problem with seeing the picture? MR. McCASKEY: No, not at this time, sir. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make a motion to accept the photo. MR. UESPERANCE: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion, a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. INVESTIGATOR JONES: The original initial site inspection was on October 26th, 2011. And as you can see it's, you know, pretty Page 45 February 23, 2012 much loaded with Brazilian pepper on the property. Brazilian pepper seems to comprise most of the prohibited exotic vegetation. There may be others in there like air potato, but it's hard to tell because it's so dense. On December 20th I did speak with Mr. McCaskey and, you know, he just kind of mentioned that he's not going to put any money into it, the property values have dropped. And he'll elaborate on that further. But that's kind of where he stands on it. It's not something that's going to get abated any time soon. And at that point the case has just been brought before the CEB. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: What size property is this? INVESTIGATOR JONES: What size is it? VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Uh -huh. INVESTIGATOR JONES: Let's see. I can tell you that right now. It is I want to say -- Mr. McCaskey, what is it, about a quarter of an acre, half an acre? MR. McCASKEY: Oh, no, no, no, it's less than a quarter. It's about -- INVESTIGATOR JONES: Oh, here it is right here. It's .18 acres. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, I'm not familiar with Center Lane. INVESTIGATOR JONES: Center Lane is -- you take 41 north to Wiggins Pass Road. You turn left going west on Wiggins Pass Road and then it's your first left from there. And you go all the way down and it dead ends. And his property's on the right side. And it's -- you know, it's located next to an approved property. I think it's like a coach home or something like that. So it is within 200 feet of an improved property. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. McCaskey? MR. McCASKEY: Good morning. I hadn't planned to appear 1 February 23, 2012 here this morning. Mr. Jones encouraged me to be here and see what the board might have to say under the situation. As he noted, it's a .17 acres, was what the size? INVESTIGATOR JONES: It's .18, yeah. MR. McCASKEY: Excuse me. It's a very narrow lot, very undersized lot at the end of that street. It is part of the platted subdivision known as Sunny Trail Heights. It's an undersized lot. And I've had it for almost 20 years. It in effect defaulted to me. I happened to be a tax certificate holder at that time. The property had, from -- the original owner had abandoned the property; they walked away from it. It defaulted to me because I happened to be a certificate holder, so I've been the title holder for 19 or 20 -- 1993 I think I acquired it. So I've done what I can to maintain the lot, with the long -term intention way back then of maybe building a small unit on it and maybe renting out that residence. Now, it hasn't come to fruition. Over the years I've done the usual maintenance and trimmed things and kept the weeds under control and that, paid the taxes of course up until this year. At this point I just don't see any future value in the land. It's assessed at $449000 by the tax office, which is about four times at least the real market value of the lot. In my opinion, anyhow. I've gotten them to lower the assessment as of last year somewhat, but they have a long ways to go yet. So I wanted to hear what the board might have to say, considering the fact that the value -- the guestimate, if you will, that I have of clearing the lot to comply with the code was something probably over $4,000, okay. And that doesn't include the, what do you call it, spraying -- INVESTIGATOR JONES: There's an additional. MR. McCASKEY: The weed killer or whatever. INVESTIGATOR JONES: There's an additional county code requirement that when you do remove prohibited exotic vegetation Page 47 February 23, 2012 such as this and a base remains, that a visual tracer dye /herbicide be applied to that base to inhibit any future growth that may come out of it. And that's something that he was also cited for in regards to this property. MR. McCASKEY: As part of the entire package. I have no trouble with the neighbor at all complaining; I wouldn't want to live next to it either. But at this point I just don't see the value of the lot. I've tried to sell the lot several times. I've written letters to first of all the next door neighbor and they weren't interested in buying the lot at all. I've written a letter to Germain Lincoln Mercury, their property acquisition department. And Germain Lincoln Mercury had no interest. Because it was right behind their dealership there, and I thought it would be a perfect place to park some more suitable cars. I've written a letter to North Naples Fire Department, and they own the parcel contiguous to that, and they were not interested in the property at all. So the property's very low, very wet, and heavily overgrown, as you see. The property adjacent to that, in 2004 Norm Feder sent a memorandum to the adjacent parcel saying that parcel was low and it was being condemned because it was wetlands, if you will. And this parcel is virtually the same thing. It's a little dryer now because of the Brazilian peppers keeping it dry. But to build on it or to improve it, you'd probably need at least $10,000 worth of fill in the land, 4,000 or more to clear what's there, okay, and then a building permit perhaps in the range of $35,000. So you're well over $50,000 to do anything with that lot. People don't want -- nobody's interested in buying it, and frankly I'm not interested at this point in maintaining continuing to own the lot. So contrary to what some Naples realtors might have us believe, I don't think all property in Collier County has value. This is one that I would certainly challenge that. - " February 23, 2012 But at this point my wife has some serious health issues and I don't see where I'll probably be putting any more money into it. So I'd be interested to hearing what other options the board might have for me at this point, if any. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The first thing, we'd have to find out if a violation exists. MR. McCASKEY: Okay. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That would be the first step of the board. And then we can discuss if a violation exists where we go from there. So -- MR. McCASKEY: The parcel right next to it, as I said, is owned by the North Naples Fire Department, okay. That also is vacant. But that parcel by the fire department is landlocked and they couldn't get -- if they had a building, couldn't get any equipment on to Center Street there, they'd have to go through my lot. So that's why I suggested that they might buy it for long -term plans, it would be perfect. Because it's not practical to go the other way, to exit and get up onto Wiggins Pass Road. So they would go over my lot. But since it's landlocked, the parcel around that is owned by the Boy Scouts and they have no interest in acquiring it. But I thought surely the fire department would have an interest because they cannot exit the property without going over my parcel. So if they're not interested, I question -- I'm not interested either in maintaining the property at this point. So I have serious thoughts about -- go ahead, I'm sorry. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do you have a motion? MR. MIESZCAK: Well, I'd like to make a motion that we have a violation. MR. MARINO: I'll second that. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion, we have a second. All those in favor? February 23, 2012 MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. Okay, so we have a violation, okay, which is probably something you know about, you're stuck between a rock and a Brazilian pepper. MR. McCASKEY: Many. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So your intention is to -- MR. McCASKEY: I ser -- go ahead, I'm sorry. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, no, I was going to ask you to fill in the blanks. My intention on that piece of property is? And now -- MR. McCASKEY: I have seriously considered abandoning the property. This would be the second time in 20 years then that that property would have been abandoned. I attest to the value, the location, the usefulness, if you will. Because it's so low, it's always wet, it's very undersized and it's at the end of a dead -end street that nobody else can use. And I've attempted, as I said, letters to the adjacent property owners and the county's condemned adjacent parcels because of the drainage problem. MR. RAUCH: I have a question, if I might. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. RAUCH: Is there a chance of donating the property to the county? MR. McCASKEY: Well, I considered that. I considered that this morning. I don't know. What would it cost me? MR. RAUCH: Other than a tax write -off, just probably a big help. Page 50 February 23, 2012 MR. McCASKEY: Then in this case, then I would execute a quitclaim deed to the county. And would there be any cost on my part beyond that? VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I don't think that we're in a position to answer that question. MR. MARINO: He has to -- MS. RAWSON: Well, I'd ask Diane. I don't know whether the county wants it. MR. McCASKEY: That's attest to even more. MS. RAWSON: I don't know that we can make that decision for the county. MS. FLAGG: That would be a decision of the Board of County Commissioners as to whether they wish to accept that donation. But if donation is the discussion, there's some nonprofit organizations that may be interested in it, such as Habitat for Humanity. And /or if you speak in terms of donation to the North Naples Fire District, they may be interested. So those organizations that you mentioned you had previously approached, if you are considering donating the property, you may want to chat with them about donating the property to them. MR. McCASKEY: You said Habitat for Humanity? MS. FLAGG: Correct. Habitat is a nonprofit organization that we've had past code cases where they've donated the property to Habitat. There may be other organizations that would also be interested in that. MR. McCASKEY: From what you've seen then, for instance, for Habitat, is that a tax write -off that people have been able to use? MS. FLAGG: If they're a nonprofit organization, it would be a tax write -off. MR. McCASKEY: And you said North Naples Fire Department. Is there anybody else that you might be aware of that's a county agency? Page 51 February 23, 2012 MR. MARINO: Probably your best bet would be North Naples Fire Department. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Put it on Craig's List. MR. MARINO: I would go to the fire department. I would go to North Naples Fire Department. MR. McCASKEY: All right, I'll write them a letter. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, I'd like to close the public hearing. My comment on the property would be we probably should come up with a motion that would give the respondent enough time to search out his alternatives for the property. So with that in mind -- MS. BAKER: Mr. Chair, would you like to hear our recommendation? VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes, I would. INVESTIGATOR JONES: Our recommendation is that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount $80.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Must obtain any necessary permits, inspections and certificate of completion for the removal of all Collier County prohibited exotic vegetation within blank days of this hearing or pay a fine of blank dollars a day until abated. In addition to that, the prohibited exotic vegetation base stump, any that do remain, must be treated with an U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved herbicide, and a visual tracer dye shall be applied when the prohibited exotic vegetation is removed but the base of the vegetation remains within blank days or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed. Finally, the ncspondent must notify the code enforcement investigator \vhen [he 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 -- Page 52 February 23, 2012 THE COURT REPORTER: Could you slow down, please? VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: There's smoke coming off of Cherie's fingers. INVESTIGATOR JONES: I'm moving too fast, okay. 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. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The reason I mentioned giving sufficient time is because probably if fines start to accrue on the property, it may be more difficult to give it away. INVESTIGATOR JONES: No, that's understandable. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So if anybody would like to fill in the blanks here. MR. RAUCH: I'd like to make a motion that he have at least 90 days to take care of these areas, with a fine of 150 a day after that. MR. UESPERANCE: I'd like to suggest an amendment to your motion to make that 180 days, if that's reasonable for you? MR. RAUCH: Yes, it is. I accept the amendment. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the fine? MR. MIESZCAK: And operational costs in 30 days, $80.57. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And the fine would be? MR. MIESZCAK: $150. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Cherie', you have all that? THE COURT REPORTER: I do, thank you. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion, do we have a second? MS. RAWSON: Could I have a clarification? Is that for both number one and two of the recommendations? In other words, it's 180 days to remove it and then also another 180 days to treat the stumps. Page 53 February 23, 2012 So are there two separate $150 a day fines? INVESTIGATOR JONES: May I make a suggestion about that? It would probably be best to just run them concurrently. Because the herbicide is applied right after the exotic vegetation is removed. So it's just going to be like a packaged deal. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It's hard to treat the stumps until you take the trees down. INVESTIGATOR JONES: Right. And you have to do it right after they're removed while the wood is still soft, and it will absorb it. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We're all set on this. Do we have a second on this? MR. MARINO: I'll second it. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. So you have six months to find somebody before anything starts to accrue, any fines. Hopefully that should be sufficient time. If you have a problem within that time frame, I suggest you come back to us and see if we can offer any sage advice at that time. MR. McCASKEY: Okay, very fair. Thank you very much. Mr. Jones has been very professional about the whole arrangement here. And one way or another, we should have it resolved long before six months, if I had it my way. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you very much. MS. BAKER: The next case will be number 12 on the agenda, Page 54 February 23, 2012 Case CESD20100020576, Shirwin, Inc. Oh, I apologize, that case has been withdrawn from the agenda. So the next case will be number 13, Case CESD20110014160, Martha Mendez -Cruz. (Supervisor Perez was duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: 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: Permit No. 2009020960 expired with no certificate of completion/occupancy. Location/address where violation exists: 3525; 47th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida, 34120. Folio 39778000002. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Martha Mendez -Cruz, 740 19th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34117. Date violation first observed: October 10th, 2011. Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: October IOth,2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: November 9th, 2011. Date of reinspection: January 5th, 2012. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Good morning. For the record, Cristina Perez, Collier County Code Enforcement. This case is in reference to Case No. CESD20110014160 dealing with the violation of a house without issuance of a certificate of occupancy located at 3525 47th Avenue Northeast. Folio number 39778000002. Service was issued on October 10th, 2011. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibit: One photo of the home taken on October 6th, 2011 by prior Investigator Janis Potter. Page 55 February 23, 2012 MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the photo. MR. RAUCH: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: This is a photo of the home that is constructed without certificate of occupancy. This case was initiated during a routine vacant home patrol by prior Investigator Janis Potter. The home appeared to be vacant at the time, appeared to be abandoned at the time. And during the research it was found that the house permit was expired for the third time. The initial permit was issued in 2004 and then again in 2007 to the prior owner. It was issued again to the current owner, Ms. Mendez -Cruz. Because of the lack of routine inspections, the 2009 permit expired in May of 2010. Contact was made on October 10th with the property owner's daughter, Veronica Fernandez. A notice was issued and she advised that her mother was in poor health. The permit was reapplied for within a couple of days, on October 14th, 2011. And the permit remained in ready for issuance status since October 21 st. No progress continued from when that permit was applied for in October, so the case was prepared for today's hearing. On February 10th, 2012, Janis Potter did make contact again with the homeowner's daughter, Veronica, and she advised that they were Page 56 February 23, 2012 going through some personal hard -- family hardships, but she intended to complete the project in order to abate the violation. The permit was issued on February l Oth, 2012, but as of today seven inspections remain to be inspected and approved. There are a couple of final inspections: A final septic, final electrical, final plumbing, final building. And also there are landscaping inspections, site drainage inspection and a right -of -way inspection. Once all those inspections are completed and approved, then the home would be able to complete -- get a certificate of occupancy if there are any outstanding fees. MR. L'ESPERANCE: In your opinion does it seem that the present owners have an intention to proceed? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: She -- initially when she did talk to Investigator Potter, she did say she wanted to complete the project by February 17th. She did also make some contact and advised that with her family troubles -- her mother's ill and then her father was also very ill up in Tallahassee. And we encouraged her to send us something in writing advising us of her situation and how much time she was requesting. And she failed to do that. So I'm not sure what the current situation may be. But I do believe that they do intend to complete this project. MR. L'ESPERANCE: You mentioned this was uninhabited, correct? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: It is uninhabited. At the time it did appear -- the grass was overgrown, it appeared to be abandoned. But since they've been maintaining the property. So it's not occupied. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Have you been inside the property? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: I have not been inside the property. The home is closed. It is secured. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is there electricity on in the house? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: There's no electricity currently on in the Page 57 February 23, 2012 house. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That means to me the four - letter word, mold. The respondent, in your conversation with him, thought they'd have it done in February? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: When Janis spoke with her on February 10th, she came in, she gathered up the money in order to be able to reapply -- you know, to reobtain that permit. I tried contacting her to personally speak with her and I was unable to get in touch with her. The last contact that was made with her was on Friday, this past Friday. And, you know, she explained that she had the issues with her father and she feared that he wasn't going to make it through the weekend, so maybe that's perhaps why we didn't hear from them. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is there a lis pendens or a foreclosure on this? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: No proceedings. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So do we have a violation? MR. VESPERANCE: So moved. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Violation exists. We have a motion that it exists; do we have -- MR. MIESZCAK: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- a second? We have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) M_- ;a February 23, 2012 VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. Do you have a recommendation? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Yes, sir. County recommends that the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $80.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Obtaining all the required Collier County building permits or a demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within blank amount of days of this hearing or a fine of blank 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. VESPERANCE: I'd like to fill in the blanks, please. I'd like to suggest that the cost of $80.86 be paid within 30 days; that they be given 180 days to comply with this order or a fine of 250 per day will be imposed. MR. MARINO: I'll second that. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion, we have a second. Any comments on the motion? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. VESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. Page 59 MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: February 23, 2012 Opposed? Passes unanimously. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Thank you very much. MS. BAKER: The next case will be number 14, Case CESD20110014484, James A. and Barbara A. White. (Investigator Baldwin was duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of 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). Description of violation: Addition made to the front of the principal structure without Collier County building permits. Location/address where violation exists: 3150 36th Avenue Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34117. Folio 41718160000. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: James A. and Barbara A. White, 3150 36th Avenue Southeast, Naples Florida, 34117. Date violation first observed: October 18th, 2011. Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: October 18th, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: November 17th, 2011. Date of reinspection: January 20th, 2012. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Good morning. For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20110014484, dealing with the violation of addition made to the front of the principal structure without Collier County building permits. Located at 3150 36th Ave. Southeast, Naples, Florida, 34117. Folio No. 41718160000. February 23, 2012 Service was given on October 18th, 2011 via posting. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Two photos taken October 18th, 2011. Two aerial photos showing improvements. One photo taken yesterday, February 22nd, 2012. I'd like to present -- MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the photos. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. MR. RAUCH: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: That is a picture from the front of the road of the property taken the first -- the first time we went by on that property, foreclosure identification sweep. That's the overhang in question. And the first photo should be a 2006 aerial photo. You can -- that is the 2007 photo that's showing that there is an overhang right -- and I can -- yes. And the next photo will be a 2006 photo that shows that it's clearly not there. And then there's a picture of a photo taken yesterday, February 22nd, 2012. I'd like to present my details of my case. During a foreclosure property sweep, Investigator Potter Page 61 February 23, 2012 observed weeds and litter on an Estates zoned property. While doing the research on the property, was discovered that an overhang to the front porch had been added sometime between the years of 2006 and 2007. There has been a lis pendens that has been recorded on March 18th, 2010. No contact has been made from the owner and the violation still exists. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The structure is empty then? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Correct. Appears that the electricity is off as well. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any questions from the board? (No response.) MR. UESPERANCE: I'd like to move that we do have a violation. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion that a violation exists. MR. MIESZCAK: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It passes unanimously. Do you have a recommendation? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: I do. That the Code Enforcement Board orders the respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $80.86 incurred in the Page 62 February 23, 2012 prosecution of this case within 30 days, and abate all violations by: One, obtaining all required Collier County building permits and demolition permit, inspections and certificate of completion/occupancy within blank days of this hearing or a fine of blank dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. Two: The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final 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 agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand that the property is not in foreclosure yet, it's in lis pendens. Has the foreclosure team looked at this, or they don't take it until it's -- INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: No, they have looked at it, but the bank will not abate the violation because of the permit issue. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So -- INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: The property right now is being maintained, though. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: By? MS. BAKER: They mowed the grass. MS. FLAGG: Just as clarification, the regulations of the county does not allow the bank to obtain a permit until they hold title to the property. So the bank is maintaining the property by addressing the grass that you saw in those pictures to make sure that it's in compliance. But the bank until they hold title will not be able to get a permit to address this violation. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any idea from the foreclosure team as to when they will file for foreclosure? Lis pendens was almost March of two years ago. Page 63 February 23, 2012 INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: No. MS. FLAGG: Your orders have an impact on the speed in which they come into compliance. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Anybody like to take a shot at filling in the blanks? MR. MIESZCAK: I'd like to say pay operating costs of $80.86 within 30 days and 60 days to comply, and $150 fine if not. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have a second on that? MR. RAUCH: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. Thank you. MS. BAKER: Next case will be number 18, Case CEN201100170541 2059 East Trail, LLC. (Investigator Ambach was duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 54, Article 4, noise, Section 54 -92. Description of violation: Noise exceeding Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 54, Article 4, Section 54 -92. Location/address where violation exists: 2059 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida, 34112. Folio 77510080006. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation February 23, 2012 location: 2059 East Trail, LLC, care of Brennan, Manna and Diamond, PL, 3301 Bonita Beach Road, Number 100, Bonita Springs, Florida, 34134. Date violation first observed: December 16th, 2011. Date owner /person in charge given notice of violation: December 19th, 2011. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: Immediately. Date of reinspection: January 27th, 2012. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Before we continue, we have one speaker on this, I'd like to -- has everybody been sworn? (Hector Florez and Corporal Nelson were duly sworn.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: For the record, Chris Ambach, Investigator and noise enforcement specialist for Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CEN20110017054, dealing with the violation of noise exceeding Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 54, Article 4, Section 54 -92. Located at 2059 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 77510080006. Service was given on December 19th, 2011. I would now like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: One aerial photograph provided by the Collier County Property Appraiser's website showing the source of sound location, the location where the sound level testing was performed and the complainants that are affected. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to accept the photo. MR. MARINO: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Page 65 Motion and a second. Aye. February 23, 2012 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: In this photograph you'll observe the orange building is the club itself. The yellow structures are the complainant addresses across the street. The purple line is the area from where the noise readings were performed. This case initiated as a complaint on December 9th, 2011 from several neighbors on and around the Mills Lane and Frederick Street neighborhood with regard to loud amplified music coming from the Loft 59 nightclub located at 2059 Tamiami Trail East. After making contact with several complainants, I learned the music in question usually started around 10:00 p.m. and would become louder as the night progressed, specifically between the hours of 12:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. On December 16th, 2011 at approximately 11:30 p.m., I performed ambient readings in a similar neighborhood setting approximately 1,000 feet from the nightclub at address 1807 Tamiami Trail East. The ambient readings measured between 65 and 66 decibels. Between the hours of 12:00 a.m. and 12:30 a.m. I performed decibel level readings from the sound affected site which is approximately 450 feet from the nightclub. The readings measured between 71 and 73 decibels. The sound level limit for this time period is 67 decibels. And a violation was observed at that time. I met with bar owner Hector Florez and advised him of the violation of the county's noise ordinance. Mr. Florez stated he had himself observed the bass too loud earlier in the night and advised his Deejay to turn the volume down; however, noticed later in the evening February 23, 2012 the Deejay had turned the volume back up. I advised Mr. Florez I would be sending a notice of violation to the property owner and he stated he would make sure the volume is at a reasonable level in the future. After receiving several more complaints a few weeks later with regard to the club's music volume, I performed decibel level readings on January 22nd, 2012, similar to those taken on December 19th, 2011, and again observed decibel levels between 68 and 72, a violation of the county's noise ordinance. I met with Mr. Florez and advised him the music was too loud and it needed to be lowered. He did so immediately. Mr. Florez stated he has told his Deejay several times in the past to keep the volume levels down. However, they continue to turn the volume back up shortly thereafter. I advised Mr. Florez I would be preparing this case for hearing, and he stated he will work on erecting a sound barrier to help in the future. I contacted the complainants last week and was told there have been no changes in the music volume since my last visit on January 22nd. Therefore, on February 18th, 2012 I met with Corporal Mike Nelson, Noise Specialist for the Collier County Sheriff s Department. We performed decibel readings similar to the readings performed on the dates noted in his testimony and found decibel levels between 68 and 71, a violation of the county's noise ordinance. Before making contact with the club management, Corporal Nelson and I observed an unmanned Deejay booth playing loud amplified music through at least three speakers attached to the outside of the building. We met with Mr. Florez shortly thereafter and advised him the sound level exceeds the allowable decibel levels. At that time Mr. Florez observed the unmanned Deejay booth, became upset with the assistant managers as to why the Deejay turned up the music and left Page 67 February 23, 2012 the area. Mr. Florez dismissed the outside Deejay for the rest of the evening. The music was lowered within the club itself before Corporal Nelson and myself left for the evening. As of February 18th, 2012, the violation continues to exist. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is Corporal Nelson going to testify as well? CORPORAL NELSON: I can, sir. Corporal Mike Nelson, Collier County Sheriffs Office. We've had ongoing complaints. They've actually changed my shift to come out and work with Mr. Florez and his manager. I met with them several times. One of the longest happened to be just before New Year's Eve during the Christmas holiday. I met with Mr. Florez and his employees for almost four and a half hours going over procedures, things they could do to change the noise, security issues we've been having, outside amplified music and how they can handle the crowd. I've gone out with the code enforcement noise specialist, Mr. Ambach. We're at 485 feet from the residence -- or from the nightclub. We're getting between 68 and 73 decibels on my decibel meter, my noise meter. One of the issues we did have when we went to calibrate our equipment, almost 1,000 feet down the road at 1807 we were having their music bleed over to us there, and that's clear down at the corner of Davis and 41. So it's difficult for us to find somewhere to get really good ambient without the noise from the nightclub itself still being an influence. We did come through the back way, went up onto the stairs where we could look into their back patio area where they have speakers mounted up on the wall in the Deej ay booth. Absolutely nobody there and it was extremely loud. Mr. Florez actually came N,.- •. February 23, 2012 down out of his office because the noise was so loud in his office, it was bothering him. And that's when he ran into us. We were there for a good four, five minutes. His staff was there and nobody was doing anything to try and abate the noise. And they just looked at us and went what do you want, it's a nightclub. So it is an ongoing issue. MR. MIESZCAK: Does that have access outside where people can drink outside, or just inside? MR. NELSON: Yes, sir, it does. It's got a -- very similar to a screened enclosure except it's walled with concrete walls and they've got the speakers mounted on the building facing out toward them on the back side. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do they have a permit to -- is a permit required to play music outside in that location? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: They do have an amplified music permit, yes. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And does it specify on the permit what the level should be? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: When the permit is obtained, they basically -- they have to conform to the allowable decibel level for the time period. At this time period, after 10:00 at night to 6:59 in the morning it's 67 decibels. It's not to exceed that. The permit just -- it basically allows them to play the music. They still have to conform to that decibel level. Now, I want to clarify something. We have a nightclub situation here where we have an outside Deejay booth and we have an interior Deejay both with at least one Deejay inside playing at all times. Most of the time we have two separate Deejay booths. So we have essentially the double the music output anywhere from Thursday through Sunday evening, special occasions Sundays, or other occasions during the week. But mostly it's Friday, Saturday and Sunday. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Florez? February 23, 2012 MR. FLOREZ: First of all, I want to thank Lieutenant Nelson and Chris. They have been working with me since I took over the location when it became Sway and it closed down. The owner of the property pretty much hand - selected me because of my experience with nightclubs back in Miami, he thought I could turn it into something upscale. And we put a lot of money into a state -of -the -art sound system to sort of compete to the other players in Miami and create something special for Naples. With that said, that creates a problem, because it does put out a lot of wattage and output. We have put in place processors. And in technical terms basically it's a piece of equipment that we can control remotely and lower the volume in case we feel that it's exceeding. One of the problems that I'm having also is at certain times of the night when the place does get crowded, the Deejays sometimes get carried away, they increase the volume. I'm able to control that now with this piece of equipment so they cannot exceed that level. It shuts it down, literally shuts it down completely. That's one step that we took. Purchased a sound meter, and they're aware of it. I basically walk three or four miles at night around the perimeter. All the way to the three houses on the bottom south end there's a wood fence. I go all the way to that area and check the sound meters and clock in, make sure that we're not in violation. I'm not exactly sure of what the violation is. Now that I know it's 67, we're going to go out there. Another problem that I'm having is, is I don't want to upset the neighbors. You know, we're in here to make business and stay afloat. And it's difficult for me to know which neighbors are being affected. Now that I see this, it's a lot easier for me to walk to those areas, check the meters, call in to my manager who's back there and say hey, you know what, we're 68, 69 decibels, it needs to come down even more. When I took over the property there were a set of speakers that Page 70 February 23, 2012 were mounted outside on the terrace. And it was to create an ambience outside. It's a popular area for people who don't want to be inside where it's louder, they come outside in the lounge. It's a very popular area. In order for me to compete against other businesses that are similar to mine, they also provide terrace ambient music or live entertainment. So I contacted the property owner because of speakers at the time that I took over the property that were blown. And it would have cost about $3,000 to replace those, which were not good quality. So I took the liberty of purchasing better speakers that I'm able to control. What's happening is, is that system on the inside carries the music to the outside when the doors open. So it becomes mixed with whatever is playing outside. And that has created a problem for us. The front of our building is completely enclosed in glass, but it leaks towards the back of the building towards the parking lot. So at any time where it's -- the music is playing inside and the doors open, that music and volume pours out and is causing problems. As Chris will tell you, I have been out there with him in the field while he's checking, and as soon as the doors open we see those decibel meters go up. So we propose to create sound barriers towards the back of the terrace to contain some of that sound. We also had staff meetings with Mr. Nelson and my staff. Everybody was required to attend, including the Deejays. Two of those Deejays were supposed to be here today so they could understand the severity of this. Because I do want to stay in business, and we do have a special place. And they're not here. So last Friday we brought a guest from Puerto Rico, Grammy Award Latin artist. We had a very good crowd. And most of the people were inside. The gentleman that was in charge of the music outside decided to step inside too, because there was nobody on the Page 71 February 23, 2012 terrace anymore, everybody came in to hear him sing. And at that time we were under the impression that either he left the equipment unattended at high volume or somebody increased the volume. Before I was aware that the gentleman here were outside with a complaint, I already knew that it was too loud, because I heard it as I was coming down the stairs. I immediately turned it down, contacted the Deejay and pretty much let him go for the night. I've done all that I can to be within compliance. I sometimes call Chris during the week and say have you got anymore complaints. Because if I don't know about the complaints, then I don't know how to correct them. So I'm -- like I said, we're taking steps to correct the problem. We're doing perimeter walks. Usually on Saturdays is when we have music played outside. But with this system that we purchased, it's going to be a lot easier for us and the owner and manager to not give them the ability to increase the volume past those decibels. As a matter of fact, we are clocking in under 50 decibels, which is way under what their requirement is, just so we can be within compliance and still have the customers enjoy the ambience from being outside. We're lowering the speakers that were previously mounted so that it's contained within the terrace, and we're taking all necessary steps that I can on my end to control it. Sometimes, and I hate to say it, stupidity is hard to control. And I have fired Deejays. We've had people who have rented the venue for concerts, and I'm constantly controlling the sound volumes inside the building so we don't have anymore issues. We went for close over a year without any complaints and the complaints began to come in in December of this past year. So we were doing really well for about maybe about 14 months. So I met with Chris, I met with Mike, and I'm taking all necessary steps to make sure that -- I can't guarantee that maybe a neighbor may not feel bass at some point, but you know that I am taking all the steps necessary so that doesn't happen. Page 72 February 23, 2012 Knowing now where the locations are is going to be a lot easier for me to do these perimeter walks and go to the location, check the decibel readings. And as a matter of fact, before this hearing I was literally walking every night, 10:00, 11:00, 12:00, once we get the rush of our customers who come between 12:00 and 12:30, and literally walk into the field and walking all the way to the other corners of the perimeter to see if I hear any noise exceeding the club out into those areas. And we were successful at it for a while. But one of the problems that I'm having too is that based on the sewer grid that we're in, the bass that is inside the building tends to travel under and hit these homes. So we eliminated two of the sub -bins that are inside to lower that from transferring over to those neighbors. And that's all I can do at this point and hope that that reduces the noise that is transferring over to the homes. And like I said, one thing that's going to help us is this -- I spent a lot of money on the sound meters, similar to the one Chris has, which is going to help me go out there early during the night and tell them by phone, okay, I got a reading of 64, 65. Keep it that way and don't let them go over that, and keep it that way the rest of the night. And I think we're going to be okay. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Which is the front then -- the rear of the structure. MR. FLOREZ: May I? VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah. MR. FLOREZ: There is a horseshoe entrance -- if you look at the arrow here, the area that faces 41 has a horseshoe entrance. It's a false entrance. It has an awning, steel awning, sort of like to give a facade that that's the front entrance. But the real entrance to the club is actually on the back to the parking area. When you walk into the building, there is a wall, and I think it's about 10 feet up, that encloses the terrace. And that's basically where Page 73 February 23, 2012 the majority of the problems we believe is coming from. Because the music is carrying over and is bouncing on the walls and traveling to the neighboring homes. We really don't have any residences on the north side, it's mostly on the south side. So I think most of the complaints are coming from here. When I do the perimeter walks I come over here, this is Sprint store, phone store. And on the corner of Davis and I think it's Mercantile -- is it Mercantile? It's Industrial, there's a Metro PCS store. I walk all the way over there to check the readings or to check the noise level. Come all the way to the wood fence, which extends through here. And also there is an abandoned burger place. So I basically walk this whole perimeter all the way to the Italian restaurant here where sometimes Chris and Mike, I've seen them park there and begin to do their clock -ins. I've gone as far as the corner of the triangle and Davis, walking to make sure that I don't hear any noise. And if I do, I immediately contact my manager and tell him, you know what, I can still hear some of the music so go ahead and lower it. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The speakers that you were referring to, are they where the arrow is or on the back side? MR. FLOREZ: They're on the back side. Yeah, they're on the back side. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So the speakers are on the back and yet the high readings are at the yellow buildings which is in the front? MR. FLOREZ: I believe one of the problems that we're having is because of 41 there is a sewer grid that goes on both sides that they repaired recently. I think some of the bass actually travel underground and hitting these homes. And Chris also referred that to me also. So what I've done on my end is remove additional bass that we have in the club to lower that. And we have been testing it since the Page 74 February 23, 2012 last time they came out. So I've done all I can. As far as the speakers that face the rear of the building, we're bringing those down and we have full control of the volume remotely. So they cannot go past that volume. Even if they try, they can't. It's set at a certain level and they can't go beyond that. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: If I may clarify a few of the items Mr. Florez touched on. The dominant noise in that entire area is the bass. That bass music is coming from the interior of the building, not the exterior. What's happening is it's traveling underground and it's bouncing off the first thing it runs into, and that's the foundation of these homes. This complaint goes back -- this specific case goes back only a few months. However, I am aware of the issues here, because I've been called out several times over the last year and a half at this location. Since my beginnings with Mr. Florez, he has explained to me everything he explained to you today, that he has the equipment, he has the means to shut this equipment off. He's had those means for a year and a half but yet we still have a violation each time we come out. The second thing I'd like to point out is Brookside is a small community just off of Davis Boulevard which is on the opposite side, which would be on the small speaker side, the main entrance. And Corporal Nelson can attest to several complains in the last year and a half that have come from that location as well. So this case that we're focusing on today, my complainants are specifically in the yellow houses that you see in front of you. The noise meter that Mr. Florez is referring to, he stated he has something similar to mine. I've not seen that. I have met with him on several occasions. We've stood across the street. The noise meter that he had in his possession at that time was a downloadable application that is free to anyone with an I -phone Page 75 February 23, 2012 through the Internet. You just punch in and it's free. It is not as sophisticated as the equipment that I use. I use a $9,000 meter. I go through specific certifications to use that meter. I would be more than happy to meet with Mr. Florez, look at what he has for a meter, make sure he's reading it on the level he's supposed to be reading it. There's several different levels that folks read on. We read on the C scale here. C scale is more of a moderate approach to noise testing. It takes into account the bass, and that is what will -- that's what gets most of the folks in trouble is that bass. If he can control that bass -- I've reiterated to Mr. Florez several times, it's the bass, you have to control the bass. Each time I've been out there the bass has not been controlled and that's why we're here today. MR. MARINO: What type of music is being played on those particular nights? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: It's a club type music. MR. MARINO: It used to be the old Sway. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: I'm sorry? MR. MARINO: It used to be the old Sway. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: That's correct. MR. MARINO: Did you have any problems when it was Sway? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: There were some problems when it was Sway also. Yeah, I was not the investigator in charge at the time. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: So our first duty now would be to find out if a violation exists. Any comments from the board? MR. MIESZCAK: Well, I make a motion a violation exists. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we -- MR. RAUCH: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- have a second? And we have a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) Page 76 February 23, 2012 VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. So a violation exists. You probably know it exists from your readings. And if it only existed when the door opened and that's enough to wake somebody up in one of those houses, that's a violation. It shouldn't happen ever. Do you have a recommendation? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: The county does have a recommendation. I'd like to add, before I read the recommendation, the county feels due to the nature of the complaint and the abatement of violation not being met at this time, the county has filled in the blanks on the recommendation. However it would be up for discussion from the board, if you don't mind. Recommendation: That the county -- I'm sorry, 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: The respondent must lower the decibel sound levels to be in accordance with the sound levels in time constraints pursuant to table one of the Collier County Code of Laws, 54- 92(B)(1), and must confine sound levels of all live music and/or amplified music to be pursuant to the Code of Laws and Ordinances, Section 54- 91(F)(s), and must not exceed sound levels in table one and two of Section 54- 91(B)(1)(2) immediately following this hearing, or pay a fine of $1,000 for each violation found thereafter. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the Page 77 February 23, 2012 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. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: My only question is do you have copies of those tables that have been referenced here? MR. FLOREZ: No, I do not. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: I can provide those. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You can provide those? INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Absolutely. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Do we have any comments from the board? MR. MIESZCAK: You know, I'd just like to make a comment. You know, whatever business you have, you have to be in control. Either the manager, the owner or whatever. And if you have people that don't do what you tell them to do, they shouldn't be there. And if you have things that are unmanned, that's a problem also. And he's a nice young man, but I just don't understand, he made comments that he's done all he can and he doesn't know all what he can do about it. And so there's a lot of things for him to learn, but certainly it's a violation and it should stop. That's how I feel. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I live in Pine Ridge Estates, not far from where Mercato is. They have a lot of loud music there. When the clock strikes 10:00, that music, you could set your watch by it it stops. So it's not one place that can't comply with the law, everybody has to comply with the law. And I agree with your recommendation, especially the per incident portion of it. MR. MARINO: I have a question on that. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. MR. MARINO: Did you say that the fine would go to the property owner or to the club owner? February 23, 2012 INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: That's correct, it would go to the property owner. I've spoken with the attorneys that represent the property owner, Mr. Scott Duval since this complaint originated. It was before I even went out and took a reading. Because I had been in contact with him over the last year and a half to keep him up to speed. I advised him of the noise ordinance, I advised him of the complaints. He requested I fax a copy of the case report to put in the file for Mr. Florez. Also he requested any noise readings that were over the allowable decibel levels to be sent to him as well. I've done that. I've called him, I've contacted him. He is up to speed. He realizes -- last time I spoke to him, about three weeks ago, I thought for sure he would be here today. That he understands that if any violations in the future amount to any fines, they will come to him and he will pass those on to Mr. Florez. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any other comments from the board? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Do we have any recommendations to approve the recommendation from the county? MR. MIESZCAK: Well, I'd like to make a motion we approve the recommendation from the county. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, we have -- MR. RAUCH: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- a motion. Do we have a second? MR. RAUCH: Yes. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. Page 79 We have a second. All those in favor? February 23, 2012 VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) MR. MARINO: I'm going to have to abstain from that. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: You've got a problem by abstaining -- MR. MARINO: Yeah, I have a problem with the violation going to the property owner. What do we do? MS. RAWSON: If you have a conflict of interest, I have a form. MR. MARINO: I do. MR. MIESZCAK: You probably should have recused yourself from the beginning, but -- MR. MARINO: I didn't realize -- that's why I asked the question as to whether it was going to go to the property owner or the club owner. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That creates another problem, since we have a quorum here. There's no problem? MS. BAKER: No. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So it's going to be -- MS. RAWSON: Four. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is that a problem, Jean? MS. RAWSON: No, a quorum is four. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. So we have a quorum. You don't have to go far, I think we're done. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. VESPERANCE: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? February 23, 2012 (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It passes four, with one abstention. INVESTIGATOR AMBACH: Thank you. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. I think we're in the imposition of fines now. MS. BAKER: Okay, the next case will be number two under imposition of fines, Case CES20100019879, Planning Development, Inc. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Surprise, you're on. (Supervisor Snow was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR SNOW: For the record, Kitchell Snow, Collier County Code Enforcement. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. In looking at this, I have one question before we really get into it. It says the property is in compliance. And my question is by whom. Did the county bring it into compliance or did the respondent bring it into compliance? SUPERVISOR SNOW: Respondent brought it into compliance. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Have the operational costs been paid? SUPERVISOR SNOW: They were paid yesterday. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. That's too goods. Anybody like to make a motion on this now? MR. MIESZCAK: The county recommends? VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: No, not on this. We recommend. MR. MIESZCAK: Well, it's not what I'm reading. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, it's come into compliance. I have no problem abating the fine. MS. BAKER: The operational costs have been paid as well. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, Kitchell had mentioned that. Page 81 February 23, 2012 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Is that a motion? VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yeah, I'll make it as a motion. MR. L'ESPERANCE: I'll second that. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, abated. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Thank the board. MS. BAKER: Next case is number three, Case CESD20100007623, Norma Ramirez. (Ms. Ramirez and Supervisor Snow were duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR SNOW: Why don't you take it from here. SUPERVISOR SNOW: This is Board of County Commissioners versus Norma Ramirez. Violations of Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). The location is 809 Jefferson Avenue West, Immokalee, Florida. 6391680004. In past orders: On August 25th, 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 4718, Page 2040 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement orders as of February 23, 2012. The fines and cost to date are described as follows: Order item February 23, 2012 one and two, fines at the rate of $250 per day for the period between November 24th, 2011 and February 23rd, 2012, 92 days, for a total of $23,000. Fines continue to accrue. The operational cost of $80.86 have been paid as of today. Total amount is $23,000. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Ms. Ramirez? MS. RAMIREZ: Okay. Like an earlier -- the person, Ms. Perez, what happened to her that she bought the property not knowing with the permits and all that and everything. Well, basically the same thing happened to me. It's been taking me a while because I had to pay somebody to demolish the so- called apartment. When they sold it to me, it was supposedly a guesthouse in the back of my property that I have. So I had to get somebody to do that and take everything out because originally it was there when I bought it. And then I had to pay somebody to do that. They had some sheds there as well, and I had to pay somebody to move the sheds because apparently it wasn't in ordinance (sic) also. So I had to pay somebody to move that shed as well. It's kind of taken me a while. I've gotten the permits. They're in the process. On one of them they're kind of holding off on it because of some purple ink thing issue that they had, which I showed Mr. Snow, or Mr. Kitchell. But anyways, and I'm in the process of doing that as we speak. And I was supposed to go get the permits last week to go pick them up, but I was unable to because I had a board meeting I had to attend. SUPERVISOR SNOW: If I may offer some clarity? VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Sure. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Work permits were required for this particular property. One permit was for an unpermitted fence. That permit was issued in November with no inspections, no C.O. February 23, 2012 Another permit was applied for at the same time in November for the garage conversion. It's been in ready status since November; has not been picked up. One of the storage sheds, the permit was applied for and rejected in November. No further drawings. And that's what she's talking about. Apparently there's -- she had to go ahead and obtain the drawings from the manufacturer, which took her some time to do. They sent her the drawings, but apparently there's an inconsistency between them. She hasn't followed up with that. And the final one for the other storage shed that she had to remove from setbacks has been applied for and is ready and has not been picked up and has been ready since November. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Ordinarily, for the past umpteen years, if it's not in compliance we don't entertain granting any more time, we impose the fine. And this is a case where although the operational costs haves been paid, the property is still not in compliance. That's a problem. Any comments from the board? MR. MIESZCAK: I have to agree with you. It's not in compliance, you have no recourse. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Now, Board, keep in mind, I have talked to Mrs. Ramirez, and if fines are imposed today, we always have the option once she comes and continues to work in compliance to take it back before the Board of County Commissioners and request an abatement of those fines. As the director has told and has illustrated in the past, we've been very successful doing that. We will continue to work forward with her. He continue to guide Mrs. Ramirez in this process so we so we can get it completed. Sothis is not the end of the journey, this is just a stop along the way. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I understand, and I appreciate the county's effort in this. February 23, 2012 Having said that, then, would anybody like to make a motion? If not, I'll make a motion to impose. MR. UESPERANCE: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. Okay, so you already know the path that you're going down to get everything resolved, and the county is going to work with you -- MS. RAMIREZ: Right, they have been. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: -- to get that done. Terrific. MS. RAMIREZ: All right, thank you. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Thank you. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Thank you. MS. BAKER: The next case will be number five under imposition, Case CES20110001989, K. Guengerich McKinney. (Supervisor Snow was duly sworn.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I see this property is in compliance. Have the operational costs been paid? SUPERVISOR SNOW: No, sir. We've made several calls. I personally made a call. We have not been able to get any response as far as paying the operational cost. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Because this would ordinarily be one, once that's paid -- SUPERVISOR SNOW: Yes, sir. February 23, 2012 VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And this again can be taken back to the commissioners as well. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Yes, it can be. MS. BAKER: Mr. Chair, we've added a new statement on cases like these on the recommendation, and that's the county recommends abatement of the $600 in daily fines as case is in compliance and operational costs of $80.57 will be imposed as a lien. We're asking the fines be waived but the operational cost be imposed. MR. MIESZCAK: I make a motion that the fines be waived and the operational cost be imposed as a lien. MR. RAUCH: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion, we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes. Thank you. SUPERVISOR SNOW: Thank the board. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The next case will be number six under imposition, Case CESD20110003169, Kimberly M. Fry. And we did receive correspondence from Ms. Fry yesterday -- do you want to swear me in? (Ms. Fry, Ms. Baker and Supervisor Letourneau were duly sworn.) MS. BAKER: We did get correspondence from Ms. Fry yesterday asking for an extension of time. However, we didn't receive it till yesterday, so we did leave the agenda item in the same position it February 23, 2012 is. And the investigator will let you know what -- or Ms. Fry will let you know what that request is. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MS. FRY: I am requesting an extension of time to complete the -- I guess it's a demolition. I've had contractor issues, health issues, financial issues. And I was out of town the week apparently that the investigator came to deliver the notice helping a friend who had a double knee replacement. So I just got the letter myself last week about this hearing, which is why I was not timely in responding and in requesting additional time to get this in compliance. I had a contractor who helped me with another violation. I've been here before, I think you might recall. The contractor was supposed to get the information from the county as to what they were requiring specifically with compliance to removing the -- whatever downstairs living space. My home is a stilt home that was built in 1979. I again am one of those who bought the home in the condition it was in. Like I said, I've had, you know, multiple circumstances that have prevented me from getting it done. I hired an attorney in August to try to find out what could be done if anything to leave it as -is or, you know, help me to figure out what needed to be done to bring it into compliance. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Well, I don't want to hear the case now. How much time do you need to address the issues? MS. FRY: I am requesting 120 days from today, from this date, to pull demolition permits and, you know, bring it into compliance. I am now homesteaded so I can do it myself, apply for the permits. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: And your comments? SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: We have no objections. I talked to Ms. Fry before the hearing and we've agreed, I'm going to February 23, 2012 have the original investigator, Investigator Musse, Investigator McGonagle and myself, we're going to meet with her on Friday at the residence to go over exactly what needs to be done so there's no confusion with the contractors in the future here. So basically no objection at this time. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any comments from the board? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any suggestions from the board? MR. UESPERANCE: Suggest we grant the respondent's request for an extension for 120 days. MR. MARINO: I'll second it. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion, we have a second. Any comments on it? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. You have 120 days, hopefully we may get this resolved to everybody's satisfaction. SUPERVISOR LETOURNEAU: Thank you. MS. BAKER: The next case will be number seven CESD20110009349 Valeri Coe - Fitzgerald. (Ms. Coe - Fitzgerald and Investigator Condomina were duly sworn.) February 23, 2012 INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: For the record, Investigator Danny Condomina, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location: 10812 1 st Street Southwest, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 45903640001. Description: No Collier County permit for garage door converted into exterior wall, which is in need of repair, and no permit for storage structure near the rear of dwelling. Past orders: On November 18, 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 4744, Page 1104 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of February 23rd, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Orders item one and two, fines at a rate of $150 per day for the period between January 3rd, 2012 through February 23rd, 2012, 52 days, for the total of $7,800. Fines continue to accrue. Orders item number five: Operational costs of $81.15 have not been paid. Total amount to date, $7,881.15. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Motion from the board? MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to impose the fine. MR. RAUCH: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to impose, we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. February 23, 2012 MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: Thank you. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to have to leave at this time. We still have a quorum, correct? MS. RAWSON: We do. Assuming we don't have any conflicts. (At which time, Mr. L'Esperance exits the boardroom.) MS. BAKER: Next case will be number eight, Case CESD20110009230. Maykol Calderon. (Investigator Condomina was duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: For the record, Investigator Danny Condomina, Collier County Code Enforcement. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Location: 1281 27th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 37344880001. Description: No Collier County permits for wooden structure with electrical in the front of residential structure. Past orders: On November 18th, 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 4744, Page 1084 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of February 23rd, 2012. The fines and cost to date are described as the following: Orders items one and two, fines at a rate of $200 per day for the period between December 19th, 2011 through February 23rd, 2012, 67 days, for the total of 13,000 dollars and 400 -- or $13,400. Fines continue to accrue. I'._- •1' February 23, 2012 Order Item number five, operational costs of $80.57 have not been paid. Total amount to date: $13,480.57. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to impose the fine. MR. MARINO: Motion to impose the fine. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion to impose and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. INVESTIGATOR CONDOMINA: Thank you. MS. BAKER: Next case will be number 10, Case CESD20090014480, Melba Garcia. (Mr. Garcia and Investigator Baldwin were duly sworn.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: This is in reference to CEB Case No. CESD20090014480. For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. 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). Location: 4280 Sixth Ave. Northeast, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 40745440008. Description: Enclosed the garage and added a full bathroom without Collier County building permits. Past orders: On November 18th, 2011, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The Page 91 February 23, 2012 respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4744, Page 1102 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of February 23rd, 2012. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Orders number one and three, fines at the rate of $150 per day for the period between January 3rd, 2012 and February 23rd, 2012, 29 days, for a total of $4,350. Fines continue to accrue. Order number seven, operational costs $81.43 have not been paid. Total fine to date, $4,431.43. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Mr. Garcia? MR. GARCIA: We need more time. We're in mediation with Bank of America to try to keep the house, and then we'll continue the process of the permits. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: The operational costs of $81.43 have not been paid? MR. GARCIA: I wasn't aware that we owed that money. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Well -- INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: Sir, if I could add just one more thing to it. A lis pendens was just filed on December 30th of 2011 for this property. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. But unfortunately it is not in compliance, regardless of lis pendens or not. And the operational costs have not been paid. So I don't -- entertain a motion from the board. MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to impose the fine. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I have a motion. Do I have -- MR. MARINO: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: --a second? I have a second. Page 92 February 23, 2012 All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. Sir, you can still work this out after the fact when you find out from the bank, as other cases have with the county. So hopefully you'll keep it. MR. GARCIA: Yes, we're using it for storage now. No electrical there, no utilities. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Very good. MR. GARCIA: Just a storage place. We'd just, like I said, need more time, like an extension. Thank you. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay, thank you. MR. MARINO: I would pay the operational costs. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. You'll get together. MS. BAKER: Next case is number 11, Case CEAU20110007445, Joselino and Yolanda Sanchez and Sandy Sanchez. (Supervisor Perez was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Good morning. For the record, Cristina Perez, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to CEB Case No. CEAU20110007445. Violations: Florida Building Code 2007 edition, Chapter 1, permits, Section 105.1. Location: 2530 Fourth Ave. Southeast, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 40920360000. Page 93 February 23, 2012 Description: Fence constructed without Collier County building permits. Past orders: On November 18, 2011 the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings 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 4744, Page 1132 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of February 23rd, 2011. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order item number one and two, fines at the rate of $100 per day for the period between December 19, 2011 through February 23rd, 2012, 67 days, for the total of $6,700. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item number five: Operational costs in the amount $80.57 have not been paid. Total amount to date is $6,780.57. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Is this in foreclosure? SUPERVISOR PEREZ: It is in foreclosure. There was a lis pendens filed in 2008, a final judgment in 2009. But there has not been a certificate of title issued and the home is vacant. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: $6,700 for the lack of a permit on a fence is tough, but that's the way it is. Any comments from the board? MR. MIESZCAK: Motion to impose the fine. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: Second. MR. RAUCH: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. February 23, 2012 MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: It passes unanimously. MS. BAKER: Next case, number 12, Case CESD20090011861, Steven A. and Kelly A. Johnson. (Mr. Johnson and Investigator Baldwin were duly sworn.) INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: For the record, Patrick Baldwin, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This is in reference to CEB Case No. CESD20090011861. Violation: Florida Building Code 2007 edition, Chapter 1, Permits, Section 105.1. Location: 111 Fourth Street Southeast, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 37224080002. Description of the violation: Permit No. 900005651 expired without a certificate of occupancy or completion. Past orders: On November 18th, 2011 the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board, OR 4744, Page 1106 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of February 23rd, 2012. The fines and cost to date are described as the following: Order items number one and two, fines at the rate of $150 per day for the period between January 18th, 2012 to February 23rd, 2012, 37 days, for a total of $5,550. Fines continue to accrue. Operational costs have been paid on this property, so the total amount to date is $5,550. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Mr. Johnson? MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. Page 95 February 23, 2012 When we bought this property, we understood that it had a bunch of issues. I worked really diligently to try to get them all done. But during the process of that, I've spoken with Patrick quite a few times. I went right through the middle of a divorce, so it kind of got laid to the side. After talking to Patrick here, when I finally got all the divorce issues done, I've been in contact with him, we have the structurals done, we have -- the electrical engineers have already been hired. The electricians have completed all the work except for one -- one box that is on the deck box has to be replaced. There's a call in to him to replace that box and send the electrical engineer a picture of that. Then it's all complete. I'm just asking for a couple more days to get this thing complete. Because again it's just I've been trying to do this, even though the property doesn't physically really belong to me anymore, it belongs to Kelly, even though my name is still on it. I'm just trying to resolve this, because I have a little girl that lives there. So the biggest way for me to resolve it was just to do it myself, as opposed to letting Kelly doing it. Because she kind of got blindsided by all of it, not knowing what were the proper steps, how to hire the contractor and all that. But, I mean, I have gotten everything done except for item number seven on the electrical part of it. And the electrician says that he will have that completed by the end of the week, and then Pelican Engineering should be able to sign off the permit of affidavit which is the only thing left to completely make this property comply. I mean, there were a lot of violations. There was a building that was there, there was no pool fence, no C.O. on the pool. But, I mean, we've done everything as fast as I could with not having enough money to do it. So I'm just asking the board if we could have a few more days, maybe 20 more days to complete this and I should be done. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Patrick, do you have any Page 96 February 23, 2012 comments? INVESTIGATOR BALDWIN: He has been working pretty diligently throughout this whole process, and he has gone through a tough time. And he has -- he called me last week, the week before, this week, today, we met earlier today. And he appears to just have one thing left. So I would -- the county would have no objection. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. Any comments from the board? (No response.) MR. MIESZCAK: Can we extend this 30 days? VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Yes. MR. MIESZCAK: I make a motion we extend this for 30 days. MR. MARINO: I'll second that. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. We have a motion, we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Passes unanimously. MR. JOHNSON: It will be done. No problem. MR. MIESZCAK: Good job. MS. BAKER: Next case will be number 14, Case CESD20100020287, Hilda Beovides. (Supervisor Perez was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Good morning. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Cristina, we forgot you. Here =_1 Page 97 February 23, 2012 SUPERVISOR PEREZ: For the record, Code Enforcement Supervisor Cristina Perez. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20100020287. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code, 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). Location is 1321 Everglades Boulevard South, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 40988080005. Description: Addition to the rear of the principal structure without Collier County permit. Past orders: On September 22nd, 2011 the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings 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 4728, Page 877 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of February 23rd, 2012. The fines and cost to date are described as the following: Order item number one and three, fines at the rate of $150 per day for a period between January 21 st, 2012 through February 23rd, 2012, 34 days, for a total of $5,100. Fines continue to accrue. Order item number seven, operational costs of $81.43 have not been paid. Total amount to date is $5,181.43. MR. MARINO: Make a motion we impose the fine. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. RAUCH: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. February 23, 2012 MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Any opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Carries unanimously. MS. BAKER: Last case is number 15, case CEAU20110005919, Frank Paz. (Supervisor Perez was duly sworn.) SUPERVISOR PEREZ: For the record, Cristina Perez, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to CEB Case No. CEAU20110005919. Violations: Florida Building Code 2007 edition, Chapter 1, Permits, Section 105.1. Location: Is 125 Second Street Northeast, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 37282480000. Description: Fence without Collier County permits in disrepair. Past orders: On November 18th, 2011 the Code Enforcement Board issued findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4744, Page 1125 for more information. The property is not in compliance with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of February 23rd, 2012. The fines and cost to date are described as the following: Order item number one and two, fines at the rate of $100 per day for the period between January 18th, 2012 through February 23rd, 2012, 37 days, for a total of $3,700. Fines continue to accrue. Order Item number five: Operational costs of $80.29 have not been paid. Total fines to date, $3,780.29. MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make a motion to impose the fine. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. RAUCH: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: second. All those in favor? MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: MR. VESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: February 23, 2012 We have a motion and a Aye. Opposed? Passes unanimously. SUPERVISOR PEREZ: Thank you. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: That brings us to -- any cases to forward? MS. BAKER: No, sir. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Reports? MS. BAKER: But I do have one new business item, just to give you guys a heads up. On the next meeting we will be doing the rules and regulations workshop. We're just going to incorporate it to the end of the hearing, probably under new business. We did a pretty extensive review last year so I don't foresee a whole lot of changes for this year. So if you guys could review the rules and regulations and bring any suggestions /changes that you would like to discuss, and I will email it out to the board members that are not present today as well to let them know. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. MIESZCAK: So we'll have our meeting and then immediately after? MS. BAKER: Yes. We'll just incorporate it onto this agenda. It should go fairly quickly. Page 100 February 23, 2012 VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We'll have you home by 5:00. MR. MIESZCAK: Oh, you're buying lunch. Okay. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: They can't afford it. Ms. Flagg, do you have any reports, comments, additions? MS. FLAGG: Absolutely. The report for this month, as you know, our focus continues to be vacant and foreclosed homes because our goal is to prevent blight from affecting Collier County, as it has affected other counties around the nation. So with that focus on making sure that blight doesn't occur here, the foreclosure teams continue to work with the banks. And since November, 2008, the banks have spent $2,682,000 to abate 2,184 code violations. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Excellent. MS. FLAGG: In last week, February 9th through February 15th, the banks abate -- spent $16,000 -- $16,208, which money the taxpayers would have had to pay if the banks didn't abate those violations. So last week alone we saved $16,208. In addition, for last week 145 new code cases were opened. The investigators completed 410 property inspections in that week. There were 55 cases last week closed with voluntary compliance. One of the items that we've talked about before is the number of bankruptcies that are occurring, not only in our county but throughout the nation. Last week there were 51 additional cases that were effected by bankruptcy. There was also 127 citations that were processed for public utilities, the sheriffs office, parks and recreation. As you know, the code department does all the processing for the citations that are issued by those agencies. And lastly, last week there were 139 lien searches and pay -off requests made. And of those 139, 11 of them had open code cases. So the few cases that you heard today where they said they bought the property but didn't know there were violations on the property, as you noted, those cases occurred prior to us implementing this lien search Page 101 February 23, 2012 process for our community, so to make sure that community members do a lien search through the code department to find out if there are any property violations on that property before they purchase the property. So last week alone we prevented 11 purchasers from buying a property without first knowing that there were code issues on the property. MR. MIESZCAK: Very good. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Excellent. MR. MARINO: You're doing a good job. MS. FLAGG: It's a great team. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: I think Code Enforcement has a lot to do with making Naples look like Naples. MS. FLAGG: Thank you. They work hard. Their whole focus is making sure that the blight that's occurring all around us and nationally does not cross into Collier County. And that's what their focus is. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Excellent. Our focus continues to be trying to get people into compliance. We're not a collector of dollars just for the sake of collecting dollars. We would rather everything come into compliance. MS. FLAGG: And I will tell you that the Board of County Commissioners alone has waived over $8.5 million in fines because the property owner has achieved compliance. So between yourselves and special magistrate and the board, it's over $10 million that has been waived in fines so -- once the property comes into compliance. So it is not -- as you said, it's not about the fine, it's about compliance. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Excellent. MR. MIESZCAK: Very good. Very nice. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Anything else from the board? MR. MIESZCAK: I'll make a motion to adjourn. MR. MARINO: Motion to adj ourn. Page 102 MR. RAUCH: Second. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: adjourn and one second. All in favor? February 23, 2012 We have two motions to MR. MIESZCAK: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. RAUCH: Aye. VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: Opposed? (No response.) VICE - CHAIRMAN KAUFMAN: We are adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:04 p.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD irman These minutes appr ed by the Board on 0� ova, a01 � a resented 7 or as corrected sp Page 103 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST N ME —FIRST NAME — MIDDLE NAM NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR ?COMMITTEE MAI %I�NG ESS V % THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMEE ON [J t / OIL I WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF• CITY f w �� �� COUNTY O CITY OUNTY O OTHER LOCAL AGENCY N A CQ `1Q h NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED y MY POSITION IS: O 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) CF FnRM RR - FRF 1 i ,)nnn 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 I, 9wea hereby disclose that on .2 20 (a) A measur 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: L C- t c7 'A) TeP t--° J i /VNv 0 '/3 Q � KJ etti ClASO 'CON- 2.0r�ac��70��� 2,3 j 2 Date File Signature by which p4op4o? T1( 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